What's Next for the US in the War on Terror?

  • News
  • Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date
In summary, US President George W Bush has vowed to continue the "war on terror" with determination, despite the declining public support and high number of US servicemen casualties in Iraq. He sees this as the first great war of the 21st century and intends to achieve nothing less than complete victory. However, there are concerns about potential future wars and the impact it may have on the American public. The current administration is also facing other issues such as the indictment of Scooter Libby and a Supreme Court vacancy. There are also discussions about the role of capitalism in the oil industry and the effects of organizations like OPEC on the market. Overall, the future is uncertain, but for now, the focus remains on the war on terror and
  • #1
alexandra
Here we go, folks... heads low; who's next?
US President George W Bush has vowed the US will not tire in its "war on terror", but acknowledged that more difficulties could lie ahead.
His speech came amid flagging public support for the war in Iraq, where more than 2,000 US servicemen have died.

Mr Bush said he would accept nothing less than "complete victory" in the war on terror, which he described as the first great war of the 21st century.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4386162.stm
Just 'the first great war', huh? Boy, was Orwell ever right!

EDIT: Bets, anyone? I'm thinking... Syria, perhaps. That seems to be what things are hyping up towards from what I've seen in the news of late. What does everyone else think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ugh. I think I'm going to move to Europe.
I'm still in shock that the American Public is stupid enough to re-elect this moron. :mad:

I guarantee you Bush is eyeballing several other countries for war, and as soon as gets an opportunity to get the American public to agree with him (or he "manufactures" another reason) He'll attack some other country... with your childrens lives at stake.

I promise you if there is ever another draft and they come for my son... there's going to some bullets flying in Phoenix.

He wants Iran & Syria for sure.
 
  • #3
I just think he's going down so fast that he'll have real problems with any more wars.

He had 90% approval after 9/11.

He blew it. His approval is plummeting to new lows.

I think the next three years are mostly going to be him being angry and getting nothing done. No wars, no draft, more people want a pull out of Iraq than not - and the incumbents for 2006 know that. They won't support military action, at least not anything involving a lot more troops.

But I'm usually wrong on this kind of stuff. So who knows.
 
  • #4
Bush has bigger things to worry about than Syria. There isn't going to be another war any time in the foreseeable future. Libby just got indicted and there's still a Supreme Court vacancy, then a decent chance that at least one house of Congress makes a significant democratic shift next year. Something really needs to be done about the domestic oil problems, too - lack of refinery capacity, high prices. Even Bill O'Reilly was pissed at the record profits, saying that Exxon, et al had "taken profit off of the backs of the working man."
 
  • #5
loseyourname said:
Even Bill O'Reilly was pissed at the record profits, saying that Exxon, et al had "taken profit off of the backs of the working man."
DAMN ... That's practically a communist slogan! Do you think O'Reilly is going native to avoid the chop if the general public shifts to the left?

A lot of conservatives are 'truck drivers' and 'rural folk' with a high reliance on gasoline... 'Working men' (kinda sexist but Bill has to take it one step at a time I suppose.) who don't give a damn who dies in foreign countries as long as they are using guns and killing 'visible' [instert epithet here] but mess with their livlihoods and there's H-E-doublehockeysticks to pay.
 
  • #6
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_industry_profits_1;_ylt=AkZ4iXUdBgQWslAUnLIALJ.AsnsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

WASHINGTON (AP) - Don't expect the oil industry to boost fuel production merely to deflect criticism from Congress about soaring prices and profits. Energy executives and analysts insist that in spite of the supply crunch that has kept oil above $50 a barrel for much of the year, demand and prices are still prone to ups and downs, so the industry should not rush to drill wells and expand refineries just because it is flush with cash.

or maybe this should go in the "What's wrong with capitalism thread". :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Astronuc said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_industry_profits_1;_ylt=AkZ4iXUdBgQWslAUnLIALJ.AsnsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
or maybe this should go in the "What's wrong with capitalism thread". :biggrin:
Of course doesn't capitalism rely upon competition in the marketplace to set prices?

When you get organizations like OPEC et al., how can anyone say this is capitalism built on competition and the 'supply and demand' theory of ecconomics?

What do you call that ... it isn't capitalism ... it isn't communism or socialism.

And yet, since we need oil for EVERYTHING it underpines/mines everything by default.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
The Smoking Man said:
Of course doesn't capitalism rely upon competition in the marketplace to set prices?
When you get organizations like OPEC et al., how can anyone say this is capitalism built on competition and the 'supply and demand' theory of ecconomics?
What do you call that ... it isn't capitalism ... it isn't communism or socialism.
And yet, since we need oil for EVERYTHING it underpines/mines everything by default.


