Amerian policy will be to attack everyone who poses a threat. Gone is the concept of containment, because they say that just prolongs problems. I hope the concept of threat is defined in a way that prevents us from destroying the world. I can think of at least half a dozen "threats" right off the bat.

Does this feel like the police going into Harlem and arresting innocent people on the assumption they will commit a crime at some point to anyone else?

There won't be any war when the Pax Americana will be instaured all over the world

(or so they believe)

did i mentionned that the nazis too, thought there wouldn't be any war once they'd rule the world?

they're going after the side effects instead of the cause.

Find out the root of all the bad stuff and eliminate that.. and the side effects will go away.

that's bush reasoning...i hope there is another two years left...then i will hopefully see bush sent where he belongs...back to the good ol' boys club! Didn't his father serve just one term too?

Yes, Bush still has a long time to continue to fuck up. I only hope he doesn't get us killed.

me two...

It actually feels more like cracking down on big business after the rampant laizes faire (or however it's spelled) days. Or moving into a broken neighborhood and arresting all the drug lords. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some form of restraint and restriction to justify leveling other governments, but fully 1/3 of all the governments in the World, at the very least, are parasitic entities that do nothing but torment their people, and that should all be destroyed to make way for a government that serves the people's interests instead of the other way around.

Of course, it seems unlikely that we're going to use these expanded attacks in that way anyway. We're cozying up to China, after all.

if bush is successfull in tearing down all these "bad" governments, then what happens, he institutes a government like democracy...look what that did to russia...what are we doing to help them? Bush just wants more power, and it's easy to choose countries the world doesn't like with poor human rights because it's easy to gather up support and sympathy for his "wars" but what happens when it comes down to the countries that are liked, look what he's doing to america...will he really stop here?...i think bush is getting paranoid! everyone is out to get him, so he'll get them first...

Nothing personal, but that made me laugh.
What good is it to replace a parisitic government with one that can be almost as parasitic and appears to be on the verge of commiting severe human rights violations?

No good, unless the government replaced was deep into the World of committing severe human rights violations. A description which applies itself to a third of the nations on Earth. But what's your point? We have a history not of replacing these governments with worse ones. We replace them with better ones, much better ones. The problem is that we're too afraid of getting involved with other nations' affairs to actually maintain that government, and then it gets taken down and replaced with a petty dictatorship.

::coughs:: Vietnam ::coughs::

While it was DURING war instead of after, 'better' government? ::laughs::

What government was "replaced" in Vietnam? We supported an existing one. Whether or not that government was better or worse than the one we fought is subjective.

Not the government, but the US backed military coup...

The root of all the bad stuff is that we are overpopulated at six billion plus people on a planet of diminishing resources. Religious superstition thrives in poor, backward countries as well.

The cure? Reduce the global population down to less than one billion. That will bring the human population to ecologically sustainable numbers. It may be that AIDs is Gaia's antibodies.

If only that wasn't a load of shit eh?

Nostradamus already predicted World War III a long time ago. Everything is coming together now and it might be better to just try to stop the war over trying to figure out who is wrong.

Brazil has cut back their oil supply, showing their concern over the matter. The way that Desert Storm came about is Kuwait sectioned off the area of Iraq with the main ports and production areas in their country. Before, as in Saudi Arabia, income made from oil is spread out to feed and cloth the populous. Then Kuwait found an alliance with the USA to protect them. The USA for filled their part however; Iraq is proactively martyring themselves to gain support from other nations.

In some cases, it is the threat of allowing the oil industry in other nations being ripped off. The greater underlying message is through our demand to spread democracy; other countries can be taken into war if a minority of their people says they want to be democratic. This is widely looked at as a bad thing in other countries.

North Korea was all of the news yesterday; telling the USA, if we let our guard down they will begin Nuclear Missile production. Whether we didn't strike hard and fast enough. Whether we might not of the right to occupy Iraq is inconsequential now. It looks like if this happens we are looking at a full-blown World War and the USA may have tanks driving through our own neighborhoods.

If Bush's motivation was honourable and sincere in tearing down tyrannical governments he certainly has a whole huge part of the African continent to look at. Has he ever once mentioned assisting bringing down the monstrous Mugabe in Zimbabwe? No of course not, why? Because what could Zimbabwe possibly offer Bush?! Bringing down inhumane political rulers is one thing, making war on an entire country to do so is another... Is the latter honestly the only solution?!

the same case with Iraq and North Korea. NK is obviously the greater threat here.. but they don't have oil.

This is so apparent that its ridiculus. sheesh..

Any Uk er's willing to let me move in with em'?