Geezer

With his State of the Union address, George Dubbya has made clear his intentions. Afghanistan and Iraq have done nothing to satisfy his appetite to control the oil flow from the middle east.

He openly states now that Syria and Iran are next, whatever that means. I think we probably know though.

It truly amazed me that the US public voted this jerk in again. It pretty much vindicates the world view of the average American unfortunately.

Now, how long is it since the last presidential assasination?........................

Geezer

OllyK

Dunno but if you are planning something can you practice using "el presidente Tone" please??

GWB scares the crap out of me. The most powerful nation in the world, supposed to be secular government and the guy at the top is asking his god for guidance on stuff. TBH I'd be even more worried if he admitted to actually getting answers as well. Things were scarey with Regan and his astrologers, but this is going to a new level!

Leslie

Yes we certainly should be, and nothing will happen from this to control him.

Les

farmer1

Personnaly I think he is a perfectly sensible man, he realises his country relies on oil, he knows they haven't got much left.

So why shouldn't he go for as much as he can, while he's got the chance.

Neil Smalley

Tis diplomatic posturing. The US has'nt got the millitary to take on Syria and Iran in the next four years.

To me, it was a lot scarier iin the late 70's and 80's with the US and USSR sabre rattling and fighting with each other by proxy.

At least this time there's not 4000+ nukes that could go flying in each direction. We tend to forget just how much fear the cold war invoked in the general public. It's is interesting to note that even when the UK had 600 soviet SS20's aimed at it, and the IRA targetting British cities we had more freedom of movement and expression than we do now...

Geezer

I would say the US has plenty of military to take them on.

What I would find more worrying is that if the US continues to exert it's influence in the region, someone with a bit more clout might start to take interest.

It is not in the worlds interest to have the US in such a strong position. It wouldn't be the first time that the US would have clashed with another superpower over it's meddling.

Interesting (and scary) times

Geezer

ozzy

Scary times for who? I certainly don't feel any less secure here in the UK than I did before Sept 11th. I feel the lack of our own control on crime is more scary than what the US gets up to.

If you're serving in the Armed Forces then it would be a different matter. Blair's blind following of Bush is bound to get our troops into more trouble in the future. But, at the end of the day, it's the nature of the job and comes with the territory.

The US has a large military, but there's only so much they can do. If the start getting sent to different areas then they'll not have time to rest battle-hardened troops. Ones that were sent on 6 mth tours have probably already done 3 times that by now.

It also costs LOTS, so can they really afford more invasions financially as well as in sheer number of troops.

The US media is already talking about recruitment numbers being at all time lows.

Stefan

dtriggs

Whether they have the Military might available or not isnt really the point. No doubt they have an army big enough to attack them - but the casualties would be immense and Bush must surely realise that. Syria would be a bad move but Iran is a big country with alot of money - Iraq had no airforce and no real air defences after years of US control. Iran is totally different - US planes wouldnt get close to them without losing alot of aircraft.

How can Bush say that Iran is 'the primary sponsor of state terror'. Is that like Iraq was a main supporter of AL Qaeda, when in fact they werent ? He talks utter rubbish.

gsm1

Part of the business of being in Iraq is to get the Iraqis to do their fighting for them in that region.
But I don't believe America will ever do to Iran what they did to Iraq. Iraq was weak and they knew it while telling Joe Public that it was a great threat.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Not strictly true. Iraq's airforce was indeed poor, but their air defence network was -at one point- one of the best. Hence the extensive use of Cruise and HARM at the beginning of the Gulf conflicts.

ozzy

The problem with a large military power is they can't easily respond or fight guerilla tactics employed by small outfits. They made the mistake of thinking they could just walk into Iraq and fight traditional battles.

They're also not the greatest country for winning friends.

Maybe they've learned from their mistakes and their tactics will be different in Iran or Syria or whichever country has the next pot of gold (or should that be oil).

Stefan

SJ_Skyline

02/August/1990:
More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers backed up by 700 tanks invaded the Gulf state of Kuwait in the early hours of this morning.... source

20/March/2003:
American missiles have hit the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, signalling the start of the US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein.... source


Conclusion:
It's ok to invade and ocupy a country if you are American and you don't agreee with the other countrys policies.....


I remember being scared of global nuclear destruction as a teenager in the 80's, I don't feel any safer now. I do feel betrayed by our government who I feel has lied to us in order to re-assert their authority over us.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Yes, we and the wider world should be very worried that a trigger happy loon is running the worlds biggest superpower.

Its sad to think that Superpowers invade less powerful countries for their resources etc.



Bob

unclebuck

Rather ironic that he claims his 'mission' is to rid the world of tyranny.

Leslie

I was heavily involved in the cold war of course and spent a good deal of my life on quick reaction stand-by in case someone was silly enough to start the final world war.

It was a worry of course knowing about the gross overkill capabilities of each side and knowing that should it happen then you could kiss the world goodbye!

It was this fact that saved us all in those times since no one was prepared to initiate the the end of life on this planet. At the time the cold war ended it was said by informed commentators that the world would become a more dangerous place. That has turned out to be an accurate prediction and the posturing that is going on at the moment is doing nothing to improve the situation.

Oil will be the major factor and maybe water supplies in the future as well. There is nothing to feel safe about at the moment and we must hope that the "hawks" can be contained and that no country feels that it is in a position to become the top of the pile.

Leaders who are after more and more power as well as essential supplies to maintain their policies are not too fussy about how many people get eliminated in the process their own or the enemy.

Les

ozzy

Why should you feel scared though? Does it stop you going out, does it make you ill with worry?

I agree that Bush is a nutcase and all his bullsh!t about ridding the world of tyrants is laughable when he's imposing America's beliefs and interests on others outside of his own country. We did it when building our Empire, but at least we didn't hide behind the vail that it was as freedom fighters.

There are risks, but I don't agree that we're actually at any more risk in the UK than we were before. The media and politicians have a canny knack of getting their own way through scare tactics.

When you actually look for hard evidence with all these so-called terrorist threats or "sleeper cells" (yeah, right) there is none. I very much doubt there is an organisation called Al Queda. It's just a group of independant terrorists (which already existed) that have decided that they can now carry out their plans under this bogus title.

The name's went from a small group of terrorists to a sweeping statement to try to show the World that everyone is threatened by the same people.

I don't believe it myself. There maybe threats in the world, but I think they're following their own agendas and we've created the excusese for them.

MJW

George W Bush doesn't give a flying fig about ending tyranny - that's just a load of hot air to appease the (sometimes) gullible and increasingly nationalistic US public. Notice that the countries where he wants to 'end tyranny' ie. Syria, Iran, Jordan form a buffer around Iraq - home of the second largest oil reserves on the planet. His tactic is similar to that of Stalin where he formed a buffer of countries between the USSR and Europe.
He doesn't really care much for countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe whose residents live in perpetual fear and terror as there is nothing to gain financially or tactically by performing a 'regime change'.

The largest reserve of oil in the world is situated in Russia, and while Russia is still quite militarily strong, and totally impractical to invade, its on the decline. As soon as its on its knees and Iraq has been bled dry, I'm quite sure there will suddenly be a 'human rights issue' or 'aiding and abetting terrorists' situation which necessitates the presence of a quarter of a million US troops there ...

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

And, I'm surprised no-one else has pointed out, Israel!
But of course, there are no human rights problems with THOSE boys, are there?

Alcazar

Brendan Hughes

**** Israel. You want oil without human rights? Saudi Arabia. Where most 9/11 hijackers came from. Chances of them being invaded? Hmmm...