Americans want a war on Iraq and we can't stop them

The Guardian (U.K.) ^ | 11/27/2001 | Hugo Young

[RLK]

Good thought.

[RLK]

To be realistic, that's the way we need to look at it.

[Don Myers]

Who has watched Starship Troopers, a movie made from a Robert Heinlein story? The Islamics are our allegorical bugs, and its going to be a long war.

[onyx]

I responded to Keith:

We have saved their asses in TWO count them TWO world wars, and stood with them on the Falklands war against those known terrorists, the Argentinians, trying to make the world safe for sheepherders and penguins.

F*** them...next war, they are on their own if they puss out on this one.

---------------------------------------------------------

And to the Guardian's headline: Americans want a war with Iraq and We (the Brits) Can't Stop Them

NO, neither the Brits nor the Guardian can stop us, and PM Blair, who's been with us from the start, will surely be with US to the last!

[Clinton's a rapist]

It would take decades to significantly change our oil usage, even if we wanted to. I say, don't fret about oil. One of the side benefits of this War on Terrorism thing is that we'll have cheap Middle East oil ad infinitum, not to mention Russian oil coming in over Afghanistan. I really think it's a non-issue.

[AfghanAirShow]

"NO, neither the Brits nor the Guardian can stop us, and PM Blair, who's been with us from the start, will surely be with US to the last!"

Wouldn't it be ironic if GWB has to counsel the Brits and tell them not to "go wobbly"?

[Nick Danger]

To quote Mel Brooks in "History of the World. Part 1"..."It's good to be the King!"

It's obvious that this author is appalled by what he sees, but I give him credit for understanding it, and for understanding its implications.

It is probably true that we are at a moment in history when every single nation on this planet could gang up on us, and although they would deliver some mighty blows, in the end they would all be dead, and we would not. I don't say that to be boastful, I'm merely pointing out the same piece of realpolitik that the author did.

There has been a pleasant fiction in Europe for several decades now, which we have indulged so as not to seem arrogant, that what they think matters. What this author is facing, and we might even say 'admitting to,' is that Europe's importance in these matters is a pleasant fiction, and that at the end of the day, the now almost single-minded focus of the United States to rid the world of people who would come over here and kill thousands of our people, is what will decide what happens next. It is the only thing that will decide what happens next.

The long snouts at the New York Times will surely join with their European brethren in expressing horror that we would use our vast military might to go anywhere, to break anything, to bomb aside all opposition if necessary, to rid the Earth of these terrorists. But that is what we are going to do. And the author is right that there's not one damned thing that anybody else can do about it.

Those who wish may come along as allies. If at some point they get cold feet and don't want to be allies anymore, that's fine; we didn't need them anyway. We were giving them an opportunity to make their loyalties known. We'll happily move the drop-outs to the 'no' pile, and move on. What we won't do is let them tell us what we're going to do about people coming over here and blowing things up. At this point, with us, it's "lead, follow, or get out of the way." The author is to be applauded for facing that reality. Too many of them over there are still in Fantasyland on this subject.

[truth_seeker]

When it comes to longtime resentment of Judeo-Christian nations, Britain must be near the top of the Islamist list. That they haven't (yet) been terror-struck may well be due to their providing such a cozy nest, for the European Muslim terror-vipers.

But if they get hit big, I expect UK public opinion would reach the US levels, for swift, deadly, firm, unrelenting pursuit of the satanic Islamists. Same for Germany, Italy, Holland, but not likely the Franks.

[onyx]

Wouldn't it be ironic if GWB has to counsel the Brits and tell them not to "go wobbly"?

Yes, but I don't expect that he'll have to do so, do you? PM Blair has been magnificent so far.

[AfghanAirShow]

It may be neccessary if we pursue military action against Iraq, which is something PM Blair has already expressed reservations about.

[onyx]

Let's ask MadIvan his opinion. He's almost always right!

[river rat]

Wonderfully put, and I think you hit the truth dead on. I wish my mind could still put things so clearly and orderly - but my early version servo control system loses data on the hard drive..
Semper Fi

[Nick Danger]

They say the memory is the second thing to go.

[river rat]

"They say the memory is the second thing to go."

Not true in every case..
With me it was no better that 6th..
1st - Hearing, too many 106 rounds.
2nd - Legs, One bad jump at night.
3rd - Hair, getting real thin on top.
4th - Freedom, got married
5th - Money, raised a family
6th - Memory
The rest, thank god - is still in tact.
Semper Fi

[kaylar]

Swift smashing of the Taliban can't plausibly be seen as a platform for reneging on Republican hostility to either the comprehensive test ban treaty or the international criminal court. On the contrary. .

Yesssss!!! Our main enemies (euroleftist trash, worse than Muslims or the Chinese IMHO) are starting to see the writing on the wall...Now, if they'd just see that we are NOT going to sign onto Kyoto, and we are NOT going to gut the First Amendment to suit their internet laws, we'll get along fine. Oh, and we're not going to "pool" or national sovereignty into a UN OWG.

[walden]

"Is there to be a war with the entire Islamic world?"

No, that's what the terrorists want. But, you must not have seen pictures of the liberated Afghanis. I have no problem with using the same techniques to liberate Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, who knows who else. History is clear: liberal democracies do not start foreign wars of agression, whether traditional wars, or 4th generation terrorist wars. Liberating big parts of the world is a strategy that serves both our interests and the interests of the people of those countries. It's a perfect match.

[Tokhtamish]

Superbly put Nick.

The author does not say it, but the bottom line here is force and a willingness to use it. As the Europeans demonstrated so clearly in the Bosnia conflict, they just don't have the belly to put any muscle behind their sentiments. The US and only the US does.