war without end

New World Order or Same Ol´ Disorder?

"The Administration accuses Syria of a litany of crimes, including possession of chemical weapons, and concern is growing rapidly that Syria will be targeted next."

Syria provided masses of fanatics, specifically bussed over to kill Americans. Additionally, the Syrian gov. is as ugly as Iraq's was, if less rabid.

A few harsh threats look good on them, and that's ALL that has occured so far. Welcome to real politique.

"..And Cuba can continue to repress its dissidents with impunity--Rumsfeld has made it clear that the island nation is not on next on the U.S. list: "'We care about the people of Cuba, who are repressed in a dictatorship,' Rumsfeld [said] (...) [But] we recognize we can't try to make everyone in the world be like we are.'" That must be an ambition he reserves for the Arab masses in the Persian Gulf."

Who says Cuba is supressing anybody? It is CASTRO and his thugs that are responsible. I strongly object to the refrencing of an entire people as a given country, when those people have no voice in the behavior exibited by that country. Yes, 'the US' does this, and 'France' does that, but 'North Korea' doesn't do a damn thing. Only Kim Jong Il does anything in that land. The rest obey or die.

Further, it is impossible for us to 'make' the arab masses 'like us'. We CAN attempt to create an atmosphere where at least one country finally has a chance to achieve self-rule. Anything beyond that would be ludicrous and futile, not to mention counter productive, and Rummy knows it.
Unless one believes we really are building an empire...

"Elsewhere, and quickly learning from Bush's example, India is eyeing Pakistan: "Asserting the same right of preemptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerrillas in Indian- controlled areas of Kashmir and warned that India may be forced to take limited military action against its nuclear-armed neighbor."
How are you liking the new world order?"

More like old world disorder, as Jose says. Four recent wars. The slaughter in the Indian parliment. Endless violent terrorist incursions.

Islam has been trying to penetrate India for a very long time indeed. How long until a fanatic manages to get a pakistani nuke into a major Indian city? The phrase should read: "New World Horror". I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I fervently hope nukes don't start flying around South Asia. My point is that it can't be blamed on American actions in the gulf.

Knowing what is at stake, I highly doubt the Syrian government actually bussed people to Iraq to fight our troops. In addition, the foreign fighters in Iraq hail from different countries (not just Syria) and we haven't said a peep about those governments. Why? Because we consider those people as acting out of their own volition, while we hold the Syrian government responsible for the action of the Syrian fighters. And that's real politik for you.

Your point about Castro and Kim Jong-Il is well-taken, though I note that you don't extend it to Bashar Al-Assad. But that's beside the point. The point I was making is that Castro's and Kim's repression goes on unhindered. Cuban Americans have been clamoring for a US intervention in light of recent events on the island, but nothing is happening.

Rumsfeld didn't say that we can't make people around the world "like us" (as in "love us") but "like we are" (as in "in our image"), which is a completely different thing.

As for Islam trying to penetrate India, it might be too late. Islam has already been in India for several centuries. The Mughal Empire was Muslim (although I am told Indian textbooks now skip that 800-year portion of the subcontinent's history.)Furthermore, there are more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan.

Honistlly I don't know why the just don't cut Kashmir in half and send the Muslim to one half and the hindus to the other half (Or a 1/4 smaller pop. you know). This generation of Muslims and Hidus (I hope I am not magalling the word) obvouslly can not get along. Their kids might be able too but, I don't think they can. What do you think?

"Knowing what is at stake, I highly doubt the Syrian government actually bussed people to Iraq to fight our troops."

Okay, I admit you may be right there. I let my passion carry me away.

"In addition, the foreign fighters in Iraq hail from different countries (not just Syria) and we haven't said a peep about those governments. Why? Because we consider those people as acting out of their own volition, while we hold the Syrian government responsible for the action of the Syrian fighters. And that's real politik for you."

The news I read said nearly all were Syrian. Is that an exageration? Did they just pass thru Syria?

"Your point about Castro and Kim Jong-Il is well-taken, though I note that you don't extend it to Bashar Al-Assad. But that's beside the point. The point I was making is that Castro's and Kim's repression goes on unhindered. Cuban Americans have been clamoring for a US intervention in light of recent events on the island, but nothing is happening."

No fair. No terrorists come out of either of those countries, and Kim seriously threatens millions of South Koreans with instant death.
As for the exiles, they have been 'clamoring' for as long as I have been alive (a long time).

Considering that their main beef is that their old Haciendas were broken up and distributed to the peasants by the revolutionaries, and that the exiles have as a result been living in the fat ol' USA for lo these many years, I am not very sympathetic.

To crush Castro at the start was, well, considered (and even attempted), but the politics made it difficult. Later, inertia set in. Governments are creatures of habit.

However, Castro (or whoever pulls the strings these days) seems intent on inflaming US passions once more. No doubt the left will 'look the other way' as of old...

"Rumsfeld didn't say that we can't make people around the world "like us" (as in "love us") but "like we are" (as in "in our image"), which is a completely different thing."

I understood, I just didn't like the construction "similar to us". I guess I should have been more clear.

"As for Islam trying to penetrate India, it might be too late. Islam has already been in India for several centuries. The Mughal Empire was Muslim (although I am told Indian textbooks now skip that 800-year portion of the subcontinent's history.)Furthermore, there are more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan."

Hmmm. I didn't know that. There's a lot I don't know about that part of the world. In future I will try to refrain from such rash statments, okay?

BTW, ain't it ironic that India is 'sub' when its population is larger than the rest of vast Asia? (China excepted)