If Syria is hiding Hussein and the rest of the Iraqi leadership or some Iraqi WMD they should be next.
Agreed. Though, I don't think it will happen. No matter what your stance on the war, the US has shown it isn't ****ing around anymore. Syria will essentially be told "get your act together or you are next....or, didn't you see the M1's driving thorugh Baghdad?"
Agreed. Though, I don't think it will happen. No matter what your stance on the war, the US has shown it isn't ****ing around anymore. Syria will essentially be told "get your act together or you are next....or, didn't you see the M1's driving thorugh Baghdad?"
I can't tell if you agree or disagree. I think you want to agree with me, but that's such a strage occurance it's difficult for you.
Foreign policy doesn't win elections though. People vote with their pocket books. Bush41 went from being the highest rated president in history to losing the election thanks to Clinton's campaign slogan of 'It's the economy, stupid.'
Foreign policy doesn't win elections though. People vote with their pocket books. Bush41 went from being the highest rated president in history to losing the election thanks to Clinton's campaign slogan of 'It's the economy, stupid.'
Thats not generally right. The center-left in Germany won the last election because of the resistance against joining the war.
But in most cases your right. And Bush the Elderly is one of the best examples of it.
I remember a Doonesbury leading up to the election where BJ is sitting in a bar talking about his assignment in the first gulf war and people around his was saying "what are you talking about? What war?". Cut to the white house where BtE is saying "Uh-oh"
Foreign policy doesn't win elections though. People vote with their pocket books. Bush41 went from being the highest rated president in history to losing the election thanks to Clinton's campaign slogan of 'It's the economy, stupid.'
A much better reply than the above would have been "No, but great TV entertainment do"
Foreign policy doesn't win elections though. People vote with their pocket books. Bush41 went from being the highest rated president in history to losing the election thanks to Clinton's campaign slogan of 'It's the economy, stupid.'
Its not that simple in these post 911 days - American voters now look on foreign policy very differently then they used to in 1991... plus Bush junior has two successful wars in his pocket now - remember Afghanistan...and we all know 2 are better then 1... no?
My bet is on Paris being next... either that or voluntary exile for Chirac... to Syria perhaps???
Seriously though - I think the US will apply 'gentle' pressure to Syria next, but I doubt they would use their military against it - unless something really severe was done by that foolish young Syrian intrepid leader...
Schroeder still won by a thin margin and his days are still coming to a close sooner rather than later due to unemployment and economic malaise. His reforms are mild and inadequate.
Bush will still win or lose based on the economy for the most part. If it stays as is he is in trouble; if it improves some he will be virtually unbeatable. People might care about foreign policy more but they still won't vote on it that much. If anything I think the fact that Bush is Well Liked will be more beneficial as a secondary factor to him than his foreign policy "initiatives".
The one way that foreign policy could help Bush is if we see New York going to him. That would make it very difficult for any Democrat to get the electoral math to work out favorably.
I think the dentist (whose highest ambition was to treat the buccal afflictions of stinking-rich Gulf princes and of old ladies of the aristocracy in his smart practice, but all that changed after his brother Bassal's fateful accident) will be more receptive to proposals from Washington, as, unlike the slayer from Tikrit, Assad Jr. has had the benefits of some schooling.
Yep and they have 3 millions soldiers, ten times the Saddam army.
That's not the number I remember. I'll have to look this one up but 3 million sounds awfully big. Still, they do have a very large army. That said, North Korea hasn't been eating very well for a number of years now. That army is being drawn from a population that is malnourished. Developmentally, that will put them quite a bit behind our soldiers and the South Korean conscripts as well.
The problem isn't so much the size of their army. It's their rockets and the fact that some pretty serious population centers are within range. This complicates things greatly for us.
Human rights-wise North Korea is an even worse charnel house than was Saddam's Iraq.
I think the dentist (whose highest ambition was to treat the buccal afflictions of stinking-rich Gulf princes and of old ladies of the aristocracy in his smart practice, but all that changed after his brother Bassal's fateful accident) will be more receptive to proposals from Washington, as, unlike the slayer from Tikrit, Assad Jr. has had the benefits of some schooling.
