Who thinks that we are done invading Muslim countries?

Do you honestly believe that we won’t be involved in another invasion in Iran, or Syria, or Yemen, or Indonesia?

I think we will probably seduce some office holder in one of those countries to “ask us to help” him control his “dissident” population. But, we could always wait for the CIA to find out where Saddam’s WMD went to, and go invade looking for them. Why not? It worked last time.

It could keep the conservative faction on top in both the legislature and the executive branch long enough to completely stack the judicial branch. Nothing like fear to sell autocracy. And nothing makes more fear than a good war. We can depend on a violent minority in a whole lot of countries to provide us with excuses, too. Jihad can become our next great growth industry. It can last as long as the least intelligent portion of the Muslim world remains dumb enough to keep killing themselves. It will keep our fear levels up high enough to make us accept that giving up our own freedom is worth it, so we don’t feel afraid of those terrorists.

And our actions will provide excellent proof to the more moderate members of Muslim societies that America is the most dangerous element they have to face, in the entire world. If we work at it, we can have us an Armageddon. Why we could create a world where Islamic terrorism actually did provide a statistically significant threat to our population. With that sort of fear, we could get us a military dictatorship! Won’t that be great?

What happened to the Left? Where the hell is my anti war faction?

Watching MAS*H reruns, on cable.

Tris

Betcha ten bucks 'twon’t happen.

Gee, you’re kinda al over the place, there. What exactly is your point? That the U.S. shouldn’t involve itself in any future wars? That seems kind of silly. That future wars will let the U.S. government seize dictatorial power? Well, that’s a valid concern. That a perpetual state of Jihad is to be encouraged? Uh, cue Twilight Zone music, bub.

I’m thinking North Korea would be next. That Kim mofo has GOT TO GO!

If we go into North Korea we will have our asses handed to us. Mark my words. They ain’t no Iraq, and they got the nukes. Not to mention one of the most modern and largest armies on the earth that was not shot to shit 10 years before.

As for Islamic nations, unless Bush is pysco, he won’t. We have already worn-out our welcome in the two that we are in now. Plus, I really doubt the American people will go for it a third time. After all, they say the third time is the charm, be it good or bad.

The US will not invade North Korea, no way, no how, unless they perpetrate a seriously damaging attack on us first. It would take something much bigger than 9/11. North Korea has a huge, fanatical, and decently equipped army. And their rulers are even more fucked in the head than Saddam.

Your post, if bracketed by the context of the title, assumes that we’re only focusing on nations with strong Islamic backgrounds. Well, no, that’s not quite true.

You see, the ONLY goal of the government of the USA is the wellbeing of its citizens. Folks won’t stand for a government which ignores their needs. The two goals of the Department of Defence is to protect the citizens of the USA (and to a much lesser extent, her allies) and to project force across the world, that way the government (with its ONE (1) goal) may further the wellbeing (SIC?) of its citizens.

Now, back to your post. You seem to be pushing the idea that a small number of warhawks in government (I’m assuming epitomized by Bush and his supporters) are using fear of terror attacks to legitamize our going to war against countries which support (or are believed to support) terrorism and/or may (or may not) pose a signifigant threat to the citizens of the US and the free world (as was the case in Iraq.) Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

Unfortunately, since you also seem to seek righteous (SIC) indignation against war by an ‘autocracy’ of these hawks, let me remind you of a few things in our (the USA’s) past which, well, show that it hasn’t just been the mad mujhallas of Iran or the mustachoed Ba’athists or the uber-conservative Taliban.

