What next goal is Bush?
 

I am afraid if the North Korea is nest one. Then I don't know if we wil help NK to fight with the USA. I don't hope any war break out again. Every soldier is mother and father's child. I don't want to see the depressed faces and many people lose their home.

It seems like the idea of using regional players to apply pressure against N. Korea is working.

I doubt the Bush doctrine of preemption applies to NK ... They don't seem to have the same connections to terrorism that were vaunted in Iraq.

-sm

I agree, Billy. I hate the way Bush is going around bullying everyone, trying to "clean up" the world.

It's all about fear. Many people in America have been whipped up into a frenzy of fear ever since the World Trade Center attack. It was only one attack, not likely to be duplicated again, but when people are gripped with fear, they don't listen to reason. Then, the fear brings on mass paranoia, and people start looking for other potential threats.

It's all really stupid, and I can't wait to vote against Bush next year.

I agree with you, Juju
 

Juju, I like what you said. The war can not resolve problems. The peaceful dialogue only have influence on problems. Bush would build bad relations with many countries.

The Iraqi war has solved a number of really terrible problems.

Many people died in the war
 

In fact, there may be few terrorists in Iraq. They would escape other countries before the war.

The truth is that more than 100 the US and UK army soldiers diead. More Iraqi everage people have no houses to come back, many people died and lost their families. I would cried when I saw the children wound and died. My heart broke and I can do nothing. Bless God for the peaceful world.

The only problem the Iraq war has solved is the human rights abuses permitted and endorsed by Saddam Hussein's regime. This is the one great, good thing that has come from this war.

Other than that, we are in deeper water now than we were a couple years ago.

The King is dead! Long live George! World domination is too good for you French-loving, anti-American, pro-Hussein Commu-Terrorists.

Hm. Politics forum. Maybe sarcasm's not the way to go.

Don't mind me. I'm just bitter I missed The Daily Show.

Iran anyone?
 

HAHAHA! And the idiocy within the Administration rearts its ugly head once again!
I'm a cynic of sorts, and as I read the rhetoric coming out of the White House right now, I think, "Come on, no one is going to buy this shit for a THIRD time are they!?" The only problem is, it worked the first two times. Crap on a crutch.
Anyone want to place bets on when GWB overextends himself and the Armed Forces take it on the nose because they don't have enough folks where they need them?

Just exactly how much North Korea is a threat is debatable, but Bush and company know Kim Jong-Il has the firepower to back up his threats, so force is not an option. If North Korea does anything overtly stupid, I don't think China would step in to defend them.

China seems much more interested in trade than anything else right now. And, NO, the spyplane did NOT almost start a war with China. It was at worst an international incident. Once again, America and China were more interested in peace and trade.

I don't think anyone is going to stand for Bush "freeing" any more middle eastern countries. The result in Iraq, although good in the long run, was possible only because no one liked or would overtly support Saddam Hussein.

Wow, that's the most naive comment I've heard in a long time. What expert intelligence information do you have access to that suggests such an attack could not likely be duplicated? Please, do share.

"Permitted and endorsed"? You make it sound so passive. We took out a murdering, torturing, power-hungry despot and his cronies. Although hundreds of innocent civilians were probably injured or killed during the war, that pales in comparison to how many would have been beaten, tortured, raped, and killed had we done nothing. That alone justifies the relatively small price of going to war.

And how exactly are we in "deeper water" now? Care to be a little more specific?

Were you referring to the collateral count here? If so I agree. If not, I don't think we know what the "cost" is yet.:confused:

I think it would be more important to ask "What are the goals of Bush's advisors?" Bush picked a lot of 'seasoned' policy makers, some of whom served with his father.

One reason 'nice guy' presidents like Carter, Reagan, and now G.W. Bush have problems is that they really seem to have a hard time with the issue of 'hidden agenda'. While some people had a real problem with 'slick Willy' Clinton, I think that most people would agree that Clinton was clever enough to take opinions from those around him in context to the person holding them. He led his advisors instead of being led by them.

A nice guy like G.W. Bush has a lot of friends, many of whom are influential and powerful business leaders. He has staffed himself with older, powerful men, some of whom have some very solidified views on the future of the US in the world. It would take a very clever, self-assured, and disciplined individual to be able to listen to all sides, find the shades of gray in what can be presented as black-and-white issues, reject the advice of men his father trusted and respected, and even accept compromise when necessary.

I personally don't think G.W. Bush has the chops for it. Which makes me look more to his trusted advisors on future US policy. The only problem is that the men and women who are the voices of moderation, compromise, and de-escalation, are people like Powell, who, while a very competent general, is inexperienced in the position for which he has been chosen and who, in my opinion, is not being listened to enough.

I will grant that almost all US presidents go in weak on foreign policy. You can pick a governor or someone in the national and state legislature, and that person will have had experience with domestic issues. But unless you automatically elect a former US vice president or someone who was on the right Congressional committees, it is hard to find a candidate with a lot of foreign policy experience.

So most presidents need advice on foreign policy. The only problem is that I think this adminstration is taking less and less foreign policy advice from the state department and more from the pentagon and the hawkish crowd of conservative freaks that make up GWB's inner circle.

BTW, I have full ranting rights here because I am eligible to vote and choose to do so. I my opinion, anyone who can vote and chooses not to shouldn't gripe too loud or too often about the choices of the rest of us who did. The hard core conservatives will certainly be bringing out the vote. If moderates and liberals do not have the will to match them, then by Darwinian rules they deserve to win. I do not even suggest that the person vote for the candidate most likely to beat GWB in the next election. Just that they make a public choice and vote their conscience.

Kudos! I believe you've nailed it.:beer:
I've had people tell me they don't vote because their vote doesn't make any difference. When I point out Florida and other even closer examples, they often admit to not really digging into the issues. I tell them to just pick out the main points and make their decision on them. Even if you get it wrong, at least a good turnout may convince the pols that we are watching what they do.