Quote:
|
Quote by: bishop i can't seeing either north korea or iran actually launching a nuke without first being attacked themselves. it's entirely irrational for americans to believe that possession immediately means that you'll be attacked. shit, we lived with the ussr for decades, under the threat of total annihiliation and there was no apocalypse. i'm going on a tangent now, but, i can't help but think about the fundamentalist evangelical backdrop of bush's (and friends') mindset. bush in particular believes he's doing god's work... we'd never find ourselves in a ww2 scenario, but we will find ourselves in a ww3 scenario if this policy of constant illegal intervention persists - and ww3 = nuclear war. personally, if bush were to lead us into the apocalypse, americans should hunt him down and hang him dead in the street. |
Maybe not a war exactly LIKE WW2 but a major conflict nevertheless. A war which would force us to admit we are not quite as prepared to fight on 2 fronts as we claim and would have a cascade effect. To fight anything larger than the insurgents in Iraq we would have to reallocate troops from other areas of the world, which in turn would create a vulnerability there ; one which out enemies would surely notice. This could leave us stuck in a sinkhole like Iraq while the opposition concentrated on the newly vulnerable areas, and then where would we get the troops to refill the holes THERE.
If Iraq is any indicator, our biggest threat will be from bands of loosely organized terrorists and
not from a large and difficult to move uniformed military who can pop up with little warning and no visible troop movement. We could be playing whack a mole for years.