Marx would have called that the internal contradictions of capitalism. The free market is 50% a fantasy; many more prices are "administered" than its fans like to believe.
 
  • #9
Uhh, am I the only one who see's this as just saying it's the first great war, not even thinking about further wars, just that this is a big war?
 
  • #10
moose said:
Uhh, am I the only one who see's this as just saying it's the first great war, not even thinking about further wars, just that this is a big war?
[edit]Greater than WWII?[/edit]

See reference to George Orwell. In the OP. It is the beginning of an endless war, where the enemies will change, and history will be re-written, while Haliburton rakes in the contracts.:-p

I am not going to fight it. Going to get me a job at Haliburton and be a rich capitalist.

NOT!
 
  • #11
Aren't you already a contractor?
 
  • #12
How's the War George?

"Great!" he replied.

So just what does he mean by 'Great'?

Fun?
 
  • #13
loseyourname said:
Aren't you already a contractor?
Not for Halliburton.

Halliburton gets paid like $3000 a day for contractors in Iraq.

Care to guess how many of those contractors are Nepalese who thought they were going to work in Jordan?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1017-25.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Skyhunter said:
Not for Halliburton.
Halliburton gets paid like $3000 a day for contractors in Iraq.
Care to guess how many of those contractors are Nepalese who thought they were going to work in Jordan?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1017-25.htm
Okay ... as amazing and as nasty as that story is:

There was mention at the cessation of hostilities that there was a 40-50% unemployment rate in Iraq and Halliburton was bringing in Filipinos to do this type of work.

Does anyone have new numbes?

Has Halliburton put all of the Iraqis to work that it can or have they just gone for a new source of cheap labour?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
The Smoking Man said:
Okay ... as amazing and as nasty as that story is:
There was mention at the cessation of hostilities that there was a 40-50% unemployment rate in Iraq and Halliburton was bringing in Filipinos to do this type of work.
Does anyone have new numbes?
Has Halliburton put all of the Iraqis to work that it can or have they just gone for a new source of cheap labour?
Last I heard the Iraqi's are finding work as insurgents.
 
  • #16
It's coming to the point that usually concerned but not involved people like myself are starting to think: "how can we stop this madman?" and "where can I get a gun".
 
  • #17
Skyhunter said:
Last I heard the Iraqi's are finding work as insurgents.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
  • #18
The Smoking Man said:
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
yomamma's signature!:-p
 
  • #19
Skyhunter said:
Not for Halliburton.

I know. You are a capitalist, though. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Maybe if one of your friends gets elected mayor, you can get a little mini-racket going; Halliburton lite.
 
  • #20
Managing resources globally
is the only useful activity
of the heads of state.

Isn't simplicity fun??
 
  • #21
meL said:
Managing resources globally
is the only useful activity
of the heads of state.
Isn't simplicity fun??

Einstein: Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler!.

Your idea is simpler than possible.
 
  • #22
meL said:
Managing resources globally
is the only useful activity
of the heads of state.
Isn't simplicity fun??

If you can guarantee me that the world population will level off at a constant - i.e. no more than 2 children per family of mother+father, then I'll get you the world leaders to establish one government, deal?

Since you can't guarantee me that, we'd just have to go along with the bacteria growth models for countries like India, Mexico, China, etc., and hope they adhere to the principle of conservation of resources.
 
  • #23
alexandra said:
Here we go, folks... heads low; who's next?
Just 'the first great war', huh? Boy, was Orwell ever right!
EDIT: Bets, anyone? I'm thinking... Syria, perhaps. That seems to be what things are hyping up towards from what I've seen in the news of late. What does everyone else think?
I imagine Iran is a higher priority target at the moment so my guess would be that as the Bush administration would have zero hope of gaining congressional approval for an attack they will do a deal with Israel whereby Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and then if Iran retaliates Bush and Co. will use this as an excuse to wage war on the pretext of defending their allies. Syria would probably be invaded as a sideshow to the main event.
 