In 1941, in direct response to an attack against the US by a foreign power, we threw in on the side of the British and French and Russians to kick the piss out of facism in all its forms. Four years and 300,000 dead later, the US and her allies stood triumphantly on the ruins of Germany and Japan, confident that these nations would never again threaten the world peace. And we did so because the CITIZENS were afraid, and rightly so of the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
Then there is the Cold War. See, back from 1947 until the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1991, we had this thing called the Cold War. It was pretty bad. At one point, across the world, over 11,000 nuclear warheads were pointed at various cities and military instillations, and ONE serious fuckup would, in the course of about fourty minutes, bring the end of the world. Billions dead. That’s Billions. With a B. You know, 1,000,000,000 and then some? And the government of the USA did everything it could to prevent the Evil Empire of the Iron Curtain from absolutely fucking us up, taking us over, and turning the USA into another ‘workers paradise.’ We spent money, we armed troops, we went to war fighting the forces of Marxism-Leninism worldwide to prevent the spread of this disease. The government protected the citizens through a huge fucking military establishment which could kill in the Billions (there’s that B word again) in a matter of minutes. And it did so because the CITIZENS were afraid, and rightly so of the Soviets.

In 1987, the USAF and USN bombed the everloving shit out of Libya. Libya, which until that point was a training camp for revolutionaries (both Communist and other) and various generic enemies of the citizens of the USA (and her allies). Colonel Quadaffi stood proudly, profaning the Great Satan and in the end, stood back as a broken and beaten man who now seeks to slowly reach to that same Great Satan for some shreads of peace and friendship. And the bombing did so occur because the CITIZENS were afraid, and rightly so of the evils lurking in the sands of Libya.

In 1990, over a half-million Americans made their homes in Saudi Arabia and in the Persian Gulf. We stood shoulder to shoulder with other peace loving nations including Syria, Egypt, and Afghanistan (including a force of mujahadeen led by none other than Osama Bin-Laden) to force an evil and monsterous force back from a soverign nation which was and remains our friend, Kuwait. After a twenty-two day air campaign, and a four day ground war, Saddam Hussein and Iraq were beaten and ruined. We had, in a time where one of our friends needed us, fought against a tyrant. We drove him back. The CITIZENS of America and her allies did so because we knew we were RIGHT, and rightly so.

On 11/September/2001, over 2,500 Americans died as terrorists piloted aircraft into the South and North towers of the World Trade Center, into the southeastern facing of ring E in that fortress which is the Pentagon, and attempted to attack a fourth, still unknown target and were thwarted. The CITIZENS of America were afraid, and within months we had crushed a rogue government which supported those who would treaten the CITIZENS of the USA and her allies.

And of course, in 2003, Saddam Hussein once again was beaten by America, because her CITIZENS believed that they were threatened.

You see the government, those duly elected individuals whom you and I voted for (or against) and who represent us to the rest of the nation and the world, have time and time again used the might of American industry, spirit, and military power to crush before us those who would threaten the CITIZENS of our nation. We don’t go after Islamic nations. The USA will always give a black eye and broken nose to ANYONE who dares fuck with her CITIZENS, Islamic or not. If China were to rattle its sabre at the USA, we can point to OUR uranium and plutonium tipped daggers and remind them of their place. If Russia were to ever again threaten the USA, we and our allies can line up at the border and remind them of why there is but ONE superpower and why our former enemies want to make good. And if any piss-ant Islamic nation should seek to support those who would threaten the CITIZENS of the USA and her allies, well, we’ve already got the forces in place. Why not.

Stick to countries with (a) vast petroleum supplies, and (b) governments that aren’t buddy-buddy to the US.

My crystal ball says Venezuela would be the next “emerging terrorist threat” that needs to be “liberated.”

In event of war how long would N. Korea be able to sufficently feed it’s army?

Marc

The US has already reached its invasion and occupation ‘capacity’ with a single country of 20 ish million (no one knows anymore how many live in Iraq) and “5,000” (sic) “insurgents” - and this in a country that is supposed to be, generally speaking, ‘welcoming’ of US these determined reforms.

So, given the current necessary troop rotations in Iraq and the need to call up National Guard and Reservists (unless the EU/UN bails Bush out), where would the US get the manpower from for further invasions (never mind the money, the political will, the democratic support, etc,. etc., . . . ) ?

But I think the OP knows that already . . .

We don’t have to send our troops, Werewolf of London. We can send yours.

