[Ian]

** This is a continuation of the civil part of the discussion from the thread on Israeli violations of UN edict. It's getting aggravating to get into a good discussion, and then have some jerks get the thread closed by being jerks. So if your comments involve calling people Nazis, go post on Free Republic instead or something. **

cuchulainn:

I see. We are going to topple all the dangerous or egregiously abusive governments we know of, and we just happen to be starting with Iraq.

According to Amnesty International (a bunch of lefties, but they are something of an authority on this subject), the following countries have particularly abusive governments (citizens arbitrarily arrested, tortured, murdered, raped, and/or "disappeared" by government agencies): Angola, Burundi, Central Africa Republic (CAR), Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Guinea, Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Albania, Georgia, Lithuania, Romania, Spain, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Sri Lanka, China, and North Korea.

Furthermore, the following states have or are pursuing at least one type of WMD (bio, nuke, chem):
Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia,
South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam (source: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm)

I'm looking forward to our "dealing" with all of these 55 countries. Are we going to invade them too, or use diplomatic measures (like we did with Iraq)? I hope you'll forgive me for worrying that declaring war on 55 more countries would be a bit counterproductive to our safety, not to mention abhorrent to this nation's founding principles. :uhoh:

[Lord Grey Boots]

Hopefully no one.

By taking down the biggest and arguably worst of the badguys, that will send a REAL LOUD AND CLEAR message to the rest of them.

Despite some of the public rhetoric, it appears that to some degree Syria and Iran are cleaning up their acts. Probably not as much as they could or should, and I bet there is lots of nasty back room fights going on in their political and military organizations as they do it.

[cuchulainn]

I see. We are going to topple all the dangerous or egregiously abusive governments we know of, and we just happen to be starting with Iraq.

Well "in our own time" could be "never, if we don't feel like it."

"Dealing with" does not necessarily mean "topple."

Don't measure U.S. actions by rules of fairness that simply do not exist. We do what is best for us, whenever and however we see fit. We never claimed to treat each nation the same. We never claimed to treat each sitiation with the same "rules of engagement."

Our actions are "hypcritical" only if we claim to be consistent. We do not. We are quite open about refusing to be boxed in by a false and dangerous notion of consistency.

We make up the rules for each situation, regardless of whether those rules are 100% opposite in similar situations. That is the logical thing for us to do. That is the ethical thing for us to do.

You know how the military keeps bragging that "we don't fight fair"? Well neither does our state departement, and that's a good thing. Just as it would be illogical and unethical for our military to limit their weapons and equipment to make the fight more "fair," it would be unethical for our state deparment to limit itself to cookie-cutter responses to similar situations -- and for the same life and death reasons.

[Chris Rhines]

:eek:

- Chris

[foghornl]

PARIS ! ! ! :evil:

[Bahadur]

No one, provided that the current war wraps up relatively quickly and painlessly.

Provided that the domestic reaction is positive at the end of this war, the administration will have demonstrated a tremendous willingness to obtain American objectives by force.

Remember, you only need two bullets to hold a mob of 100 back - one to shoot the first one who tries to rush you (as a demonstration of your willingness) and the second for "who's next?"

[telewinz]

Somewhere in the Middle East. Take a number.:scrutiny:

[Bainx]

As I recall in one of his speeches immediately following 911,
President Bush stated that we [U.S.] are going to be at this [erradicating terrorists] for the next 100 years.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on the number.

Sure sounds like an ajenda to me.

[El Tejon]

Saudi Royal Family! Come on, Saudi Royal Family!

[to the tune of "Bluebird Through My Window"]

"SEAL Team, SEAL Team through their window.
SEAL Team, SEAL Team through their window,
to kill the exchequer of the New Barbary pirates."

[MrAcheson]

Yeah, I believe he said that combatting terrorism would take decades. I've heard it referred to as his "Unforgiven" speech. (Unforgiven because if you harbor terrorists we'll kill you, your wife, your kids, your dog...)

I believe Bush hopes that with Iraq out of the picture we will be able to diplomatically deal with Syria and Iran (because our army will be next door and they don't want it to make a house call). We will be able to treat terrorism as a criminal problem again because the Islamic nations will cooperate under threat.

