War...Where Next?

[antagon]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

 

[topspin]

No Iran is next, republiKlans are blood lusters, as long as they don't have to do the fighting.

 

[logical4u]

As long as we have what other nations/dictators want, we will be at war. When we have nothing, we will be ignored.

 

[midcan5]

Let's see, Vatican City is small as far as nations go, but that will rile up the Catholics, and our SCOTUS is mostly Catholic, hm, how about Monaco, nah, Grace Kelly was beautiful, we just can't invade romantic places, how about Nauru, should be easy, small, one bomb would probably suffice, we could have the GOP all decked out like Bush was on a carrier with Mission Accomplished signs everywhere. Now what is they did? We need another Colin Powell speech. And then we will feel better like Reagan and Granada. Isn't war great.


"'The Culture of Contentment' is a deliberate misnomer. Galbraith is using irony here, irony little short of sarcasm. What he really means is the culture of smugness. His argument is that until the mid 1970s round about the oil crisis the western democracies accepted the idea of a mixed economy and with that went economic social progress. Since then, however, a prominent class has emerged, materially stable and even very rich, which, far from trying to help the less fortunate, has developed a whole infrastructure - politically and intellectually - to marginalize and even demonize them. Aspects of this include tax reductions to the better off and welfare cuts to the worst off, small 'manageable wars' to maintain the unifying force of a common enemy, the idea of 'unmitigated laissez-faire as embodiment of freedom,' and a desire for cutback in government. The most important collective end result of all this, Galbraith says, is a blindness and a deafness among the 'contented' to the growing problems of society. While they are content to spend, or have spent in their name, trillions of dollars to defeat relatively minor enemy figures.... they are extremely unwilling to spend money on the underclass nearer home. In a startling paragraph he quotes figures to show that 'the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 28% in just 10 years from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32 million in 1988 by then nearly one in five children was born in poverty in the United States more than twice as high a proportion as in Canada or Germany." Peter Watson

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Contentment-Penguin-economics-Galbraith/dp/0140173668/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Culture of Contentment, the (Penguin economics) (9780140173666): John Kenneth Galbraith: Books[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

I think the next armed conflict will come as a shock to Americans like Afghanistan did for so many. When I first heard of the possibility of military action in Afghanistan, I went to a map to see where it was located. I say Korea is a likely spot or any country where we have close ties and it is threaten.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the Republicans regain control of Congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012 and do so by continuing to block efforts by Obama to get our economy moving again and are successful, the answer will be very clear by the summer of 2013.
A crisis will require American military response, it maybe at home or in South America or the Middle East or Africa ((think Reichstag fire; Feb 1933; yellow cake in 2003).
I don't pretend to be prescient, but as the man said, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

 

[LibocalypseNow]

We have been at War constantly for the last two hundred years. There have only been brief respites during this two hundred year War. This age-old Empire-building policy isn't just gonna go away in an instant. I think minds are changing but this is happening very slowly. Someday most will firmly believe in a Non-Interventionist and Neutral Foreign Policy. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen anytime soon. The Globalists/Interventionists are currently entrenched in power all over the World. They truly believe in it like one does a religion. We've been bombing someone somewhere non-stop around the clock for the last 60yrs. I don't think most Americans can even remember a time when we weren't bombing someone somewhere. It's ingrained in our being.

Most people cannot allow themselves to even consider a Non-Interventionist neutral Foreign Policy. They have been indoctrinated with interventionist War propaganda all their lives. So it's not their fault that they can't even consider the possibility of a Non-Interventionist foreign policy. They just don't know anything else. They throw those old & tired labels at you like "Isolationist" and "Protectionist" because that's what they've been taught to do as part of their defense mechanism. They really don't know any better in the end. It is kind of sad. We will only achieve real peace & prosperity for our people when most decide it's time to end this long War. We probably wont be around to see that day but i'm optimistic that day will come. So where will the next War be? Who knows? I just know that there will be one.

 

[cad]

the world would be a much better place if thre us would just stop bombing everyone.

let n. korea destroy s. korea. fuck em. what did they ever do for us? they don't even have oil.

let iran get a nuke and destroy israel. those jews deserve it. we are all palestinians.

we need to stop killing people so greedy ceo's can make millions and turning our workers into slaves and sending our jobs to china.

 

[uscitizen]

About time to invade Grenada again? I think we could afford that one.

 

[Coyote]

We've had the War on Poverty

the War on Drugs


I say, given the recent news - the next step is the War on Bedbugs.

