Lots of speculation is going on about this. The hawks in Washington lead by the neo-cons are said to advocate this.
Do you think Dubya & Friends are making any plans to invade, say Iran, North Korea, or Syria ?
I don't think so. He's having enough trouble as it is now in Iraq. Besides he went to war to open a new front in the war on terror. A front that was NOT on American soil. There is no need to open a third front.
What are your thoughts on this ?
Will George W. & Friends invade another country within the framework of the War on Terror and why ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's an interesting question. Before the election, it was generally believed that even if GW squeaked through, a lot of the neocons would be forced out of the administration because Iraq wound up more of a mess than they told GW it would be. And since it looked like the war itself was increasingly unpopular, it seemed very unlikely GW would have another "pre-emptive" war in his second administration.
Lots of speculation is going on about this. The hawks in Washington lead by the neo-cons are said to advocate this.
Do you think Dubya & Friends are making any plans to invade, say Iran, North Korea, or Syria ?
I don't think so. He's having enough trouble as it is now in Iraq. Besides he went to war to open a new front in the war on terror. A front t ...[text shortened]... l George W. & Friends invade another country within the framework of the War on Terror and why ?
The election may have changed things. While GW's margin in the electoral vote was pretty thin (if he had lost Ohio he would have lost the election), he won the popular vote by almost 4 million and was the first president since George the 1st to get a majority. He might feel that the neocons position is still politically popular and they are spoiling for another invasion. The military which feels it's overstretched already would probably oppose it, but their opinion doesn't mean much to politicians. My guess: 50-50, but it would be Syria, a country smaller and weaker than Saddam's Iraq rather than Iran more than double Iraq's population and having an Islamic radical core that has been in power for 26 years in contrast to Syria's mostly secular society.
I don't see him invading N.Korea, that takes too much work and courage to fight someone who can actually throw a few punches back. My guess is, he invades Syria or Iran, which ever is easiest or which ever he can sell to the American public worth invading. My guess is, he invades Syria, it's an easy defenseless little country to raze, and he can argue it's a Nazi "anti-semitic" country, and I'm sure that would be enough to sell in uneducated America...
Originally posted by mateuloseDiarrhea's getting to you again, eh mental-loser...
I don't see him invading N.Korea, that takes too much work and courage to fight someone who can actually throw a few punches back. My guess is, he invades Syria or Iran, which ever is easiest or which ever he can sell to the American public worth invading. My guess is, he invades Syria, it's an easy defenseless little country to raze, and he can argue it ...[text shortened]... zi "anti-semitic" country, and I'm sure that would be enough to sell in uneducated America...
Its rather obvoius that that moron Bush will go for Iran for cheap, worthless purposes. In fact, one of the reasons he stole oil from Iraq and started becoming a World Conquerer is because no war pesident has ever lost a re-election campaign. To quote Mr.Bush:
"...after all, Ah'm ah War President, Ah'm not going te lose da election..."
Believe me, Bush's administration will find a way to cheap talk himself into Iran. And why? I'll tell you why. It's not because Iran will blow up the world;on the contary, Iran wants to do good and also wants to reduce reliance on oil and help decrease air pollution. Iran isn't going to use nuclear power to make a bomb; they merely want to advance into modern science. And that brings us to the question why Bush (rather his administration) wants to take down Iran. Right now, America is a "superpower". All America has to do to get something is say"I'll drop a nuclear bomb on you" and-voila- America gets it.(Isreal is much like this too; they have 400 tons of nuclear weapons, but oh no, they are no threat, and they have the same intentions as the American government). Now, the point is, if Iran gets nuclear power and advances in science, they can rival America in science and math and can get satalites and become moderned. Bush doesn't want that. He wants Iran to be a so-called "stupid country" and not to advance. So he goes and makes up some crap about "axis of evil" and "nuclear weapons", etc. Then, America blindly will listen to him and Bush will continue world domination.
Note: For all Isrealies and Americans who read this( I myself am an AMerican, I live in Tennessee), I hope you do not take offense at this post. This post is not directed to you; it is against the governments, and the their people. I hope we will not get into problems.
-Alborz
Originally posted by abejnoodWell put Alborz,
Its rather obvoius that that moron Bush will go for Iran for cheap, worthless purposes. In fact, one of the reasons he stole oil from Iraq and started becoming a World Conquerer is because no war pesident has ever lost a re-election campaign. To quote Mr.Bush:
"...after all, Ah'm ah War President, Ah'm not going te lose da election..."
Believe me, Bus ...[text shortened]... is against the governments, and the their people. I hope we will not get into problems.
-Alborz
probably the best thing you can do is tell your friends what you told me about Iran. The american people need to see iranians as they see you. It makes it much harder for bush to lie and convince them of the need to invade when the american people can put a face on an innocent iranian, and not just see in their minds eye evil terrorists, which is the picture that bush would paint.
D
Originally posted by mateulosePerhaps. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
abe, you do realize you just "insulted" 52% of Americans? You can't just say "it's the government", because it's not.
Anyway I didn't attack Bush; I attacked his policys, and as its the administration that fuels this I believe they are responsible as well. And as for the 52% of people voting for Bush, I disagree with your choice and I think it wrong but I respect it, I respect it as you respect Bush. And as I said, this isn't aimed to insult. This is aimed to release a less known version of the truth.
Originally posted by abejnoodRelax, I'm anti-Bush big time, I'm just saying 52% of the country is responsible for Bush's evil war mongering and invading.
Perhaps. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Anyway I didn't attack Bush; I attacked his policys, and as its the administration that fuels this I believe they are responsible as well. And as for the 52% of people voting for Bush, I disagree with your choice and I think it wrong but I respect it, I respect it as you respect Bush. And as I said, this isn't aimed to insult. This is aimed to release a less known version of the truth.
Originally posted by mateuloseyeah... it frusterates me so much that one would put an idiot like him in office... Tennessee is so stupid...so is Ohio...
Relax, I'm anti-Bush big time, I'm just saying 52% of the country is responsible for Bush's evil war mongering and invading.
Anyways, there should be a rule, that if your state voted the same party all throughout history, it shouldn't have right to vote, because they are partisan, and do not have an objective opinion. That means states like Texas and Louisiana have no rights, and do not deserve any unless they learn to think objectively...
Originally posted by mateuloseYou just need to learn to think.....
Anyways, there should be a rule, that if your state voted the same party all throughout history, it shouldn't have right to vote, because they are partisan, and do not have an objective opinion. That means states like Texas and Louisiana have no rights, and do not deserve any unless they learn to think objectively...
i really doubt that Bush will invade another country. it would be madness to open yet another front and galvanise even more anti-American sentiment around the world. the best thing he could do, i think, is to make Afghanistan a priority again, this time in terms of keeping the warlords down and promoting a stable open democratic society there. and also assisting the Iraqi government to do the same for their country. regardless of the merit of the decision to invade, i think the best thing to do is to devote resources to cleaning up the mess in those countries. otherwise they will both be big big headaches down the track, much worse even than today.