[Apple a Day]

I'm with foghornl,
Invade France!!!
Seriously, though, I don't see us invading anyplace else anytime soon. Properly contained, N. Korea will collapse under its own rotten weight. Iran is the iffy country. From what I understand after hearing Iranian immigrants, where is a serious undercurrent of young blood who think that the old coots are out-moded in their extreme fundamentalism. When they start kicking off there will be change. The question there is if we can wait that long and how far Iran is willing to go to foment terrorism against the U.S. The ball will be back in Iran's court. We'll see how those nuclear reactors are coming along.

[TallPine]

May I suggest Mexico ...? :neener:

[jmbg29]

What Bahadur said.

[Schuey2002]

Canada is right there for the takin'.....:uhoh:

;)

[cratz2]

Tactically speaking, our best next target in the war against terrorism would be France. Seriously!

Of the more likely candidates, Syria seems like a little target that trys to start a lot of poop.

Personally I hope we don't invade any more Muslim countries anytime soon unless we have really good reason and can demonstrate that reason. Indonesia scares the hell out of me. I don't know what their level of training is like but that many people, hating the US as much as they do, with as much money as they have and all those darn islands and that much total surface area... that'd be a scary target to try to take out.

[Preacherman]

foghornl, the crew of this M1 would seem to agree with you... :D :D :D



http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/todaybaghdad.jpg

[twoblink]

Of course Paris is on the top of my list as well; but truthfully; people better start watching out for the N.Korea / Japan activity.

NK just test fired a few missiles into the ocean (ooops.. near Japan.. imagine that!) and the Japanese government has made it pretty loud and clear that they are edgy at worst, and will have no problems "Striking back" at the first sign of aggression.

NK is high on the list.

Pakastian is high on the list as well...

[Azrael256]

I don't think we'll invade N. Korea. It would be the biggest charlie foxtrot in the history of mankind if we loaded up from Iraq and went after them. South Korea would be a giant nuke/chem/bio wasteland for a VERY long time, and Japan would take it in the shorts pretty hard, too. Maybe wear them down somehow economically or diplomatically... that doesn't make much sense, but an invasion doesn't seem wise at the moment.

My list:
Syria - This one could come tomorrow. They're being a royal PIA, and I can see that flaring up into another war. This would be an ugly thing, but we can take them. This one would be all kinds of fun because they would probably attack Israel as well. I suppose that's one way to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem.

Saudi Arabia - They aren't a current danger, but my gut says we need to watch out in a couple of years.

Iran - Iran and nukes... why does this seem like a bad thing? I don't see a full-scale invasion, but some pounding here and there will probably have to happen.

Egypt - I'm just waiting for some kind of revolution in Egypt, possibly because of a big flare up between them and Sudan. That might not be the cause of it, but the gut is telling me something is up there.

Ethniclashistan - I see another war of some kind, perhaps with only limited US involvement in the wild world of Central Asia/ME.

France - I don't see another landing at Normandy, but I do see the french trying to pull the "proxy war" BS with us like Russia did (Iraq might even be one, we'll soon know). I don't anticipate a trans-Atlantic slugfest, but I'm all for it if they want to play that way.

Of course, I don't have any shiny things on my collar, so take it with a grain of salt. It's just the way I see it.

[Khornet]

All! We want it ALL! Aren't we imperialists? Then we need an empire! Aren't we hegemons? Then we need to get us some hegemony!

:neener:

[Silent Bob]

Can I put in a vote for Syria? Basher Assad is one mouthy sucka.

[4v50 Gary]

I hope we can starve North Korea into submission rather than invade.

[10-Ring]

Once we finish w/ Iraq (which was at one time the 6th largest military in the world & one of the most feared), I'm thinking there'll be a few countries not prepared to take on the US & GW :)

Plus, I think if we do have to get into another conflict we'll be able to pick & chose coalition partners after we show the world what happens to those that oppose us :evil:

[Mike Irwin]

Please let it be New Jersey, Maryland, and California!

Those people have been repressed by their governments for far too long. :D

[Shooter973]

HollyWood!!!!!!!! HollyWood!!!!!! :cuss:

[Spot77]

>Please let it be New Jersey, Maryland, and California!

Those people have been repressed by their governments for far too long<

Amen to that. Thank God the Clintonites are on hiatus.

[DeltaElite]

I vote for Brazil, I have seen the topless beaches in Rio and I want to go there to surrender. :D

[Selfdfenz]

Let's see how things wind down in Iraq first. I'm still not sure nationhood will come easily to a country that has been so recently run by a government based on such a savage kind of evil and so successful at producing some sons adept at committing such evil and other sons at accepting it.

