[i]The US has made clear that its goal is to dominate the globe militarily, which is unacceptable and therefore forces the issue.[/i]
I don't know if this is the case. As an American, I think there's considerable dissent that I can see that citizen's of other countries cannot within my own country. While Bush's approval ratings are high, even Republicans would rather not be involved in a number of countries overseas militarily.
Basically, the momentum will eventually die, and it will die quickly. Bush cannot go into a presidential election with another war. The isolationists in the Republican party would fight him harshly over it. The Republicans are also having problems locally now against Libertarians who have been taking votes.
At the Federal level, which is all that folks in other countries really see, the Republican party is stronger and more cohesive than the Democrats, but at state and local levels, the Democrats are doing better, esp with the Green party being merely the work of Nader. Without Nader, there is no Green party, without Browne or anyone else, the Libertarians still exist and continue to grow.
I've talked with others about the state of the Democratic party, and the next 5 years to a decade look pretty grim on the federal level. But a revolution might be in the works. One that pulls back to Union, Environmental, and other roots and gets knocked off of the special interest kick that they are currently so dependent on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the party is falling apart, but there is no good policies that the Democrats stand firmly on. What will happen is they will work something out and make a good comeback probably around 2008 or 2012.
[i]Australia will be concerned when this happens on its doorstep, but will its crying foul be heard over "more important" countries' crying foul elsewhere? I don't think so. [/i]
Bush has too close of ties to the UK, India, Canada, & Australia as kin to be worried about 3rd world countries. The only two countries I think that Bush would place over Austrailia in a nuclear concern area would be Japan and Germany. Germany has little if anything to worry about. Japan might with N. Korea.
I think as a whole that if Bush does what he says and gets the US military out of Iraq in a timely fashion (ie before the election) there is little chance he will lose the elections in 2004. The Republicans (esp isolationists & Midwest Republicans) want to see things end there ASAP and for their kids to come home. I don't think he's going to disappoint them either.
He wants to be a two-term president and he doesn't need another war to do it. And he wouldn't go to war with N. Korea anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up showing that not only can he use the US govt and his cabinet to dominate militarily with Iraq, but he can also dominate diplomatically with N. Korea.
I could be wrong though. It's just that as a US citizen, I don't understand where a great deal of this international hostility is coming from. Under a Democrat, the response to the WTC attacks would have been almost exactly the same, only they wouldn't have had the expertise of the Bush cabinet to deal with it in a very appropriate manner.
Bush steps on some tails, I know, but that's what makes him a leader. I didn't vote for him. I personally don't like him, but he got what needed to be done, done. I wouldn't have went to war in Iraq, but Bush, and Republicans are principled, and they do not stray from those principles. That's what makes the party very strong at the federal level, and rather weak locally. The Democrats (the party leaders and elected officials) don't have principles that they all as a unit try to adhere to. This makes them currently weak federally. Locally, some of the best elected officials are Democrats. They aren't always fisically responsible, but they know the people they represent.
anyway I've talked too long and you'll probably never read this.
[ Parent ]