jass1960
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Posts
- 1,482
Will George W Bush go down in history as the man who started World war III?
Will he be the Adolf Hitler of the 21st Century?
Rather than exterminate Jews is his regime going to exterminate Muslims?
When Americans see the footage of Hitler preaching to the (blind) masses do they see any similarity with their present situation?
Can the American people justify pre-emptive nuclear strikes?
More questions
SIX MONTHS after the Sept. 11 attacks on America, questions are surfacing. First among them: Where will George W. Bush's world war on terrorism end?
Even as the number of flag-draped coffins being flown out of Afghanistan multiplies, the president is ordering American soldiers to the Philippines, Yemen, Colombia, Uzbekistan and the Georgia republic.
U.S. troops are detaining Afghans in Cuba at a navel base in Fidel Castro's backyard.
North Korea and Iran are part of Bush's "axis of evil," as is Iraq, widely predicted to be the target of the next U.S. military action.
Bush, buoyed by an 80 per cent approval rating from American voters, is set to continue waging his world war on terrorism throughout his term and into his 2004 re-election bid. Some pundits have begun talking about an "axis of re-election."
Like a Texas gunslinger, Bush is warning Canada and other staunch allies that they are either with the American effort or they're against it. The White House talks about coalition-building, while the world community increasingly whispers about arrogant American unilateralism.
Bush says terrorists are being harboured by 60 countries and trained at camps in several of them, including Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Lebanon.
Surely, Bush can't be thinking of invading all these nations.
"If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, it's going to keep us going beyond doomsday," Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, chairman of the appropriations committee examining the largest Pentagon budget increase in two decades, said last week.
And who defines terrorism? One country's terrorists are often another's freedom fighters and the rules can change suddenly, as they did six months ago in the White House. Are there any actions the horrific events of last Sept. 11 do not justify? Will Bush's war motivate a new generation of America-hating extremists?
But like unheeded blinking warning lights on a dashboard, most of the questions go unanswered as Bush's war machine races forward.
Bush is said to be emboldened by a widespread feeling among American voters that he should go into Iraq and "finish the job" his father began as president during the Persian Gulf War.
Powell recently told a congressional committee regarding Iraq: "There may be times when we have to act alone. We can't have our national interest constrained by the views of the coalition." That would seem to make Bush's meetings with Chrétien, Blair and other world leaders little more than photo ops.
"Arrogance, indifference to the opinions of others and a narrow approach to our national interests advocated by the new unilateralists are a sure way to undermine U.S. power"
Ivo Daalder, an analyst with the Brookings Institution think-tank, says the Bush administration has behaved just as stubbornly unilateralist after Sept. 11 as it did before on such issues as the Kyoto global-warming agreement and the international criminal court, which the White House stood virtually alone in opposing.
For example, he says, the U.S. shunned allies' offers of greater military assistance in Afghanistan because the Pentagon wanted to call all the shots.
Says Daalder: "Much of the post-Sept. 11 good will that we find around the world, including Europe, has begun to dissipate and will likely disappear altogether if the United States were rash enough to take military action" against Iraq on its own.
In the meantime, the Bush administration hasn't wavered from its course of trying to win over global opinion by making its case against Saddam, alleging that Iraq is rebuilding its military and has ties to the Al Qaeda terrorists.
And Baghdad is steeling itself for battle. Saddam reportedly has held senior government meetings to plan for a U.S. attack and his deputy, Tarik Aziz, has promised "another Vietnam" should the U.S. invade his country.
"In a war against the United States, each town will become another Vietnamese jungle," Aziz told the French daily Le Figaro.
"It would not be a military walkover for the United States ... The option of surrendering is excluded."
Philip Gordon, a former director of the National Security Council and now a Brookings scholar, warns that most Americans vastly underestimate the cost and commitment required to defeat Saddam.
They might like the sound of deposing Saddam, Gordon says, but they won't like what they see once a long, brutal war begins.
"Absent compelling evidence of significant Iraqi involvement in the Al Qaeda network or the events of Sept. 11, the likely costs and risks of a commitment of American military forces to a regime change campaign in Iraq would outweigh the benefits."
Gordon's list of costs includes: paying for a large-scale military operation with very little assistance from allied troops; the risk of triggering terrorist attacks on American soil in response; the likelihood of "significant" U.S. casualties, given Iraq's access to chemical and biological weapons; and the need for a long-term American presence, perhaps a decade, in Iraq once Saddam is deposed, to avoid regional destabilization.
So many questions about the Bush world war on terrorism remain. A global community, braced for more violence and bloodshed, awaits answers.