Maybe, but will Washington's propsals be made in good faith? A dentist is out of work when the patient obtains complete dentures...
bunge, if your statement in Syria being next was sincere, then yes, I agree completely. I don't think it will happen though. I think they'll fold. That's what I was trying to say.
Agreed. Though, I don't think it will happen. No matter what your stance on the war, the US has shown it isn't ****ing around anymore. Syria will essentially be told "get your act together or you are next....or, didn't you see the M1's driving thorugh Baghdad?"
The plan to attack Iraq (and others) was formulated (Wolfowitz, Perle etc) in the mid 1990s, and Bush's intent was to go into Iraq right after 9-11, but he was persuaded by Tony Blair (amongst others) to go after al'qaeda in Afghanistan instead. The plan was cast pretty much in stone to invade Iraq no matter what...WMD or no WMD, insoections or no inspections, UN approval or no UN approval, regime change or no regime change, etc.
The Bush administration is making similar noises right now regarding Syria as what they were making last July regarding Iraq. The differences are: (1) The troops and military hardware are in place in the region, (2) During the lead up to the Iraq invasion, the US determined that the UN Charter, Constitutional and International law could be ignored with impunity, and (3), world opinion can be easily cast aside and deemed irrelevant. All thats required is a new order to Raytheon etc to replenish the spent Tomahawk cruise missiles and other ordnance. If the plan was set to attack Syria next, then that means we will attack Syria next. For Syria, "getting their act together", whatever that means, is irrelevant.
Comments
Originally posted by Leonis
I think US' next bombing target will be CANADA
Reasons:
1) We don't go for the war with US cause we love our lifes
2) My country has more natural resources than US (softwood, natural gas, OIL, fish, cleaner water, cheaper engergy sources)
3) Canada has better secret intelligences
Imagine. US will be a big rich fat bitch once they conquer both Iraq and Canada!
Yes but US, will not do that, they fear Canada Secret WOMD. I have hear that the secret code name for that WOMD is Leonis. I wonder what it means ?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes but US, will not do that, they fear Canada Secret WOMD. I have hear that the secret code name for that WOMD is Leonis. I wonder what it means ?
I saw face|off yesterday... really bad movie...
One of the badguys with WOMD was named Pollux. Must mean something...
Originally posted by bunge
If Syria is hiding Hussein and the rest of the Iraqi leadership or some Iraqi WMD they should be next.
Agreed. Though, I don't think it will happen. No matter what your stance on the war, the US has shown it isn't ****ing around anymore. Syria will essentially be told "get your act together or you are next....or, didn't you see the M1's driving thorugh Baghdad?"
Originally posted by SDW2001
Agreed. Though, I don't think it will happen. No matter what your stance on the war, the US has shown it isn't ****ing around anymore. Syria will essentially be told "get your act together or you are next....or, didn't you see the M1's driving thorugh Baghdad?"
I can't tell if you agree or disagree. I think you want to agree with me, but that's such a strage occurance it's difficult for you.
Originally posted by agent302
There is no next. November 2004 isn't that far away. You start a war when the specter of the election is near.
So the recent demands against Syria is just empty talk then?
"If you give us four more years then we will give you a completly new war to make those late winter evenings more interesting on the telly"
Any democrat out there that will double? "Oh yeah? Thats nothing. If I get the bid I will start a war on ....hmmm...China. Yes China."
Originally posted by agent302
Foreign policy doesn't win elections though. People vote with their pocket books. Bush41 went from being the highest rated president in history to losing the election thanks to Clinton's campaign slogan of 'It's the economy, stupid.'
Thats not generally right. The center-left in Germany won the last election because of the resistance against joining the war.
But in most cases your right. And Bush the Elderly is one of the best examples of it.