 

[antagon]

there seems to be an association between war and republicans. while republicans are the neoconservatives of the day, i argue that the US government is predisposed to warfare as an obligation to our interests, and that our war policy runs on rails if you will. in that way, i'm not sure if the party or personality at the helm really matters much in terms of if or where. i think how and how it will be perceived is the biggest variable an R or D could contribute.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

there seems to be an association between war and republicans. while republicans are the neoconservatives of the day, i argue that the US government is predisposed to warfare as an obligation to our interests, and that our war policy runs on rails if you will. in that way, i'm not sure if the party or personality at the helm really matters much in terms of if or where. i think how and how it will be perceived is the biggest variable an R or D could contribute.

Yes the two political parties are controlled by die-hard Globalists/Interventionists. It doesn't matter which one is in power. They believe in the same concept at the end of the day. We've been constantly bombing someone somewhere for the last 60yrs. This constant bombing campaign has been carried out by both Democrats & Republicans. It really isn't about the two political parties. It's about a belief. They both truly believe in Globalism/Interventionism like one does a religion.

 

[WillowTree]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

The US has declared war on Arizona. Where the fuck have you been? Idiot.

 

[WillowTree]

there seems to be an association between war and republicans. while republicans are the neoconservatives of the day, i argue that the US government is predisposed to warfare as an obligation to our interests, and that our war policy runs on rails if you will. in that way, i'm not sure if the party or personality at the helm really matters much in terms of if or where. i think how and how it will be perceived is the biggest variable an R or D could contribute.

And pray tell who is conducting wars on three fronts presently? Idiot.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

The US has declared war on Arizona. Where the fuck have you been? Idiot.

Unfortunately you're right. Socialists do tend to declare War on their own people. This is the case in every nation ruled by Socialists/Communists. Declaring War on Arizona reminds of how they declared War on their own people at Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's very sad & tragic.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The insane warhawks in Israel will most likely force the U.S. hand in Iran although the Obama administration has become more hawkish as of late. So without a doubt the next war will be Iran which also means Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the U.S. and possibly more involved.

 

[antagon]

there seems to be an association between war and republicans. while republicans are the neoconservatives of the day, i argue that the US government is predisposed to warfare as an obligation to our interests, and that our war policy runs on rails if you will. in that way, i'm not sure if the party or personality at the helm really matters much in terms of if or where. i think how and how it will be perceived is the biggest variable an R or D could contribute.

And pray tell who is conducting wars on three fronts presently? Idiot.

i know you are desperate to to take your simpleton's partisan angle on our history at war, to include the conflicts we're engaged in now.

one thing idiots like myself have acknowledged, and which escapes great partisan minds like yourself, is that we've stormed into war with bipartisan support since 1812.

 

[WillowTree]

there seems to be an association between war and republicans. while republicans are the neoconservatives of the day, i argue that the US government is predisposed to warfare as an obligation to our interests, and that our war policy runs on rails if you will. in that way, i'm not sure if the party or personality at the helm really matters much in terms of if or where. i think how and how it will be perceived is the biggest variable an R or D could contribute.

And pray tell who is conducting wars on three fronts presently? Idiot.

i know you are desperate to to take your simpleton's partisan angle on our history at war, to include the conflicts we're engaged in now.

one thing idiots like myself have acknowledged, and which escapes great partisan minds like yourself, is that we've stormed into war with bipartisan support since 1812.

this somewhat differs from your previous confabulations that war is associated with Republicans.


Idiot.

 

[antagon]

The insane warhawks in Israel will most likely force the U.S. hand in Iran although the Obama administration has become more hawkish as of late. So without a doubt the next war will be Iran which also means Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the U.S. and possibly more involved.

iran is a popular pick. we will have residual presence in afghanistan and in iraq for the next decade, perhaps. will it suffice to have them surrounded? all that will be required is russia's cooperation with regard to having serious sanction power there.

i think that a regime change conflict with iran will be a 'real war'. with no intention to play down the sacrifices of troops in iraq and afghanistan, the losses and the very application of force in those theaters have been minor relative to what would be required to take pull an iraq on iran.

if we starve iran for many years, or could draw them into a cursory disarmament in advance of an invasion as we did with iraq in the 90s, iran would be a more bite-sized target.

i dont think there's an interest in the mideast/sowest asia that could justify more than a bite-sized action; i imagine that iran would be assaulted in phases one bite at a time, rather than a fell swoop of regime change.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I think that the destruction of Iran and the hell storm it will create in it's aftermath will come sooner than later based on what I've been noticing.