It is amazing that someone would make such an ignorant comment as "if they got some oil he'll invade".
It is amazing that someone would make such an ignorant comment as "if they got some oil he'll invade".
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Are you saying you think all of the countries listed above must agree?
getting scarier (or dumber, I cant decide)Originally posted by: Stunt
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Are you saying you think all of the countries listed above must agree?
The vast majority...
I don't understand why you feel bad about this statement.
In every war that was warrented, the world has been there for you.
Getting the support of your allies in war is important. Without their support, you MUST question the motives for the war.
Just look at the history, you had tons of support in bosnia, afganistan, gulf war.
Vietnam and Iraq had little support, which wars were warrented....you decide.
The world has always been there...maybe this is the global test kerry advocates...he is a smart man.
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Are you saying you think all of the countries listed above must agree?
The vast majority...
I don't understand why you feel bad about this statement.
In every war that was warrented, the world has been there for you.
Getting the support of your allies in war is important. Without their support, you MUST question the motives for the war.
Just look at the history, you had tons of support in bosnia, afganistan, gulf war.
Vietnam and Iraq had little support, which wars were warrented....you decide.
The world has always been there...maybe this is the global test kerry advocates...he is a smart man.
I find it ridiculous that you feel all of those countries must agree before the US can take any action considered to be war.
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Wow, what a horrible list. Euro-centric all the way... with UK, Jr. on the list for some reason along with a Scandinavian country?? Surely you can choose some real significant countries. Japan perhaps? Others from around the world...
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Are you saying you think all of the countries listed above must agree?
The vast majority...
I don't understand why you feel bad about this statement.
In every war that was warrented, the world has been there for you.
Getting the support of your allies in war is important. Without their support, you MUST question the motives for the war.
Just look at the history, you had tons of support in bosnia, afganistan, gulf war.
Vietnam and Iraq had little support, which wars were warrented....you decide.
The world has always been there...maybe this is the global test kerry advocates...he is a smart man.
I find it ridiculous that you feel all of those countries must agree before the US can take any action considered to be war.
I said vast majority...and please tell me a war that was warrented where you did not have the support of your allies.
And im not saying you can't go to war...you can...but it would be a waste of lives and resources for questionable motives or questionable outcomes.
I'm saying if the US's principles were in line and military action was needed, your allies would be there by yoru side. If your allies refuse, you MUST SERIOUSLY question the validity of the war...
the "majority" we need is congress, thats why theres a couple hundred of them..
::sigh:: I'm gonna let someone else take this one.
you mean we were there for them, in every ware supported by said countries (Germany excluded of course) they werent there for us, they begged us to save thier asses.
or we MUST question THIER motives for being against us no matter what (ie, see oil for food scandals, Russia selling weapons to Iraq, etc)
each one recieved MAJOR criticism from international(and local) community, you act like Iraq was the first time anyone protested a war.
Actually France was originally trying to keep the peace in Vietnam, IIRC, we took over because they got their asses handed to them.
hes feeding you from the palm of his hand, smart indeed.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Wow, what a horrible list. Euro-centric all the way... with UK, Jr. on the list for some reason along with a Scandinavian country?? Surely you can choose some real significant countries. Japan perhaps? Others from around the world...
I was just naming off some countries who are repected in the world for their relative military strength...looking at the numbers, japan would be a good candidate to help assess a proposed war.
Just looking for the most level headed countries in the world...
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
As a Canadian i'm getting sick of how "Passively Minded" people are in this Country. Don't depend on us or the European Union to back you up in a crisis. It will take a 911 here to get off our asses and realize that the war the US is fighting is not their war alone.
You are asking my opinion, so that you may argue if the war is valid. I prefer not to change the discussion. I'll keep it simple, the idea that even the vast majority must agree before we should be allowed to act is ridiculous. What if we are being attacked?
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Wow, what a horrible list. Euro-centric all the way... with UK, Jr. on the list for some reason along with a Scandinavian country?? Surely you can choose some real significant countries. Japan perhaps? Others from around the world...
I was just naming off some countries who are repected in the world for their relative military strength...looking at the numbers, japan would be a good candidate to help assess a proposed war.
Just looking for the most level headed countries in the world...
And you feel qualified to make this assesment?
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
OMFG, Bwahahahahahahahaha.
Now accepting bribes to side with Saddam qualifies you as having good morals?
I am truly shocked that you people are still stupid enough to fall for this line. I guess the dems like Rangel succeeded with their scare tactics.
Quite possibly the dumbest statement I've seen. Nice of you to keep the lib's 1990's mantra alive though. Repeat after me: "No blood for oil, No blood for oil". Come on, louder now. It wasn't true in the first gulf war and it certainly isn't true now. The only ones making money off Iraq's oil were Saddam and his French and German partners in the food for oil scam. Did you forget that Bush was the one who wanted the money for rebuilding Iraq to be a gift while the democrats fought to make it a loan that would be repaid with oil revenue? And can you tell me how we would even get enough oil to make it worth 120 billion dollars? It simply makes no sense.
Oh, and to answer the original question:
It has nothing to do with whether it's a muslim country or not.
We won't be invading Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc because they are our allies and have been cooperative in making an effort to deal with terrorists.
Will we invade any other countries?
Only if they pose a threat.
North Korea: probably not because they already have nukes and the consequences of attacking them would be far far worse than Iraq. The only reasonable option there is non-military action.
Syria: doubtful because they are becoming more cooperative with us.
Iran: possibly if they continue to develop nukes and support terrorists. But more likely, this would consist of air strikes on nuclear facilities, not a ground invasion.
Would I support it?
This is a stupid question. Obviously it would depend on the circumstances.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Stunt
I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started. I mentioned the UN as they are all we have currently.
France, Germany, Britain, Canada, US, Spain and some other Scandinavian country should be required to back any unilateral war.
All are respectable nations with good morals and strive for global equilibrium.
Plus, being some of the richest nations, you can at least share the tab and not run your economy into the ground.
Wow, what a horrible list. Euro-centric all the way... with UK, Jr. on the list for some reason along with a Scandinavian country?? Surely you can choose some real significant countries. Japan perhaps? Others from around the world...
I was just naming off some countries who are repected in the world for their relative military strength...looking at the numbers, japan would be a good candidate to help assess a proposed war.
Just looking for the most level headed countries in the world...
And you feel qualified to make this assesment?
"I think it is very important to get the support of at least the big first world military powers before any war is started."
Notice the i think...if you are taking my words as policy give your head a shake...this is a message board...it's my opinion...get over it.
Hahahaha. If it wasn't such a long post it would be sig worthy. Those "Invade for Oil" stories makes me chuckle every time. It could never be because of a Power Hungry, Murdering, Terrorist Harboring, Dictator to them.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
I say there's a 33% chance we take some sort of action against Iran. I would most likely approve.
It all depends on how bad Iran f*cks up, and how much support Bush has at home. If action is taken I don't think it will look like Iraq. It will probably be an air campaign to destroy the WMD capability while supporting an internal revolt. We will not occupy.
It all depends on how bad Iran f*cks up, and how much support Bush has at home. If action is taken I don't think it will look like Iraq. It will probably be an air campaign to destroy the WMD capability while supporting an internal revolt. We will not occupy.
maybe.
i really don't know what the odds are...
depends on the situation...blindly approving OR disapproving of a future hypothetical situation is kinda stupid
i really don't know what the odds are...
depends on the situation...blindly approving OR disapproving of a future hypothetical situation is kinda stupid
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter