Yes, I’m aware of this, that’s why I said “the military as we [Americans] know it.” Switzerland’s defense has historically been based on the idea that the national army should be small, but that all grown males are prepared to defend the country if invaded. Such a system makes wars of agression like those of the US in the post-WWII era unlikely.
UnuMondo
And the fact that the US has such an overpowering military has no effect on other acts of agression by other nations? If the US were to adopt an ideology of a miniscule military, what would stop a country such as China reassert it’s Asia=China policy?. I mean, almost 2 billion people with guns is kinda hard to beat unless your military has a very significant advantage.
Such a scenario is so unlikely today because we are used to the superpower status of the US. Things would change if that status changed like you have in mind, with no alternative balancing power.
I’ll second this. North Korea is going to be a dicey problem to resolve. We need all cards on the table, not only so they’ll take us seriously, but our ersthile “allies” South Korea, China and Russia, all of whom have a large stake in a settled, secure Korean peninsula. It would behoove them to pull their chairs up to the table and expect to stay awhile.
This is an interesting question. I would not favor war against these two countries at this time, although I have been a supporter of war against Iraq ever since 1998. I do favor US action to encourage better behavior by the governments of Syria and Iran or to replace them, but not military action. E.g., I would like to see the US provide support of some sort for an overthrow of the Mullahs in Iran.
I don’t believe some of the background presented by the cited article. E.g., Rumsfeld and Powell haven’t “fought over almost every aspect of U.S. foreign policy.” They have disagreed over a number of tactical aspects. They presented the President with their POVs. I don’t believe these two fine public servants are engaged in a “grudge match.”
So, I object to the tone of this Time article. I tend to doubt that there’s any serious consideration of making a total war against Syria like the one against Saddam. I give no credence at all to the idea that anyone seriously considering a military attack against Iran.
I don’t think these wars are in the offing. Last night CNN reported poll results showing that citizen support for these wars does not exist at this time. I do think citizen support could be built over a period of months or years, since Iraq and Afghanistan are regarded a big victories. But, in my mind, the question is academic.
It’s not over…yet.
This war on terrorism is going to last for several years from what I hear.
The Palestinians look like they may be next on the list. Yasser has been supporting terrorists for years, he needs to leave the country. We’re there now, no need in putting it off. It should’ve been done when 41 was in office.
Besides, if it’s not taken care of now we’ll just have to go back later. Then we’ll have to wait another ten years or so for Jeb to become president.
I know you think it’s been “covered”, but if you don’t mind, it would be good to explore the topic a little more. I take it you’re referring to this list of Fugazi’s:
So you’re saying these 3 points explain how this war is a unique situation, but I’m not sure I’m following you. First of all, I’m pretty sure Syria and Iran hate us, so that’s not a unique situation. And I’m not sure how the war in '91 was, per se, a reason to fight another war now. By that logic, we should attack Germany since we fought them before in WWII.
As for the WMD angle, that seems to be the strongest argument, but I’m not sure I follow that 100% either. If they used WMD 12 years ago, but hadn’t used them again since, and since there didn’t seem to be any evidence that they currently possess them, I’m puzzled as to how that would be a compelling reason to invade now.
Finally, can we really cite violations of UN resolutions as compelling reasons to go to war when the UN itself doesn’t sanction the war?
My list was not a complete list, just some of the reasons. You could add too it:
His human rights record.
His support for terrorism
He’s hated in his own country and through out the Middle East.
He stated 2 wars with his neighbors.
I’m sure others could add to this list. It’s not really any one thing but a combination of everything. He was pretty much at or near the top of everyone’s “needs to be gone list”. Some people disagree about how & when he should be gone. That’s OK. I’m just glad he’s gone now & don’t see any other way he would be gone.
Oh, I know. I was just countering Tertius01’s opinion that you had “covered” it.
Couldn’t those first 3 points apply to quite a few countries? The last point I can see, though.
What I’m getting from this thread is that the main reason for the war is not to liberate the Iraqi people, because nobody seems to see a pressing case for invading other countries whose inhabitants need to be liberated. The reasoning seems to be centered around the Kuwait invasion 12 years ago, and the WMDs. Of course, North Korea also has WMDs, and nobody is arguing that we need to invade them, so I guess it’s not the WMDs per se, either.
So really, the only difference I’m seeing between Iraq and the earlier-mentioned other oppressive regimes, is the UN resolution requiring Iraq to give up its WMDs. But then, since Bush declared the UN to be “irrelevant”, I’m not seeing how UN resolutions would be applicable to his reasoning anyway. Anybody care to help me out with these contradictions?
I think we all agree that Saddam being out of power is good. But how can you say that’s justification for war, without saying that war is justified to rid the world of all the other despots?
Spite, don’t play games. I’m asking you what the difference is. I’m not seeing any difference that should have compelled us to invade Iraq at this time, which is why I brought it up. If you don’t have anything to contribute to the debate, then stay out.
There is no contradiction. You’ve even said it yourself 
Our buddy Saddam somehow managed to combine all of these fine qualities in one country. I really don’t see any other country that is ** as bad ** as he was. With internation consensus, there are a few regimes I’d like to see taken down.
Blow,
My implication was that Iran was “westernizing” all by itself, not with much or any of our help. If that is indeed the case, what a fricken shame it would be to piss all over that with a needless war…
Forthe record, I did disagree with them being mentioned in the now infamous “Axis of Evil” speach. There is evil there, to be sure, but far less than in Iraq & even in some of our allies…
I think faced with the choice of lucrative petrol & tourism arrangements with the asia & west (hint hint to the current admin here, vis a vis the ongoing embargo!), or another few decades of a dying theocratic rulership, your average Joe Persian there doesn’t need much coaxing as it stands.
Pro-war folks who have already answered: thank you for your input so far. I would like to point you all towards this thread, because it seems to be a specific case of the possibilities I talk about in this thread. Feel free to respond there or here or even both. 
As it stands now , I think that the armed forces are going to require a certain amount of clarification about where the administration is going to go , post saddam.
Iraq is going to require a garrison force of some size for the next year , while this could be handed over to UN supplied forces , its not something that i could see happpening. So that is going to require either an american or british , or combo force.
Without the reestablishment of the Draft , then the current force levels are going to drop off sharply as the national gaurd units go home and go back to work, new forces have to be rotated in at some point to allow third and fourth ID to return home.
All that has to be done before the next target of oppurtunity avails itself , and that puts it beyond the next set of elections , which may be a new ball of wax if W does not make it.
Right now , you are more likely to see Syria and Iran being dealt with , via covert operators, and Saudi Arabia being dealt with economically.
Finally as to why Iraq in the first place , as opposed to North Korea.
My opinion only , but North Korea is actually Chinas problem , not the US. Back in the days of client states, North Korea was the chinese/russian client ,and south korea was the american client. At this point north korea has slipped the leash and China is being pressured to deal with it.
The middle east was the primary concern, for over thirty years every country there has exported or sanctioned some form of terrorism. While Iraq may well have been technically innocent of Sept 11 , they are were the line was drawn. No one attacks the continental united states and dances in the street in celebration , no matter if they are Iraqi , Irani , or afgani.
Declan
North Korea? In fact, I’d say it’s worse because they have nukes.