US Policy - What is Americas next target

I think next on Dubya's hit-list will be Syria, Somalia or Iran. Not Korea though, i think Bush actually recognises that there's not a lot he can do about the fact they have WMD, and is banking, probably wisely, on a policy of MAD to deal with Korea, in the hope that the admisitrations can come to some agreement.

Iran, Syria and Somalia are obvious choices for invasion/liberation/messsing with/American aid and so i'm sure that, after the election, and when Iraq is seen to be more stable, he will spin his little globe and let it stop under his finger. Will the issue of natural resources come into his decision ? Almost certainly. I just hope this time he tells us that he is going to war for those reasons - and not as Mr Blair suggested- to find WMD.

I am happy to see British/American soldiers in conflict for a rightful cause, that's what they signed up for, but i cannot suffer the death of many over a decitful war once more.

OK people. I was wondering where is likely to be the next target of the "War On Terrorism", where do you guys think is or do you think there won't be another war?

I saw a while ago a list of Americas targets (drawn up by the US government), on it the following were included (there were others but I forgot about them):

Iraq (pre Gulf War take 2)
Iran (I think)
North Korea
Cuba (This has gone too far)

whats immoral about giving aid where its needed?

From a purely politcal perspective, I doubt the Bush and Blair governments would want to rush into any other battles in the war on terror as Iraq is leaving the armed forces stretched (just look at recent articles claiming that the overdeployment of troops in the war on terror has left the UK dangerously open to attack on our soil). Besides, during the innevitable humanitarian missions of reconstruction, it is likely that small militias will continue their efforts like in Iraq and create a steady stream of dead soldiers which is not politically beneficial.

Finally, all out war is a very costly business (correct me if I'm wrong, but Gordon Brown said he had earmarked £2 billion for the war before it started). If such vast sums of money are taken from public services, they are likely to suffer and this is again politically detrimental.

Sorry if that post was a bit cold, but I wanted to take a purely cynical point of view for once.

what's wrong with sending soldiers to die for lies ? That's another issue.

whats immoral about giving aid where its needed?

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with backing up your statements?

I'm sure no-one questions that there is nothing wrong with aid where it is needed - infact most would consider it desirable. However, the wasting of precious resources - which could be dedicated to the production of food, homes and schools - on military equipment and palaces for governments who are strategically important to US politico-economic ambitions is a different matter...

and what about Israel?

Although its not my point, I can back up his for him. US soldiers were sent into war on the justification that there were WMD in Iraq which posed a threat to the US. There clearly were no WMD in Iraq, and looking at the weakness of evidence to say there was WMD in Iraq, it can easily be concluded that the authorities who declared war knew this, or at least must have had a very large inkling that none existed. Thus when Blair and Bush went before their respective electorates and said there are definitely WMD in Iraq and we must invade them to remove this threat, they were lying as they knew the weakness of the "evidence".

What about it? Aid is pumped into it for political/strategic reasons. There isn't really much to debate about.

What about it? Aid is pumped into it for political/strategic reasons.

It is also for moral reasons. Israel's a democracy, which is one of the key moral values of the US. This is part of the reason for it being supported.

indirectly yes, like pretty much every other countries need for aid is a result of a political position or situation.

It is also for moral reasons. Israel's a democracy, which is one of the key moral values of the US. This is part of the reason for it being supported.

Thats a pretty weak arguement for saying its OK. If everyone was jumping off the top of cliffs, would you do it?!?

The idea that Saddam posed no threat to the US is just absurd. He'd started a major war against Iran , invaded Kuwait precipitating retaliation b a 1/2 million strong UN force, launched ballistic missiles at Israel (which is known to get twitchy when under attack and has nuclear weapons), and used chemical weapons. All in the middle of arguably the most strategically important region in the world to the Yanks.

if jumping off cliffs was the right thing to do, yes.

But you havent enlightened us as to why giving aid for political-strategic reasons is "right", you've simply told us that everyone else does it.