Well, at least you're consistent. Your gung ho attitude toward war is pretty distasteful though. Does it bother you at all when innocent people die or is that just part of the fun?
All six choices kill more innocent people than we would. Many dictators are pissing their pants right now watching footage from Baghdad. And that is a GOOD thing.
I was reacting to your giddiness at the prospect of more war. Your tone is gleeful. I'd like to see all oppressive regimes disappear. We disagree about what the US role should be in that (in fact, candidate Bush disagreed with a proactive US military in these situations too and repeatedly preached a "humble" international policy). What bugs me is how much you seem to enjoy all this.
France would surrender before it gets a beating anyway. For Germany, once the hack Schroeder is gone, the US can easily mend fences with the conservatives.
There is a limit to how many options you can include on a poll -- I'm sure they'll make it on the next one. So many targets, so little time ...
Iran was a better target than Iraq for the neo-cons to begin with. They are developing nuclear capabilities and have a longer, stronger tie with terrorists. Too bad there is no UN weapons inspection going on in Iran. We will have to make something else up.
Korea is next....wave bye bye to California. Again Bush likes war....as long as he is in office we will be at war.
sinohero and Treeman may seem like crazed war lovers. Though they may lack the pr skills, their mind set is similar to that of Bush/Rumsfeld. Granted Bush may be motivated by Armageddon type Christianity and sino and tree and rummy may not be. Sadly the majority of the American people didn't realize that they were assenting to a series of war. blockades, threts and bullying to the point where much of the world would hate us. Most supported the war for such reasons as: 1) they trust Bush and or they voted for him 2) They believe that they have to support their country 3) They believed that this was about enforcing UN sanctions regarding weapons of mass destruction 4) they mistakenly believed Sadam had something to do with 9/11. 5) they believe Bush when he says this will protect them from terrorism. etc. Let's hope next time we stop these war loving nuts. However, the war lovers have the upper hand as we can see with Rumsfeld threatening Syria and Iran and N. Korea. N. Korea and Iran are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the US threat. Time to keep protesting war to stop their next escapade. Fortunately Tony Blair has already said no to Iran and Syria so that should make it harder for Bush/Rumsfeld.
This war is going to be long and complicated and Iraq is only the end of the beginning. We didn't start World War VI, but we did choose to fight it. Glad the American foreign policy no longer puts its head in the sand.
Sino, thanks for making my point about their plans. Interesting that Bush wants to appoint Woolsey for one of the Iraqi proconsul positions. Perhaps this thing is best viewed as a subsitute for the Cold War. some may recall how conservatives nearly had a panic attack a few years back, when after the fall of the Berlin Wall, they were faced with the prospects of a Peace Dvidend that would scale back their action in the military industrial complex.
I remember when 9-11 happened, and I stated on this board that I feared that the rhetoric Bush was using afterwards made me think we were going to be invading countires in the M.E. that we didn't like, with or without connections to 9-11...and I was given a lot of roll-eyes, etc. and told how we had learly made this a war on terrorism, we weren't Ancient Rome, etc. Then when the whole Iraq thing suddenly became relevant again, but was still in the oh-so short debate ( as if it mattered) stage, and I said that the language he was using lead me to believe that we were beginning to act imperialistic, and I had fears that this was just the beginning...again, I was ridiculed and saw a lot of these There are even posters who will still ridicule me when I call our actions as the steps on the road to hegemony, empire, or whatever you want to call it. But what is really strange to me is that many of those who ridiculed me and rolled their eyes at me back then, or even more recently, are the ones who have, are, and I doubt not will continue to automatically support every individual step down that very road, as if they were all isolated incidents. Recently there has already begun a wave of those actually embracing the idea...some of those are even some of the ones who mocked me when I voived it as a possibility a while back...Pax Americana has gotten some play in an other than sarcastic manner, and I am left with the image of how to kill a responsible Democracy being the same as how to kill a frog or lobster.
Just the Beginning Is Iraq the opening salvo in a war to remake the world? By Robert Dreyfuss Issue Date: 4.1.03 Print Friendly | Email Article For months Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein, remove him from power, eliminate Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from blackmailing its neighbors or aiding terrorist groups. But the Bush administration's hawks, especially the neoconservatives who provide the driving force for war, see the conflict with Iraq as much more than that. It is a signal event, designed to create cataclysmic shock waves throughout the region and around the world, ushering in a new era of American imperial power. It is also likely to bring the United States into conflict with several states in the Middle East. Those who think that U.S. armed forces can complete a tidy war in Iraq, without the battle spreading beyond Iraq's borders, are likely to be mistaken. "I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national-security official and a key strategist among the ascendant flock of neoconservative hawks, many of whom have taken up perches inside the U.S. government. Asserting that the war against Iraq can't be contained, Ledeen says that the very logic of the global war on terrorism will drive the United States to confront an expanding network of enemies in the region. "As soon as we land in Iraq, we're going to face the whole terrorist network," he says, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a collection of militant splinter groups backed by nations -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia -- that he calls "the terror masters." "It may turn out to be a war to remake the world," says Ledeen. In the Middle East, impending "regime change" in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives -- who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a "cabal." Like dominoes, the regimes in the region -- first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- are slated to capitulate, collapse or face U.S. military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory committee, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" In the aftermath, several of those states, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, may end up as dismantled, unstable shards in the form of mini-states that resemble Yugoslavia's piecemeal wreckage. And despite the Wilsonian rhetoric from the president and his advisers about bringing democracy to the Middle East, at bottom it's clear that their version of democracy might have to be imposed by force of arms more
no. the war with France and Germany obviously isn't exciting enough for war lovers. how about taking on Russia and China? both countries have massive military capabilities and match up well against the States. that war isn't going to be one-sided affair so that lots of actions(killings) are assured and war lovers here can take great joys away from it.