Very passionate post, fushj00mang. There’s a little oversight, which is your 10th paragraph:

Here’s the crucial word: “believed”. And here’s the crucial bit over which you glossed: the “CITIZENS” of whom you speak weren’t threatened by Saddam. The CITIZENS believed they were threatened by Saddam because they were spun a crock. They were spun it by the highly influential “small number of warhawks”, who leveraged the legitimate outrage at the horror of 9-11 to carry out military action that they had planned for years, needed an excuse to fulfill, and that was in fact irrelevant to 9-11.

I don’t think there’ll necessarily be another invasion, at least not in this current presidential term, but all the PNAC gong-bashing about creating a “beacon of democracy” in the Middle East indicates that, to fulfill these plans, it would only be an Islamic country that would be invaded, because only Islamic countries exist in Arabia.

I’ve been wondering the same thing, Tris. Whatever happened to the classical liberals, those champions of civil liberties? Liberalism and conservatism — it has all turned into one giant compromised centrist mush. It’s just two teams in the Superbowl playing the same game for the same thing.

Congratulations! You win the ‘Don’t Know Shit About NK Military Capabilities Award’!

Blair might say otherwise but I strongy suspect his party would say ‘once bitten, twice shy’, 'luci, old cock. But thanks for the offer.
Sleep tight and regards to the Heartland.

Tris - it’ll be some years before the Bush Admin (if they win in November) gets us into another war of choice, due both to the military and the political practicalities.

In military terms, the US is stretched incredibly thin, and is forced to keep scads of National Guard units in Iraq on unusually long deployments in order to keep everything covered as it is. Militarily, we don’t have the luxury of going into another trumped-up conflict; if a genuine war breaks out (e.g. on the Korean peninsula) we’re already in iffy shape to respond. And we’ll still need to have over 100K troops in and around Iraq for the next year or two.

Politically, I think most people are aware that they were sold a bill of goods on this last war. The only thing that keeps Bush’s head above water is that Saddam really was as nasty as advertised to his own people, and even if he hadn’t represented a threat beyond his borders since 1991, enough people are willing to say it was still worth it to kick a genuinely bad guy’s ass.

But they’re not going to be so easily fooled the next time.

fush - what jjimm said.

Lib - try here - you won’t find any centrist mush.

To a large extent, we have the same problem in the UK; there is no political rallying point for dissent, no (already structured) democratic leverage by which to register concern or disagreement with this war of aggression.

Having not been particularly Compos Mentis for the last glorious example (Vietnam), I’m unclear as to how that ‘anti’ movement evolved and the time scale – seemed to take some years before it gained a structure, slogans, coherence and influence over the suited status quo.

Maybe that’s what it takes in a democracy – time – when all the major political parties are singing from the same page of Cheney’s Hymn book ?

Having said that, we are more cynical and informed and organised these days . . . yet there are no leaders.

My initial conclusion is no drafrt = no middle class/heartland devolt, with the draft = middles classes begin to turn and threatened studenthood finds its leaders.
In the meantime, Onward Capitalist Soldiers, marching as to war . . .

fushj00mang: I’ll only take issue with your first two paragraphs, and ignore the rest:

What’s this “Your post, if bracketed by the context of the title” supposed to mean? It just sounds like pretentious bullshit.

Well, yes, this is sort of obvious but also sort of useless as any kind of yardstick for measuring the utility of any given government action.

What are the needs of the citizens?

Did the citizens need Iraq to be invaded? A lot of the citizens would answer yes to that, and a lot would answer no. But not many of them have access to the information that would allow them to make a decision on their own. Most are relying on the information that came from the government in the first place. Which has been subsequently shown to be false. Get that? The government attempted to falsely tell its citizens what the needs of the citizens were.

The term “sic” doesn’t mean “please forgive me I’m not sure how to spell”. It has a specific meaning which you should look up in the dictionary, and you shouldn’t use it again until you have. It’s often used to make fun of the spelling of other people. The way you’ve used it, though, urm, I wouldn’t do it again if I were you.

revolt not devolt.