*DAMN R6 Forum

I have issues with the reasons for the war in Iraq as I've made clear.  What I worry about more than the Iraq war and its consequences is that there will be more wars to come.

Lets look back first...Bush has his doctrine that basically states the US will be preemptively attacking countries that support or harbour terrorists.  We strike first against Afghanistan, a country with a bad regime and as we have seen, pretty clear links to Al Queda.  The world supports this action, even Muslims for the most part.

With the main part of that war done and rebuilding started, we focus our aim on a new target.  We happen to choose Iraq.  Was it because they posed the greatest risk to us?  Perhaps, but I doubt it.  Was it because they also had a horrible regime?  Perhaps, but that alone doesn't seem to distinguish it.  I think it was probably because we thought we could use the UN resolution as a good cause to expand our campaign against terrorism, despite having no proven connections to terrorism, despite having limited proof of resolution and none of that proof being of WMD as the administration claims.  In fact the administration goes so far as to forge documents trying to show guilt and win the world support.  Failing that we ignore getting the UN support and launch an unjusified war (no UN support, no clear and present danger, and no regional call for help).  Suffice to say this war unlike the one if Afghanistan is not at all popular with two governments fully supporting it and a number of others being bribed to.  Public support is greatly lacking.

So anyway, now the war in Iraq is giving way to the rebuilding so one can suspect given Bush's doctrine, and the existance of many more countries with ties to terrorism and evil regimes, that there will be yet another war upcoming...perhaps Iran, perhaps making wars in Columbia or Phillipines fully supported rather than just minor skirmishes, perhaps even N. Korea.  I see the timing of it being near the next election because Bush would hope to win patriotic votes of support, hiding the huge domestic problems that have multiplied in Bush's term.

If there is another war, I think world support will suffer an even greater blow as the US will be clearly seeking to exert its power anywhere it sees fit.  I don't expect the US public, already uncomfortable with Bush's reasoning for war would not tolerate another unprovoked war.

I have been vocal against this war, but it is nothing compared to how vocal I'll be if there is another one during Bush's presidency.  He needs to now focus on getting the US out of focus in international politics but rather play its role as only one of many countries, it needs to make sure Iraq and Afghanistan are securely going without exerting direct control in them.  Most importantly, Bush needs to finally stop trying to shift attention away from the domestic crisis and start addressing the state's budget woes that have made them cut back on services to the Americans that are supposed to be his number one priority in taking care of.

Let's hope the "Bush Doctrine" isn't upheld. Most of the civilized world gave up imperialism back in the 1950s, but apparently America didn't get the message. Hopefully Bush at least takes a break to address some of the domestic issues that have gone to the wayside, and to make sure our country has our finances in order before he considers more military action. Also, I don't think another war will have as much public support. Everyone knows and hates Saddam Hussein; a lesser known potential target like Syria would take quite a bit of convincing. However, if people consider this war a success who knows what they'll be willing to support. All in all I'm looking past this war to 2004. I'm going to go see Howard Dean speak today, who I heartily support for the presidential nomination. Until then, I hope peace prevails.

Bondo I'm not saying I'm against the core of what you're saying but you should look through some of your points, the documents you said they had forged weren't actually forged. Just "borrowed" from someone's essay, didn't make it less (or more) correct though. Also the support for the Iraq war isn't just supported by two countries as you say, Australia and Denmark (*concealed laugh*) have sent troops over there and some other governments are also supporting it.

I don't see this as the beginning of a wave of Bush wars, after all this international criticism and turmoil I don't think Bush would find another war worthwile. Only slight chance of another war would be against N. Korea but I think (and hope) that it'll settle down sooner or later.

As a slight variation on this topic I'd like to suggest another thing.

We supported Saddam in the past as the lesser of two evils against Iran, we supported people like Osama Bin Laden because it was a lesser evil than the USSR.  We have a history of playing around with bad groups simply because it suits our short-term interests.

I suggest that the US, so as not to look like a hypocrite in condemning evil regimes, dictatorships, and poor human rights, stop being a hypocrite and show equal distaste to all countries that don't have democracies, strong human rights, support terrorism, etc.  That means we don't give money or military aid to Saudi Arabia, we don't give aid to Kuwait, we don't give aid to Israel (poor human rights...look at all the Palistinians they kill).  Go right on down the line and seperate those who are following the right path and those that aren't.  It need not be black and white.  Iran for example has an internal reform movement going and it is becoming democratic.  That is a plus for them.  They support groups we consider terrorists, that is a negative.

Basically we need to learn from our mistakes before we create future Iraqs and future Al Quedas.  We need to stop selling/giving weapons to countries that are questionable, we need to stop recognizing dictatorships.  It is time for the US to actually show moral imperative, and not just claim it.