Turn on thread page Beta

US Policy - What is Americas next target watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    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)

    You make it sound like the US is "collecting" states perceived to be volatile, which is a misguided view. There were motives behind both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.

    Any state which becomes a danger to the rest of the world shall be addressed through means, be it diplomatic, political or militarily on the basis of need - not to expand US land stake in the Middle East (which the comment about linking Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to be suggesting).

    In fact, by the very nature of the 'War on Terrorism', the next target for the US, may be the US itself, or an equally amicable Western nation. Homeland security is very much a significant issue in this war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    whats immoral about giving aid where its needed?
    here here.

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    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.
    Yes. That post is cold and cynical. but certainly valid ! Since you are right, i think. I think there will be another Chapter in Bush's book on War on Terrorism - but only if he AND Blair win the upcoming (not in the UK since he keeps delaying!!) elections.

    Yes, Mr Brown did earmark £2bn fo the war. It has far exceeded that due to having to buy new equipment since current stuff doesnt work!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    what's wrong with sending soldiers to die for lies ? That's another issue.
    Out of curiosity, what is wrong with backing up your statements?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    whats immoral about giving aid where its needed?
    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...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Out of curiosity, what is wrong with backing up your statements?
    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".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    and what about Israel?
    What about it? Aid is pumped into it for political/strategic reasons. There isn't really much to debate about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    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".
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    What about it? Aid is pumped into it for political/strategic reasons. There isn't really much to debate about.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Threatening America's strategeic interests and posing a threat to the United States itself is not altogether the same thing. I appreciate what you are trying to say however.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    What about it? Aid is pumped into it for political/strategic reasons.
    indirectly yes, like pretty much every other countries need for aid is a result of a political position or situation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    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.
    The US didnt show such ideological righteousness when it assasinated the democratically elected Chilean head of state Salvado (I think that was his name) in 1974.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    indirectly yes, like pretty much every other countries need for aid is a result of a political position or situation.
    Thats a pretty weak arguement for saying its OK. If everyone was jumping off the top of cliffs, would you do it?!?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    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.
    Israel is supported for strategic reasons. The fact that is a democracy does indeed matter but in a strategic sense, not a moral one. I don't think any rational look at U.S policy over the last 20 or so years could conclude that regimes are supported for 'moral' reasons, it's pretty much always for strategic ones. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to try to argue that America is alone in this respect, they operate in the same way as pretty much ever other major power the world has ever seen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    Thats a pretty weak arguement for saying its OK. If everyone was jumping off the top of cliffs, would you do it?!?
    if jumping off cliffs was the right thing to do, yes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    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 he was such a major threat to the US, why did the US arm him to the teeth with such destructive weapons!?! One of the major causes of the Kuwaiti invasion was that Saddams army had been armed up to such an incredible strength by the US (in comparison to the state of the Iraqi army previously) that Saddam himself had become anxious about the capability of his army to overthrow him. To keep them occupied he invaded Kuwait, believing that such action wouldnt cause the uproar it eventually did. Saddam admitted this himself and I am sure he will clarify this in his "trial".

    Saddam only became a danger to the US when he openly declared his intentions of attacking Israel (with the weaponry acquired from the US in order to fight the Iran-Iraq war). The US, in full knowledge of the importance of the Israelli alliance in the middle-east, began to propagate the view of Saddam as an enemy and as a threat to the "free world". From this point on, in reality war was always on the cards, regardless of the actual threat to the US.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    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.
    i said reasons as a result of political-strategical situations.
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.