How will the Spain explosion affect US support for invasion of Syria

[DuctapeFatwa]

[_Jumper_]

1. Middle America's reaction...

...will be option #1.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. I think that is an accurate summary of the situation

If it means more dead Muslims, America will buy it.

[Birthmark]

3. No effect at all.

[YankeeFan]

8. No effect at all.

The Basques are Spanes internal Problem with a capital "P".

And most Americans know and/or realize this.

[leesa]

9. Most Americans know or realize nothing. It will be option one

If Americans have a chance to bomb someone...anyone...they are all for it...as long as that someone can't fight back. Americans are still racists and greedy as all get-out.
All the Bush Crime family has to do is cry "Al Qaeda" and we're ready to roll. Just like 9-11, even though the US had clearly threatened to bomb Afghanistan in July of 2001 because the Taliban would not agree to the terms of the pipeline deal,
even though Cheney had promised to help Ken Lay get his desperately needed oil pipeline in Afghanistan prior to 9-11,
even though 6 or seven of the alleged terrorists were found alive and well days after 9-11,
even though none of the alleged terrorists were from Afghanistan, even though the Crime Family has labored mightiliy since 9-11 to obstruct the investigation of 9-11 and also have labored to obstruct investigation into the energy papers, which would probably answer some of the mysteries.

Even with all these obvious complications to the conspiracy theory put forth by the WH, we still belive the BS that Muslim terrorists are behind it. Maybe they were, but it is highly MORE likely that it was the Crime Family and friends.

[maggrwaggr]

15. no, no, no .... the bombings were in SPAIN and Americans

could give a shit about some terrorist attack in some foriegn country.

Americans will only want to invade another country if America is hit by another terrorist attack.

"Spain!? Isn't that where Mexicans come from??"

[eissa]

16. True, but

since they supported *'s little adventures, they're the "good foreigners."

[wuushew]

4. Why Syria and not Iran?

Iran this week announced that it would resume enrichment of uranium, a step that is baffling considering the country is awash in oil and natural gas.

The window to maintain American nuclear hegemony is rapidly shrinking. Does Israel want a nuclear Iran Mr. Fatwa?

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Good point. sharon ordered the US to invade Iran some time ago

And it is definitely in production. However, I could be wrong, but I think they may decide to do Syria first.

The US can deploy its Israeli assets to Syria, for one thing. Syria is bigger than Palestine, but it isn't huge, and even the Pentagon admits they are a bit 'stretched' at the moment, even using 10% commericals in Iraq, almost 100% commercials in Colombia, and an undetermined % of commercials in Africa.

Iran is a large country, with a large population, and they have not been starved for 12 years. There is little indication that the population there will react with joyous gratitude for the opportunity to help keep US defense and energy industries strong.

Iran will probably have to wait until after the election, and the first wave of draftees to complete basic training before they can be deployed for a "progressive intervention" or "liberation," depending on whom Diebold smiles upon.

[foo_bar]

7. I'd take a progressive intervention any day

Iran will probably have to wait until after the election, and the first wave of draftees to complete basic training before they can be deployed for a "progressive intervention" or "liberation," depending on whom Diebold smiles upon.

I suspect being dead is the same by any other name, but I'd rather be occupied by an alliance of plundering interests with a modicum of accountability than a "unilateral" rape and pillage, if they were my only two options (and in the context of American politics, they are). Not having been pillaged, personally, I can overstate the solace of being savaged in the name of incrementalism, but as an American I can choose the angstrom-sized quantum leap of progress over spiting my face waiting for new physical laws. To enact the latter is a moral abdication to inertia at best; at worst an implicit endorsement of the status quo by negative affirmation.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. You should send this idea to the Kerry campaign

Maybe his people can put some ads together, just some regular folks from the target areas, saying how much nicer it will be to be blown to pieces by an alliance.

[foo_bar]

13. I knew you'd get it

So status quo it is?

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. It's your only option in American politics :)

[xang-chi]

5. let's leav'em be

America needs a policy of leaving other counrties alone unless they really need our help, or ACTUALY pose a threat.

[kentuck]

11. About as much as the criticism affected Dubya's visit to WTC site...

It doesn't matter to this bunch. They do what they want to do and then spin it later...

[eissa]

12. Sadly, I think most Americans

would select 1-3. I truly thought most of our people would have their eyes opened to the horrors of war when 9/11 occurred. Unfortunately, we still don't equate other people's suffering with ours. I still cringe when I hear the term "collateral damage." There was such outrage when McVeigh used that ugly phrase when asked about the children murdered in OK, but it's ok to refer to innocent victims of our attacks as such.

[nostamj]

14. invade? with what troops???

they can't maintain the twin clusterfucks in Afghanistan and Iraq as it is.

or are you talking about after a insipid chimp win in November which will allow him a draft...?

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. see post 6

[Ms. Clio]

18. I bet I know exactly who has voted for option 1 so far

I'd lay money that some of them are on my ignore list.