Quote:
Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 29 2004, 04:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 29 2004, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Sep 29 2004, 01:19 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@Sep 28 2004, 05:57 PM
GW Bush didn't come to office because he was pounding the table on terrorism. As his critics point out, he seemed largely disinterested in foreign affairs and, as our able Lanny loves to point out, his administration "screwed the pooch" on 9/11 through lack of urgency.
|
I was reading a discussion about this in a different forum, and one person pointed out a source that had a GW speech from his original campaign, and he did mention a desire to get tough on Iraq back then.
It was quite a while ago, so I doubt I can find the source, but I'll post it if I do.
|
Even Lanny conceded in another thread that "getting tough" wouldn't have included a full blown shoot-em-up invasion without the catalyst of 9/11. "Getting tough" could mean a lot of things. If I'm not mistaken, he's talked about "getting tough" with North Korea, Syria and Iran as well.
Cowperson
|
And he still might... The U.S. army is just stretched too thin right now.
Ok, that's probably oversimplifying things, but I think there are many issues at play on that then simply 'he didn't mean an invasion'. I'm not entirely convinced he didn't anyway. There were Iraq plans BEFORE September 11th 2001.
Plus, there's still plenty of time. 'Axis of Evil' was only coined what, 18 months ago? In that time he invaded one of those countries. Plenty of time to invade more.
If he gets re-elected, he truly has nothing to lose, could be a lot more 'dangerous' in his second term than his first.
If by 'dangerous' you mean going after other countries. Maybe N. Korea wouldn't be such a bad idea though. I wish he started with that one. [/b][/quote]
In all honesty, who would he invade?
We all sat around here on Sept. 11, 2001 and said Afghanistan would be first and Iraq would be second.
No surprises there. The obvious candidates were put to the torch in short fashion.
What's left? Iran and North Korea aren't going to be invaded. Syria? Saudi Arabia? Not likely.
As well, I can't help but notice Iraq isn't going too well. It took 16 years for the USA to embark on a major land campaign after the scarring of Vietnam, the small excursions into Grenada and Panama duly noted. And Gulf War I wouldn't have happened with Saddam invading Kuwait and bringing the world down on him.
Dropping bombs from 25,000 feet or covertly upsetting governments is a little different than an out and out invasion.
I just don't see where the candidates are. Now or in the next 10 years or longer.
Cowperson