[dd74]

Okay: you hit it on the head with your third and second to last sentence. That is why we took any interest in WWII other than the obvious economic boom that was predicted to follow.

I increasingly think that new wars are based on economics. Hell, economics is war - look how we've dismantled the Soviet Union with almost no shots fired.

You make a valid point with the Judeo/Christian angle since that was what also got us involved with Yugoslavia. We hate to see people who look like us get slaughtered, even when done by people who look like us. Others who have no resemblence, same-strain of religion or other deep ethnic roots to who we are, don't matter as much unless the unrest in their region is of strategic or economic impact.

Liberia: look how long it's taken GW to even think of committing troops there. That is a big 'ol nasty sitch down there. I'm thinking Somalia all over again.

The article you posted makes me wonder what we'll do with Iran. They appear to be a larger threat than Iraq (where ARE those WMDs, by the way?), and N. Korea, unless they like collective superpower circle jerking, is another very large threat.

My belief is Bush needs reelection. My belief is once Bush will/is reelected, then it's carte blanc. The Middle East will either be mown over or roll over. It'll be one large U.S. colony akin to Britain/India in the 19th Century. There'll still be an Islamic religion, but those guys are going to be bowing east at noon while wearing Abercrombie & Fitch khakis.

Personally, I think N. Korea is gutless. They, however, possess tangible military threat, plus they're hard-headed. N. Korea might actually take a non-protracted war (read: long-term battle) to neutralize the country. And this is without considering the China angle, though I bet if we take away their Coca Cola, Big Macs and Levis, they'd do whatever we say.

See, war is economics. Bliss is GOOD economics.