Quote:
Originally posted by WarLord
Which all goes back to my theory that we will be at war with somebody, either Iran or N. Korea, by Sept. 2004. This last military campaign was rather closely timed to last fall's Congressional elections. The junta was ready to go to war with Iraq at the end of last year. The only reason they didn't was due to George I and James Baker, amongst others, pleading with Fearless Leader to seek international support.
Watch for the drums of war to begin beating more loudly next summer. After all, what's wrong with creating situations where Americans are killed daily if it ensures re-election?
By way of example, from the BBC today comes this:
"US President George W Bush has accused Iran and Syria of continuing to support terrorism and warned the US may take action.
In one of his strongest recent threats to Iran and Syria Mr Bush, speaking in Texas, said their behaviour was "completely unacceptable" and that any state which continued to support terror "will be held accountable".
He also said their actions hampered peace efforts in the Middle East, calling terrorism "the greatest obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state"." |
I think the wardrums will continue to beat progressively louder as we get closer to Nov. 2004, but I doubt people, let alone the military, will be willing to go to war again so soon. I think Bush will use the panic from his recent and upcoming wardrum beating will be used in the elections without having to go to war yet. He'll whip the public up into a frenzy claiming all these threats across the world and then argue that the Dem candidate won't go to war, so we need Bush to take us to war to defeat those threats. That's part of the reason why the administration keeps bouncing between N. Korea, Syria and Iran, even though the administration isn't even done with Iraq. They want to extend the idea that there are multiple threats that will take several neocon administrations.