Edited from an article in the Toronto star by William Walker
Will he be the Adolf Hitler of the 21st Century?
Rather than exterminate Jews is his regime going to exterminate Muslims?
When Americans see the footage of Hitler preaching to the (blind) masses do they see any similarity with their present situation?
Can the American people justify pre-emptive nuclear strikes?
More questions
SIX MONTHS after the Sept. 11 attacks on America, questions are surfacing. First among them: Where will George W. Bush's world war on terrorism end?
Even as the number of flag-draped coffins being flown out of Afghanistan multiplies, the president is ordering American soldiers to the Philippines, Yemen, Colombia, Uzbekistan and the Georgia republic.
U.S. troops are detaining Afghans in Cuba at a navel base in Fidel Castro's backyard.
North Korea and Iran are part of Bush's "axis of evil," as is Iraq, widely predicted to be the target of the next U.S. military action.
Bush, buoyed by an 80 per cent approval rating from American voters, is set to continue waging his world war on terrorism throughout his term and into his 2004 re-election bid. Some pundits have begun talking about an "axis of re-election."
Like a Texas gunslinger, Bush is warning Canada and other staunch allies that they are either with the American effort or they're against it. The White House talks about coalition-building, while the world community increasingly whispers about arrogant American unilateralism.
Bush says terrorists are being harboured by 60 countries and trained at camps in several of them, including Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Lebanon.
Surely, Bush can't be thinking of invading all these nations.
"If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, it's going to keep us going beyond doomsday," Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, chairman of the appropriations committee examining the largest Pentagon budget increase in two decades, said last week.
And who defines terrorism? One country's terrorists are often another's freedom fighters and the rules can change suddenly, as they did six months ago in the White House. Are there any actions the horrific events of last Sept. 11 do not justify? Will Bush's war motivate a new generation of America-hating extremists?
But like unheeded blinking warning lights on a dashboard, most of the questions go unanswered as Bush's war machine races forward.
Bush is said to be emboldened by a widespread feeling among American voters that he should go into Iraq and "finish the job" his father began as president during the Persian Gulf War.
Powell recently told a congressional committee regarding Iraq: "There may be times when we have to act alone. We can't have our national interest constrained by the views of the coalition." That would seem to make Bush's meetings with Chrétien, Blair and other world leaders little more than photo ops.
"Arrogance, indifference to the opinions of others and a narrow approach to our national interests advocated by the new unilateralists are a sure way to undermine U.S. power"
Ivo Daalder, an analyst with the Brookings Institution think-tank, says the Bush administration has behaved just as stubbornly unilateralist after Sept. 11 as it did before on such issues as the Kyoto global-warming agreement and the international criminal court, which the White House stood virtually alone in opposing.
For example, he says, the U.S. shunned allies' offers of greater military assistance in Afghanistan because the Pentagon wanted to call all the shots.
Says Daalder: "Much of the post-Sept. 11 good will that we find around the world, including Europe, has begun to dissipate and will likely disappear altogether if the United States were rash enough to take military action" against Iraq on its own.
In the meantime, the Bush administration hasn't wavered from its course of trying to win over global opinion by making its case against Saddam, alleging that Iraq is rebuilding its military and has ties to the Al Qaeda terrorists.
And Baghdad is steeling itself for battle. Saddam reportedly has held senior government meetings to plan for a U.S. attack and his deputy, Tarik Aziz, has promised "another Vietnam" should the U.S. invade his country.
"In a war against the United States, each town will become another Vietnamese jungle," Aziz told the French daily Le Figaro.
"It would not be a military walkover for the United States ... The option of surrendering is excluded."
Philip Gordon, a former director of the National Security Council and now a Brookings scholar, warns that most Americans vastly underestimate the cost and commitment required to defeat Saddam.
They might like the sound of deposing Saddam, Gordon says, but they won't like what they see once a long, brutal war begins.
"Absent compelling evidence of significant Iraqi involvement in the Al Qaeda network or the events of Sept. 11, the likely costs and risks of a commitment of American military forces to a regime change campaign in Iraq would outweigh the benefits."
Gordon's list of costs includes: paying for a large-scale military operation with very little assistance from allied troops; the risk of triggering terrorist attacks on American soil in response; the likelihood of "significant" U.S. casualties, given Iraq's access to chemical and biological weapons; and the need for a long-term American presence, perhaps a decade, in Iraq once Saddam is deposed, to avoid regional destabilization.
So many questions about the Bush world war on terrorism remain. A global community, braced for more violence and bloodshed, awaits answers.
Edited from an article in the Toronto star by William Walker
So here's a proper response
