Yes, while they chug their Coca-Colas and watch region-specific DVDs of the X-Men movies.
Even if true, so what? Myself, I generally use the Euro’s as a yard stick for such things…and we are pikers in the Imperialism racket compared to actual historic examples.
-XT
Considering that we re-wrote Iraq’s laws to suit us that certainly seems to qualify. If what we have done in Iraq doesn’t qualify, very little would.
You were trying to pretend that my opinion was some weird one held only by myself. As opposed to being the opinion held by the majority of humanity, and the one that clearly fits the facts.
And if Iraq had been invaded by the X Men that might be relevant.
Well, one assumes Professor X is brighter than GWB, of course. The hostility you imply “most of the world” feels is rather exaggerated, unless one takes foreign political speeches as truthful.
Re-writing their laws does not make them a puppet. Look up what the Brits did in India or the French in Indo-China or the Spanish in the New World sometime…they didn’t simply re-write their laws.
Tell it to the African’s, the Vietnamese, the Indian’s, blah blah blah.
Anyway, why continue this hijack? You think the way you think and I think the way I think and never the twain shall meet. Move on.
-XT
xtisme It wouldn’t be a new war, it would be a wider theater for a current one.
As far as Imperialism goes we are the most powerful Empire in history, unprecedented really. But we could go in depth on the definition of Empire. In my opinion, any sort absolution of foreign sovereignty in favor of your own concerns is imperialism. We could’ve reacted to 9/11 by going isolationist and pulling our troops out of Muslim nations, but we didn’t, we expanded our reach into the Middle-East.
It’s one place we agree, though we disagree on whether or not it’s a bad thing.
That’s quote worthy. 
The cupboard is bare militarily, financially and politically. 'Taint no gas in the tank.
-XT
And the polls, and the worldwide demonstrations; the political leadership was less hostile than the general public, not more.
Thanks.
Really? Cite?
Except the hundreds of thousands of troops that are lined up along their northern border of course. Believe me if Pakistan goes dark, we’ll go WWII emergency style to find the resources to secure those nukes.
Bryan Ekers Thinking the US is an Empire isn’t necessarily hostility.
Well, if the friendly interpretation is what Der Trihs meant, he’s free to elaborate.
As quoted in this Wiki article:
Troops does not equal logistics support. We are strapped to maintain what we have now. Even shifting to Afghanistan is not going to free up the support needed to go into Pakistan. This is similar to the ‘we are about to invade Iran’ assertions…simply put we don’t have the capacity, either logistically, economically or politically. It’s not just a matter of pushing the troops across the border to the north…not unless you want something like what happened to the Chinese during the Korean War.
Time will tell…but I doubt it. If the Taliban start to gain control and Pakistan looks to go tits up my guess is that Obama will negotiate with the Pakistani’s for additional support and aid, perhaps offer US air support. But if Pakistan goes down and the Taliban gain control the most I see is US (and other countries) air strikes on Pakistani nuclear sites…MAYBE something like a surgical special forces type operation. Invasion though? I doubt it, even if we could…which I don’t think we can.
As I said, time will tell and YMMV…I just don’t think it’s possible.
-XT
That cite only shows opposition to the US invasion of Iraq…it wasn’t exactly what you were stating nor what BE was asking you for. Just an FYI.
-XT
I was about to say this as well - at best, the wiki quote says the invasion was unpopular. It doesn’t indicate that the U.S. is unpopular.
Can’t see Pakistan falling to the Taliban. The Pakistani army are large, ruthless, very well equipped and secular. They just haven’t been unleashed on the Taliban until the last few days. Now that they have, it will all be over very quickly.
Yet… Depends how close the Taliban gets to those Pakistani nukes.
To answer the OP, in the case of Iran, I do think pursuing nukes encourages American aggresion. MAD doesn’t really play into effect. Just because you have a nuke you still need a missile to deliver it. AFAIK, Iran has no missile technology capable of reaching the continental U.S. Any nuclear attack would be on an invading U.S. force. Even then, it might have questionable effects as the U.S. would probably invade from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Its not the battle of Thermopaylee, U.S. soldiers don’t invade in huge block formations consisting of 25,000 soldiers apiece. Then of course, the U.S. would retaliate with nukes. Any nuclear attack by Iran against American targets in Iraq or Afghanistan or other western targets only pisses more people off. I don’t think it serves Iran’s best interest to acquire nukes.