Quote:Original post by microcyb
<img src="http://www.microcyb.com/data/image/2560903.jpg">

Not related at all, but at least you're not hijacking a serious thread...

Well, in response to Prozak’s topic, here is my take:

First off, please keep in mind that now that Dubya's first term is over, and he has been voted back into office... there is no reason for the administration to save face, also, no reason to be conservative.

Bush is a very ballsy, cowboy-esque republican who has no fear about demonstrating our country's ability to bully other people into seeing things our way. Do I agree with the war in Iraq? No. Not at this time.

Timing is a key issue in my opinion on the war. If the US had simply finished its business in Afghanistan, I would be all for it. But instead we are running around the Middle East like a makeshift Robin Hood attempting to steal countries away from their leaders and deliver them safely into the hands of democracy.

First of all, democracy is developed. It is not suddenly born. Slapping democracy on the face of a Islamic country in the midst of widespread dislike for western politics and civilization is like handing a caveman an abacus. Simple enough of a device to use, but without even the most basic background in math, utterly useless. I find that analogy quite fitting for this situation.

Simply put, without years of political development and civil wars, no country is ready for democracy. Granted, many of these "third-world" countries have suffered numerous civil wars, but their political system is a far cry from even the foundations for a democratic system.

Bush in the next four years: An analysis of the world climate and threats from “rogue” states

Prozak poses the question, "Who is next?" I propose several possible answers.

Possibility #1: Iran

Obviously, Iran is a major oil producing country, and obviously another keystone in the Middle East. Wouldn't we love to unite the entire Middle East as one big, happy democratic union, similar to the E.U., or the United States? That aside, please considers the following.

3 days before our democratic elections, the Iranian parliament voted unanimously to resume the enrichment of Uranium. Weapons grade nuclear material capable of fueling multiple weapons of mass destruction. Honestly, this scares the living s*** out of me. Not because of their possession of nuclear materials, but because immediately after the vote took place the entire Iranian parliament began chanting in unison "Death to America."

This is an obvious threat. Although not a threat to our native soil, these weapons and Iran’s growing malcontent with our nation’s foreign policy could prove to become the next big powder-keg the Bush administration will have to deal with.

My fear is that Iran will open a conflict in Israel which could result in UN and US deployment to that region. This region is definitely within the reach of Iran. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Eliminate a couple million Jews, and a couple tens of thousands of American and UN soldiers in one fell swoop. Seems very logical from the standpoint of the Iranian people.

Will this happen? Doubtful. It is merely an example of the potential use of these weapons. The greater concern should be focused on the simple power that Iran will have. Giving terrorist states a rather wealthy, well-stocked, haven from which they can safely conduct their nefarious acts. Syria eat your heart out, why bother with the black market when there is an active terrorist state willing to aid your cause?

Possibility #2: North Korea

Again, in the same way that I spoke of Iran’s threat level to the US, I do not feel as though we should raise the terror alert status. I’m afraid that this time, our malevolence toward our fellow globe-mates will not effect the American people as much as it will those people inhabiting countries neighboring these “rogue” countries.

North Korea is a rather unique situation. We are dealing with a dictatorship dictated by someone who I believe to be, by all common standards, certifiably insane. Not to mention a relatively hefty power in the emerging nuclear arms race. North Korea has, on many occasions in recent and past history demonstrated a general lack of regard for global policies, especially those regarding nuclear weapons. Not only is this country able to produce weapons of mass destruction. Their fearless leader is actually crazy enough to use them.

Posturing aside, I believe that North Korea is going to be rather large conflict at some point in our nations near future. Be it under a Bush baton, or, perhaps under even a different, perhaps even female democrat. (You know who I am talking about, and it’s not Edwards.)

North Korea is in a unique global position as well, they are within a threatening distance of South Korea, China, and Japan, among others. These countries, with growing economies, (exception given to Japan’s booming economy,) are in little global position to stand against an up-and-coming nuclear power. (Some people will argue that North Korea will never become a “nuclear power” because they do not have the means necessary to produce weapons of mass destruction in quantity, however, I maintain the belief that it only takes one or two under the right leadership to constitute a dangerous nuclear power.) Japan, incidentally, cannot legally have an army. They have a national defense force which can act as a pseudo-functional armed-force on home turf, but is largely limited to aiding in humanitarian efforts. No country in that area of the globe is adequately prepared to deal with North Korea’s nuclear threat.

I believe that in the event of North Korea’s presentation of a nuclear arsenal, that the US will attempt to intervene. In my personal, granted, somewhat limited opinion on the strategic turn of such a confrontation. I believe that North Korea would turn it’s sights on South Korea in an attempt to turn a defensive battle into an offensive battle, and yes, I do think it could come to a nuclear threat if North Korea doesn’t get it’s way. Meaning, that if the US involves itself in the unfolding threats in North Korea it is opening up the doors for a regional conflict.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I believe these threats to be serious given our fearless leader’s inability to respect the global community and the decisions of the UN. UN support would have come at an appropriate time for Iraq. In the midst of an all-out “war on terror” was simply not a reasonable time to be asking the global community to support the invasion of a country who’s military involvement in the Middle East was dormant, if not non-existent.

Please accept that these are my opinions, and they are based on fact. Regardless, after working for a publisher of academic titles for years, I realize that opinions can be largely ineffective without giving proper references. Therefore, I would be happy to aid anyone interested in finding appropriate citations for all of my points. I encourage everyone to also do their own research and form their own opinions regarding global matters. Please. Don’t let our government get the best of us due to ignorance. Follow world news!

-Jay A. Wollin
(Navarone)

In response to the picture about Kerry, I wish people would stop using his "indecisiveness" against him. Do some research. He is a US Senator... look at the records of any Senator and you will see a long-time history of swinging on issues. It's part of the job of being a senator. Also note how many senators have won the presidency, and how many times indecisiveness has been a key issue against the candidate. At least pick on Kerry for his current state on issues, not his record as a Senator.

Quote:Original post by JonC

Quote:Original post by Nurgle
The biggest of big screw ups will be taking advantage of that fact that there is now no real oposition in any branch of the government and remove the 2 term limit on a presidency...

I had that very same thought, but he will still need 3/4th of the states to agree. But looking at the electoral vote map, I'm afraid, very very afraid.

Nah, that won't happen, because if it did, it would mean Bill Clinton could run again, and he would utterly crush Bush.