I remember a Doonesbury leading up to the election where BJ is sitting in a bar talking about his assignment in the first gulf war and people around his was saying "what are you talking about? What war?". Cut to the white house where BtE is saying "Uh-oh"
Originally posted by agent302
Foreign policy doesn't win elections though. People vote with their pocket books. Bush41 went from being the highest rated president in history to losing the election thanks to Clinton's campaign slogan of 'It's the economy, stupid.'
A much better reply than the above would have been "No, but great TV entertainment do"
Originally posted by Anders the White
A much better reply than the above would have been "No, but great TV entertainment do"
Yeah, but I'm a stupid American. Not all of us are witty Danes
Originally posted by agent302
Foreign policy doesn't win elections though. People vote with their pocket books. Bush41 went from being the highest rated president in history to losing the election thanks to Clinton's campaign slogan of 'It's the economy, stupid.'
Its not that simple in these post 911 days - American voters now look on foreign policy very differently then they used to in 1991... plus Bush junior has two successful wars in his pocket now - remember Afghanistan...and we all know 2 are better then 1... no?
My bet is on Paris being next... either that or voluntary exile for Chirac... to Syria perhaps???
Seriously though - I think the US will apply 'gentle' pressure to Syria next, but I doubt they would use their military against it - unless something really severe was done by that foolish young Syrian intrepid leader...
Bush will still win or lose based on the economy for the most part. If it stays as is he is in trouble; if it improves some he will be virtually unbeatable. People might care about foreign policy more but they still won't vote on it that much. If anything I think the fact that Bush is Well Liked will be more beneficial as a secondary factor to him than his foreign policy "initiatives".
The one way that foreign policy could help Bush is if we see New York going to him. That would make it very difficult for any Democrat to get the electoral math to work out favorably.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yep and they have 3 millions soldiers, ten times the Saddam army.
That's not the number I remember. I'll have to look this one up but 3 million sounds awfully big. Still, they do have a very large army. That said, North Korea hasn't been eating very well for a number of years now. That army is being drawn from a population that is malnourished. Developmentally, that will put them quite a bit behind our soldiers and the South Korean conscripts as well.
The problem isn't so much the size of their army. It's their rockets and the fact that some pretty serious population centers are within range. This complicates things greatly for us.
Human rights-wise North Korea is an even worse charnel house than was Saddam's Iraq.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I think the dentist (whose highest ambition was to treat the buccal afflictions of stinking-rich Gulf princes and of old ladies of the aristocracy in his smart practice, but all that changed after his brother Bassal's fateful accident) will be more receptive to proposals from Washington, as, unlike the slayer from Tikrit, Assad Jr. has had the benefits of some schooling.
Maybe, but will Washington's propsals be made in good faith? A dentist is out of work when the patient obtains complete dentures...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Agreed. Though, I don't think it will happen. No matter what your stance on the war, the US has shown it isn't ****ing around anymore. Syria will essentially be told "get your act together or you are next....or, didn't you see the M1's driving thorugh Baghdad?"
The plan to attack Iraq (and others) was formulated (Wolfowitz, Perle etc) in the mid 1990s, and Bush's intent was to go into Iraq right after 9-11, but he was persuaded by Tony Blair (amongst others) to go after al'qaeda in Afghanistan instead. The plan was cast pretty much in stone to invade Iraq no matter what...WMD or no WMD, insoections or no inspections, UN approval or no UN approval, regime change or no regime change, etc.
The Bush administration is making similar noises right now regarding Syria as what they were making last July regarding Iraq. The differences are: (1) The troops and military hardware are in place in the region, (2) During the lead up to the Iraq invasion, the US determined that the UN Charter, Constitutional and International law could be ignored with impunity, and (3), world opinion can be easily cast aside and deemed irrelevant. All thats required is a new order to Raytheon etc to replenish the spent Tomahawk cruise missiles and other ordnance. If the plan was set to attack Syria next, then that means we will attack Syria next. For Syria, "getting their act together", whatever that means, is irrelevant.
So, lets roll.
Whats the betting on a date for a Syria strike?
7:4 on, before this August
Originally posted by Powerdoc
US will not attack Syria. I am ready to bet a nice bottle of Champagne.
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...935959,00.html
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y