those wicked americans

[Guest lazyphil]

<

 

 

kind of but the british were far more effective in empire building on the british isles and overseas. hitler was too clumsey.

 

[Steve]

I was OK with most US intervention up until that....such a dumb thing to do....even Cheney said it was a bad idea in '94. Then came 911 and the rest is history. Now I think the US will find a reason to stay in Iraq no matter who's president.

I was actually against the earlier invasion as well as it was (to me at least) all about Kuwaiti oil and protecting the Saudis from Iraqi aggression.

Perhaps this invasion is about oil but to me it is not as clear cut as the earlier one.

As for continued involvement, I can't see it due to public sentiment. The last congressional shift to the Dems was a vote of no confidence in the war and the president.

Sometimes we think the president is a king and rules unilaterally. He can't declare or fund wars without the congress. Simple as that.

[Steve]

basically they have shown to China and Russia that they do not have armed forces to fight 2 low level wars against 3rd world opponents, so don't worry about the US in future. but more importantly shown (once again) the US lacks the will to fight a war.........going to come back to haunt the US.

 

 

Agree with the latter (will to fight) if the reason isn't important enough. Given a good reason I think the U.S. will show great resilliance and staying power like in WW2 after it became evident of how grave the Nazi danger was. They and the Japanese posed a threat to us domestically. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq didn't and hence no long term public support.

 

As for the former. China and Russia can only defend itself or invade neighbors. Only the U.S. (of the superpowers) has the capability to fight a war thousands of miles from home. They know that. China doesn't have the capability 'project' its military power halfway around the globe.

[Steve]

If America had split off, from Great Britain, in 1876 instead of 1776, there probably would be a parlimentary rather than republic system, which is more democratic. Bush would have probably been sent packing last year. In fact, he probably would never have been president since there would be no electoral college and opportunity to steal the election in 2000, despite losing the popular vote.

 

Or, if America was still part of Great Britan, we''d have free health insurance. A lot less people would be bancrupt for getting sick.

 

...and we'd have adopted 'football' and it would be us instead of Brazil with 5 world cups!! :smirk:

 

[Steve]

[quote name=TheCorinthian

BTW' date=' wasn't it the UK that created Israel?[/quote]

 

That was God according to the Bible, unless you consider them one and the same. :smirk:

[Steve]

The UK also created Iraq.

 

..but made up for it with 'soccer'

 

Up The Arsenal!!

[Steve]

I had a professor who urged the West to stay out of the Middle East. He insisted that if left alone, the Sunnis, Shiites et al. would indeed eventually kill each other off.

 

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination but I've long said that on here as well. They'll unite to some extent over a common enemy (Crusaders, U.S. invasion) but have always fought among themselves.

 

Left alone, Iran and the shia in Syria will act against the Saudi royal family who they believe are unworthy keepers of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

[Steve]

What I would like to see happen is the U.S. England and the rest that are there, approach the Arab League and get them to be the peacekeeping force. They are much better suited to deal with insurgants as they are dealing with fellow Arabs, etc. and can tell accents, etc.

Make the situation an Arab/moslem one to extract us totally from it.

[chuckwoww]

As for continued involvement, I can't see it due to public sentiment. The last congressional shift to the Dems was a vote of no confidence in the war and the president.

Sometimes we think the president is a king and rules unilaterally. He can't declare or fund wars without the congress. Simple as that.

 

I wish I shared your faith in congress CS. It looks to me like they are beholden to the defence industry just like the Whitehouse.

 

An Arab peace keeping force? With Libya and Syria and the Saudis? Or just the Egyptians and the Jordanians? Who would be in charge?

 

[Steve]

I'd let them figure it out. Possibly the 3 areas (shia, sunni middle and kurdish north) will 'choose' who they want. My guess is Syria and Iran will want to send 'peacekeeping' forces to the shia areas in the south. Egyptians in the Sunni middle perhaps or in the north. It will be safe to say Turkish troops won't be in the north.