Human society in Iraq was a food chain.
S-

[aikidoka-mks]

How about Chicago? :D

Mark

[Bahadur]

I hope we can starve North Korea into submission rather than invade.Starvation starves the people, not the leaders.

North Koreans are already starved. Though there have been some persistent confirmed reports that foods riots had to be put down with army troops with much bloodshed, it seems unlikely that ordinary North Koreans will rise up and overthrow the dynastic "communism" of the North.

The North Korea situation is very unpredictable. There are so many different paths:

1. Implosion, followed by re-unification with the South.
2. Aggression, defeat and re-unification.
3. Coup, anarchy and intervention by the South (or China).
4. Federation with the South (one country, two systems), with eventual normalization and re-unification.
5. Status quo.

I could go on. But no one can really predict what will happen. There are just too many unknowns to make a reliable prediction.

[Dave Bean]

My vote:

1. France
2. Iran's nuke facilities only
3. Canada
4. Syria

In that order. :D

Dave

[ahadams]

I think Azrael has the list prioritized essentially correctly, but a lot depends on how the outcome in Iraq is perceived by other nations. I doubt Syria has any delusions about being able to stand up to us directly, and a serious pan-arab jihad against the west would almost certainly topple all of the current arab governments in the process, so lip service may be given to the idea, but I expect the Pakis, Egyptians, and so on to be doing their level best to prevent any such thing from gaining legs, simply in order to save their own hides.

I also think the point about looking for renewed proxy wars is well taken. Funny part is that our first party allies appear to still be with us - although the Aussies are a little bit funny about choosing their bombing targets, and the Canadian government has been making all kinds of noise of late, the Aussies are still with our guys and gals in Iraq, and if you look carefully there has been an increased Canadian presence in Afghanistan, thus allowing more Brit and American troops to be moved to Iraq.

With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents. They don't like President Bush, because they can't intimidate him, and they sure don't want the NK's starting some sort of a war right now. I expect them to come down as hard as neccessary to keep the NKs from nuking Japan or some such, at least until we end up with another wimp liberal in the White House.

[ahenry]

Starvation starves the people, not the leaders. I agree. Wouldn't you agree though that, in part, a failing of the existing system of gov't is a failing of the people of N. Korea*? At least to the extent that every person always has the choice to live under their existing gov’t or seek to change it. Granted, N. Koreans have a much more difficult row to hoe when it comes to changing gov’t systems than a more democratic system, but in the end who really bears the responsibility for a nations gov’t, the people of that nation or the people of some other nation?



*That is not to say I want to see the people of N. Korea starve.

The North Korea situation is very unpredictable. There are so many different paths: I agree with that also for the most part. To me that means that it is time for us to help ensure that an option that is acceptable to our survival occurs. Just another step in the path from talk to war while seeking to avoid the last option.

[2nd Amendment]

I'd expect some of these problems to take care of themselves. Pak and India WILL go at each other someday and what remains won't be a serious threat to much of anyone. NK IS going to piss in their own Cheerios and get the smack down from China and China is going to do bad things to Tiawan...while we sit back and let it happen because we aren't ready to deal with them yet.

The Arab states are going to think long and hard before any of them want to chew off a piece of us after we're done with iraq and, in the meantime, it wouldn't surprise me to see one or more try to get a piece of Israel...and wind up a glowing coal for their efforts.

Our next big worries are China, in a true military conflict, and Mexico because a of a much more subtle conflict. A civilian invasion. How we'll come out of either intact is open to debate.

[Bahadur]

With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents.China's strategy is multi-pronged. The main strategic aim of the PRC is to become the pre-eminent power in East Asia. This includes subsidiary goals of:

1. Bringing Taiwan into the mainland control.
2. Keeping Japan as de-militarized as possible.
3. Prevent collapse of North Korea and possible stationing of American troops on the Manchurian-Korean border.
4. Domination of the South China Sea.
5. Developing hegemonic influence over Southeast Asia, particularly those with large or influential ethnic Chinese population (Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Burma).

Chinese leaders do believe that a conflict with the US might be possible in the future, because their aim of the Chinese pre-eminence in Asia will be in conflict with the traditional American objective of preventing the rise of continental powers.

