The Next War?

[InfiniteNature]

Well as you can see by the article I posted there are according to Rumsfield, weapons of mass destruction in Syria, my question is, is this the next target, is this the next war to cover up the war in Iraq, Syria might not look it or be mentioned in the news, but it does have some oil deposits, and to boot its easy to crush, traits incidently it shared with Iraq. So the question is, after Iraq where do you think the next war would be, my money is on Syria in the near future, I mean you got to realize their's elections coming up, Bush has got to win that election, so why not start up another war to get the people behind
you.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/888057.asp

[Weasel]

A war this soon after Iraq will spell doom for Bush. He better learn from his father...or meet the same fate.

[HighLordDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by Weasel He better learn from his father...or meet the same fate.

Perhaps continual wars are Dubya's way of "learning" from his father. The elder President Bush had the highest approval ratings on any president, but was ousted from office because of a poor record on domestic issues and financial mis-management. By keeping security as a primary issue, Dubya is back-burnering all of the other issues, especially the economy, and counting on high approval ratings based on his military policy to distract the electorate from the hit they're taking in the pocketbook.

There are essentially three things which determine the outcome of an election: war and peace, the economy and who's the incumbent. Americans have historically been loathe to remove a president from office during a war (the lone exception is Lyndon Johnson who was trying to fight an unpopular war and inflation at the same time; even Abe Lincoln who was in the midst of an unpopular and uncertain war got re-elected in 1864), and perhaps Dubya is counting on that when his own hide is up on the ballot again.

As long as people are distracted from how poorly the Republicans are managing the economy, and we are winning whatever war Dubya drags us into, he can probably come out ahead in 2004. However, if the economy crashes under the weight of increased spending coupled with tax cuts (ie-"spend and spend" as opposed to "tax and spend"), Dubya will almost certainly be unseated and his successor will be forced to not only clean up the mess that is the economy, but they will have to deal with all fo the toes Dubya spent four years stepping on.

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave Perhaps continual wars are Dubya's way of "learning" from his father.

A bad lesson to learn then.


I don't ask for much, I only want a President who will keep both the domestic and foreign on the front burner. If the person can't do this, he shouldn't run for the job.

(Can see Weasel swapping party lines in 2004)

[Scayde]

Well, I am a dyed in the wool Republican, but I would vote for anybody right now who would repeal the "Homeland Security Act" I think this is the biggest travesty to hit America in history

[Tamerlane]

I do believe that Blair addressed his parliament stating that Syria was not going to be targeted by the Coalition. Frankly that would be a huge diplomatic loss (invading Syria), and hell even I'd start to believe what the fanatics have been saying. That the coalition are trying to drag the world back to the age where colonial might was the highest priority.

Thankfully N.Korea are starting to soften their rhetoric. That was always going to be a pressing problem. I just hope that one of the two leaders doesn't do something stupid...

[Nightmare]

If Bush gets re-elected in 2004...I fear what the world will become.

As Scayde said though about the Homeland Security Act, I hope that will make him lose the election.

Syria seems the next likely target in this crusade.

[Tybaltus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightmare If Bush gets re-elected in 2004...I fear what the world will become. As Scayde said though about the Homeland Security Act, I hope that will make him lose the election. Syria seems the next likely target in this crusade.

Heh, I felt that way about him day 1 of his term, 2002. The problem is, NM, that he has gained so much support since the war has been basically been declared victorious. (for numbers it is rougly 61% to 77% ) And, I for one, am really disappointed, and scared because of this dramatic increase....PLEASE open your eyes! I wish I could cry out to the public....I feel so damned helpless....

I hope ANY one of his stupid propositions causes him to lose the election.

Good God, I hope we dont invade Syria. Man, I pray that we dont. That will surely make things topple. I figured Iraq might do that, but, thankfully, there has been some support in Iraq and the Middle East. But invading Syria would be absolutely wrong. One cant start making random and destructive accusations. And believe me, this is increadibly dangerous. And we dont need, nay, CANT HAVE another war. Please God, not another war. Not to mention there are bigger threats out there besides Syria...come on. Damn Bush and his 1 track mind.