  • #24
Art said:
I imagine Iran is a higher priority target at the moment so my guess would be that as the Bush administration would have zero hope of gaining congressional approval for an attack they will do a deal with Israel whereby Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and then if Iran retaliates Bush and Co. will use this as an excuse to wage war on the pretext of defending their allies. Syria would probably be invaded as a sideshow to the main event.
Yep, I agree Iran is right up there at the top of the list (I was wavering between Syria and Iran when I made the original post, actually). And your idea of how Iran will probably be dealt with sounds plausible too - but the IDF has its hands full at the moment: I saw on the news tonight that Hamas has ended the ceasefire
A spokesman said the nine-month-long truce could not be renewed after Israel killed a leader of its military wing in an air strike in Gaza on Tuesday.
More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4400594.stm
It looks like the Security Council is being used to deal with Syria for the moment - or to prepare the way for whatever is coming next: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16417&Cr=middle&Cr1=leban - but I'm thinking another 'rose revolution' (or whatever they call these so-called 'popular, democratic' uprisings) could be another option. Whatever the specific tactic, it's going to happen. What a mess!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
cronxeh said:
If you can guarantee me that the world population will level off at a constant - i.e. no more than 2 children per family of mother+father, then I'll get you the world leaders to establish one government, deal?
Since you can't guarantee me that, we'd just have to go along with the bacteria growth models for countries like India, Mexico, China, etc., and hope they adhere to the principle of conservation of resources.
Maybe you missed the dittohead bulletin ...

China is constantly under criticism for doing just that. They, in fact, have a one child law.
 
  • #26
alexandra said:
Yep, I agree Iran is right up there at the top of the list (I was wavering between Syria and Iran when I made the original post, actually). And your idea of how Iran will probably be dealt with sounds plausible too - but the IDF has its hands full at the moment: I saw on the news tonight that Hamas has ended the ceasefire It looks like the Security Council is being used to deal with Syria for the moment - or to prepare the way for whatever is coming next: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16417&Cr=middle&Cr1=leban - but I'm thinking another 'rose revolution' (or whatever they call these so-called 'popular, democratic' uprisings) could be another option. Whatever the specific tactic, it's going to happen. What a mess!
One thing you and Art have not figured into the mix is that China has just signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Iran for her oil.

This may have some effect on just how successful the US is in mounting any invasion of Iran.

There are also some strange things going on between the US, China and Israel.

You'll note that recently, Israel was censured by the USA for passing technoogy to China at the state level.

There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye.:wink:
 
  • #27
The Smoking Man said:
One thing you and Art have not figured into the mix is that China has just signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Iran for her oil.
This may have some effect on just how successful the US is in mounting any invasion of Iran.
I'd imagine America will buy China off by giving her an equivalent quota from Iraqi oil fields.
The Smoking Man said:
There are also some strange things going on between the US, China and Israel.
You'll note that recently, Israel was censured by the USA for passing technoogy to China at the state level.
There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye.:wink:
The jewish pressure groups run through the very fabric of the US gov't and have such influence they will ensure nothing is ever done against Israel no matter what they do.
 
  • #28
Art said:
I'd imagine America will buy China off by giving her an equivalent quota from Iraqi oil fields.
They wouldn't even let the Chinese purchase a small oil company with holdings in Myanmar.
Art said:
The jewish pressure groups run through the very fabric of the US gov't and have such influence they will ensure nothing is ever done against Israel no matter what they do.
Doesn't the US seem to distancing themselves as of late?
 

Related to What's Next for the US in the War on Terror?

1. What does "Uh-oh, world in trouble" mean?

"Uh-oh, world in trouble" is a phrase that is often used to express concern or worry about the state of the world. It suggests that there are significant problems or challenges that need to be addressed in order to improve the state of our planet.

2. What are some examples of the world being in trouble?

Some examples of the world being in trouble could include climate change, pollution, deforestation, overpopulation, and natural disasters. These issues can have negative impacts on the environment, economy, and society as a whole.

3. What are the potential consequences of the world being in trouble?

The potential consequences of the world being in trouble are vast and can include a decline in biodiversity, food and water shortages, displacement of communities, and a decrease in quality of life for humans and other species. These consequences can also have long-term effects on the health of our planet.

4. Can we do anything to prevent the world from being in trouble?

Yes, there are many actions that can be taken to prevent the world from being in trouble. These include reducing our carbon footprint, conserving resources, promoting sustainable practices, and advocating for policies that protect the environment. It is important for individuals, communities, and governments to work together to address these issues.

5. How can scientists help address the world being in trouble?

Scientists play a crucial role in addressing the world being in trouble. They can conduct research to better understand the causes and impacts of environmental issues, develop solutions and technologies to mitigate these problems, and communicate their findings to the public and policymakers. Their expertise and knowledge are vital in finding sustainable solutions for a healthier planet.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
68K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top