In regard to the US, their goal is to derive maximum commercial, economic and scientific advantage from the trading relationship while they build up their military-industrial base. A military conflict with the US is to be avoided at all costs at least until Chinese military-industrialization reaches a certain point where the PLA has a semblance of technological parity with the US forces.
With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents. They don't like President Bush, because they can't intimidate him, and they sure don't want the NK's starting some sort of a war right now. I expect them to come down as hard as neccessary to keep the NKs from nuking Japan or some such, at least until we end up with another wimp liberal in the White House.It can be argued that the Chinese have derived benefits from Republican administrations as well as from Democratic ones. A number of prominent Republican policymakers and power-brokers (including Henry Kissinger) maintain unhealthy commercial relationships with key figures and politico-economic entities in China.

Then there is the odd coalition of Republicans who oppose China on moral-strategic ground and Democrats who oppose China on economic-protectionist grounds.

[faustulus]

How about we free the people of the United States next.

[griz]

Our actions are "hypcritical" only if we claim to be consistent. We do not. We are quite open about refusing to be boxed in by a false and dangerous notion of consistency.

I hope you can see that rampant inconsistency is hypocritical in itself.

We make up the rules for each situation, regardless of whether those rules are 100% opposite in similar situations. That is the logical thing for us to do. That is the ethical thing for us to do.

Why would you defend a policy of pretty much doing whatever you feel like as ethical? At best that sounds like situational ethics to me.

[SDC]

Please, please, PLEASE let it be Canada; we sure could use an "Operation Canadian Freedom" up here, and most of us wouldn't mind too much if you lined the government up and shot them en masse. :)

[cuchulainn]

I hope you can see that rampant inconsistency is hypocritical in itself. No it isn't. It is hypcritical only if we claim to be consistent. Hypocrisy is not inconsistency. Hypocrisy is claiming to do one thing but doing another. We are quite open about our inconsistency. We are quite open, for example, about having polar opposite rules for Iraq having WMD vs. England having WMD.

Why would you defend a policy of pretty much doing whatever you feel like as ethical? At best that sounds like situational ethics to me. We are applying the exact same ethic to all situations -- that ethic is doing what is best for the USA, which leads to different responses to different situations

England has weapons of mass destruction. Gee, we aren't bombing London. Hypocrisy? Obviously not. All the other nations run along a spectrum between England (we're happy to let them have WMD) and Iraq (we refuse to allow it).

edited to add: It would be unethical for our leaders to fail to put U.S. interest first, even more so if this failure was an appeasement to the bugbear of consistency.

[Ol' Badger]

Ice Land. I saw a picture of what the common Icelandic babe looks like. I saw lets go get some :D

[Chairman Meow]

If we are going to bet our national security upon intimidation in lieu of friendship, which it would appear that we are, then I would prefer a "speak softly and carry a big stick" policy over a "speak harshly and carry a big stick" policy. If we didn't attack people so often but then stomped the living dog $h!t out of them without mercy when we did attack, then we'd get sort of a "sleeping giant" image, which is more respect demanding and intimidating than the "mouthy unleashed pitbull" image we're getting right now. I guess all I'm saying is that talk is cheap and that the real top dog keeps his mouth shut until he's ready to eat you. :D

[griz]

Well I see what you mean as far as the overriding factor is "what is best for the US." As a matter of fact I agree with that.

After the war is over we might discuss the nuances of inconsistency and hypocrisy, but as long as we have troops over there I’ll wait.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Free Kaliforny!

Pleeease! I offer low-priced avocados, and prime beach-front real estate! Disenfranchising Hollywierd on anti-American grounds frees up a lot of nice property!

I will personally slap a big wet sloppy kiss on the first burly bohunk marine who comes here to scrape the liberals off this coast!

Provided she's cute, and amenable. Just to be clear. (Impressed by that sharp-toothed 19-yo POW, I am.) Wouldn't want to give the wrong impression here. A gentleman, first, last and always, me. ;)

I would agree that this post is a bit dis-jointed, but consider the source, and where I live. People are willing to say ANYthing after enough torture. Also refer to sigline.

[Zorro]

I and 25 Million others want to see Grey Davis hang for Corruption and EXTREME! Mismanagement of state Finances!

I want the U.S. State Department to enforce bribery laws here.

I LONG to pop a LEGAL Firecracker in this state!

Or, Smoke a Cigarette in a bar without being arrested.

Or, LEGALLY FISH IN THE OCEAN!

[CZ 75 BD]

Damascus, Syria