Did they get him already?

wig · 03-20-2003

Bush made a strategic decision that many leaders of other nations would have made if in the same position. There are also many leaders that would have chose the opposite. Not surprisingly, many of these same "leaders" will take whatever side is in their best interest even if it means talking out of both sides of their mouths. History decides who made the right move.

Personally, I think taking the offensive is the strategic choice. It may not prove to be the correct choice, it is a risky proposition, it is ambitious to say the least, but it is the strategic move. I am glad that I do not have to make this decision, but I do not object to it.

Success means a win for the war on terror. Iraq is certainly hiding weapons and there are probably plenty other "side deals" that are going to be uncovered. It's the chance to prove that they are right and they probably will do so (start conspiracy theory here). If they can provide hard facts and make a case, they might have the "I told ya so..." and a political winner.

Success also means US has another finger in every hole. Oil is certainly a KEY part of this and to deny it is naive IMO. Stabilizing Iraq in this region is the ticket. If successful, it means long term gains that dwarf the cost of the war. It's economics and they did the math and have justified the risk.

Of course the French are pissed. They are on the opposite end of this economic gold mine. Same with Russia and China and Germany. But, they will fall back when they realize that the battle is lost and it is now in their best interest to change their tune or otherwise position themselves "strategically".

In business, if one company can out maneuver their competition, if they can out bid them, bring more volume, produce a better product, etc. then they will be on top. It is natural to do what it takes to maintain it. I believe it is the only realistic option. America is a capitalist society (despite the growing internal movement against this). If other countries are not, I don't think they should be pissed because we are -- even if this means that we can better do what is natural.

Anyone who has ever been number 1 at anything knows that it is much easier to be # 2, 3, 4. Everyone is always gunning for number 1. It is a position that everybody (except #1) wants to see devoured. This is also natural. The US has too much economic and military power and uses it just like any other country would.

The US has not always been in the #1 position and one day will relinquish this position. We will probably be addressing China then like we do the US now.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-20-2003	#1
wig Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,248	Bush made a strategic decision that many leaders of other nations would have made if in the same position. There are also many leaders that would have chose the opposite. Not surprisingly, many of these same "leaders" will take whatever side is in their best interest even if it means talking out of both sides of their mouths. History decides who made the right move. Personally, I think taking the offensive is the strategic choice. It may not prove to be the correct choice, it is a risky proposition, it is ambitious to say the least, but it is the strategic move. I am glad that I do not have to make this decision, but I do not object to it. Success means a win for the war on terror. Iraq is certainly hiding weapons and there are probably plenty other "side deals" that are going to be uncovered. It's the chance to prove that they are right and they probably will do so (start conspiracy theory here). If they can provide hard facts and make a case, they might have the "I told ya so..." and a political winner. Success also means US has another finger in every hole. Oil is certainly a KEY part of this and to deny it is naive IMO. Stabilizing Iraq in this region is the ticket. If successful, it means long term gains that dwarf the cost of the war. It's economics and they did the math and have justified the risk. Of course the French are pissed. They are on the opposite end of this economic gold mine. Same with Russia and China and Germany. But, they will fall back when they realize that the battle is lost and it is now in their best interest to change their tune or otherwise position themselves "strategically". In business, if one company can out maneuver their competition, if they can out bid them, bring more volume, produce a better product, etc. then they will be on top. It is natural to do what it takes to maintain it. I believe it is the only realistic option. America is a capitalist society (despite the growing internal movement against this). If other countries are not, I don't think they should be pissed because we are -- even if this means that we can better do what is natural. Anyone who has ever been number 1 at anything knows that it is much easier to be # 2, 3, 4. Everyone is always gunning for number 1. It is a position that everybody (except #1) wants to see devoured. This is also natural. The US has too much economic and military power and uses it just like any other country would. The US has not always been in the #1 position and one day will relinquish this position. We will probably be addressing China then like we do the US now.