I know Syria has thought very negative of Israel's actions in the Middle East, and that could show as one reason why Bush might be accusing Syria of such. Hell, I dont know what the man is thinking...I dont know what radicals support him in his march of power hunger over the Mid East.

Man, cant we just avoid war? Everyone was holding their breath in fear for a few weeks in Iraq. And it will take a long time to fix the damages and mend good relations, no need to create a slippery slope....

EDIT-Heh, sorry, may have got a little bit of emotion in me.

[Chanak]

It is my fervent hope that people wake up...the "Homeland Security" issue is but a drop in the bucket of what will come after it, in it's wake. I hope they wake up before it's too late.

[Gwalchmai]

How might Syria fit into the Wolfowitz plan?

[Scayde]

I thought this was interesting.

Quote:

In early 2001, the U.S. received a slap in the face when it was voted off the UN's Human Rights Commission. The Commission's membership includes such supposed champions of individual rights as Lybia, Sudan and Communist China. On October 8, 2001, nearly one month after the attack upon the World Trace Center and the Pentagon, the General Assembly elected Syria - a notorious terrorist state - to a seat on the Security Council, which is supervising the "war on terrorism." This is typical of the UN's institutional approach to "solving" the problem of international terrorism.

Here is the article in it's entirety.

[fable]

A very strange and completely suspect article, @Scayde. Note, first, that the man who is quoted as the piece's pre-eminent authority is a criminologist, without background in the political sciences--in fact, to make him have some sort of credence, the piece claims he is "a widely respected analyst of terrorism," which literally tells us nothing. What he says is so amazingly biased ("The UN provides cover [for terrorism] almost the same way the Taliban does.... It serves as the laboratory, the linchpin for legitimizing incendiary rhetoric" against the United States) that his credibility is immediately up for grabs. I have to ask: really? The fact that the UN allows nations with opposing views to speak their own minds, makes the UN the equivalent of a puritanical Islamic movement? Does this man also walk around wearing a steel pyramid on his head? If this kind of dismissal annoys anybody, I am sorry; but I find that efforts to silence freedom of speech by appeals to bigotry disgusting.

I'll give one more example of the extremist rhetoric in that piece: its castigation of UN Secretary-General Annan for praising modern South Africa. Why? Because current SA leader Thabo Mbeki was the former leader of the African National Congress, which the piece incorrectly identifies as "communist-dominated terrorist group." It then mentions atrocities committed by the ANC in relatively small numbers when it was outlawed, all the time conveniently neglecting the fact that the government of the day was a racist regime famed for its torture, arbitrary arrests and lengthy imprisonments without trial, and murder of prisoners.

When this kind of massaging of the facts is used by any website--much less one whose banner is "Get U.S. Out of the United Nations!"--I discount it totally. Can't say how anybody else feels, but far right or far left doesn't matter: I just don't like people trying to convince me to swallow an argument by withholding a lot of important information.

[Tybaltus]

A very good post, Mr. Babylonian god, sir.

Strange, I sort of got that feeling after reading a short bit of it (been a busy night), but I wasnt going to say anything.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable When this kind of massaging of the facts is used by any website--much less one whose banner is "Get U.S. Out of the United Nations!"--I discount it totally. Can't say how anybody else feels, but far right or far left doesn't matter: I just don't like people trying to convince me to swallow an argument by withholding a lot of important information.

Well I agree, for sure. Its like in common dialogue when you talk to someone who always asks "Right?" and answers for you, saying, "Right." Without a chance for you to respond for yourself.

Its like one is trying to prove something through trying to get the people to think like them and convince them, rather then proving something through fact and definition.

Heh, even the name of the site, itself, is laughable.

[Chanak]

@fable: Was the US removed from the UN Human Rights Commission as the article stated?

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chanak @fable: Was the US removed from the UN Human Rights Commission as the article stated?

Not Fable...but IIRC the US didn't get the votes needed to keep its seat.