View Single Post
Old 09-19-2004, 11:40 PM   #16
Daradon
Has lived the dream!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
Exp:
Default

Cow,

Very good points, some I didn't think of...

'After Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming friendly governments emerge there, you've got Iran (with even a terror-wary Russia to the north) surrounded and Syria surrounded (Israel on the other side) and American air power presumeably still on the scene at isolated bases as an intimidation tool.

As well, Iran is a far stronger entity in comparison to Iraq or Afghanistan, with a population of 84 million or so and difficult terrain. The thought of invading that country in a land conflict is ridiculous. If Iran becomes responsible for a terrorist nuclear hit on the USA, the most likely solution is to vaporize parts of it rather than march in. Once you're a nuclear power, you're also a nuclear target, the downside. Aside from that, the moderate forces in Iran will likely ultimately emerge in spite of their recent setbacks in the recent electoral process. Given enough time, I like the future of Iran.

The North Korean government will likely ultimately collapse on its own. The South Korean government is strong enough to withstand any aggressive trouble there. However, of all the countries that might be considered enemies of the USA, North Korea is the most likely to be vaporized from top to bottom if it is considered the source of a nuclear hit on the USA. Again, no land conflict.

Aside from those two potential conflicts, what else is left?'


However one has to acknowledge that conflict has turned 180 degrees in the last little while. Terrorism has become not only a powerful tool, but THE way to do war. The benefits of a divide and isolate type campaign are not as effective or useful as they have been.

Besides my main arguement was that, going by the U.S. official stance on the war in Iraq, more wars are very possible. They were the ones who coined the term 'axis of evil' and that 'no nation harboring terrorists would be safe'. It was by ther own words we expect more action. The fact that they might not follow this up just goes to show, hmmm, maybe there were other reasons. Stirring up Iraq has just given a haven for terrorists and insurgents. It hasn't made anything safer for anyone.

EDIT: Spelling as usual
Daradon is offline   Reply With Quote