My only concern if we go to war with Iraq.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Hey, i know as much as any other its a tough situation. My family lives close to Kashmir, and its as bad as Israel over there. But, you have to be able to see that all these things are a matter of fate. It just happens to be a situation where many people of the Islamic faith are squared against - pretty much everyone else. They are still human beings though, and when they are children, they are still innocent. If you see young children with guns in their hands or bombs strapped to them, it is by the doing of their parents, not them. Children are innocent, and children are children, wherever they may live in this world, of whatever religion, or color.

my .02


And the parents that choose to warp young children like this need to be eradicated.


And that will create a ton of bin ladens.

It really is a vicious circle.



And doing nothing is a better option?


I didnt' say that. But i don't think that a full fledged war is a good option either. I still think we need more world support on this, particularly the U.N.'s.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Hey, i know as much as any other its a tough situation. My family lives close to Kashmir, and its as bad as Israel over there. But, you have to be able to see that all these things are a matter of fate. It just happens to be a situation where many people of the Islamic faith are squared against - pretty much everyone else. They are still human beings though, and when they are children, they are still innocent. If you see young children with guns in their hands or bombs strapped to them, it is by the doing of their parents, not them. Children are innocent, and children are children, wherever they may live in this world, of whatever religion, or color.

my .02


And the parents that choose to warp young children like this need to be eradicated.


And that will create a ton of bin ladens.

It really is a vicious circle.



And doing nothing is a better option?


I didnt' say that. But i don't think that a full fledged war is a good option either. I still think we need more world support on this, particularly the U.N.'s.



More UN support means more doing nothing.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
more U.N. support means more world respect.

It means playing by the de facto rules of the civilized world.

It means a step away from our bullying tactics, such as the No Fly Zones that we artificially created, and not recognized by the U.N.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
more U.N. support means more world respect.

It means playing by the de facto rules of the civilized world.

It means a step away from our bullying tactics, such as the No Fly Zones that we artificially created, and not recognized by the U.N.

More respect for what? How has the UN helped the Isreal/Palestin issue over the past 20+ years? Do they respectfully help? Sure, but it sure does not solve anything.

The UN has no teeth to make anything happen, and what teeth is does have belong to the US military.

So what do you propose the UN do to diffuse this situation? Should we continue playing the weapons inspection shell game? Do we let the UN keeping writing useless resolutions that condemn terrorist nations?


Or do we step up and act. I vote we step up and act.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
more U.N. support means more world respect.

It means playing by the de facto rules of the civilized world.

It means a step away from our bullying tactics, such as the No Fly Zones that we artificially created, and not recognized by the U.N.

More respect for what? How has the UN helped the Isreal/Palestin issue over the past 20+ years? Do they respectfully help? Sure, but it sure does not solve anything.

The UN has no teeth to make anything happen, and what teeth is does have belong to the US military.

So what do you propose the UN do to diffuse this situation? Should we continue playing the weapons inspection shell game? Do we let the UN keeping writing useless resolutions that condemn terrorist nations?


Or do we step up and act. I vote we step up and act.

Charrison, if you didn't realize, most of the world is not with us on this one. More respect meaning people will start empathizing with us more, instead of ridiculing our foreign policy. I'm not talking specifically about Israel or Palestine, i'm talking right now about Iraq.

What do we do? We do whatever the U.N. wishes we do. We dont' blame Iraq before the inspections are fully over. We dont jump to conclusions. We dont (as Rumsefeld has tried) look far and wide desperately searching for ANY connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to justify an invasion of the country. We play it by ear. Sometimes we blow hot, sometimes we blow cold. We have patience, we see what happens, then, we strike when the iron is hot. Right now is NOT a good time, with Al Qaeda still strong and running, with a lack of world support (by Asia and Europe in particular), and with our economy on thin ice.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
more U.N. support means more world respect.

It means playing by the de facto rules of the civilized world.

It means a step away from our bullying tactics, such as the No Fly Zones that we artificially created, and not recognized by the U.N.

More respect for what? How has the UN helped the Isreal/Palestin issue over the past 20+ years? Do they respectfully help? Sure, but it sure does not solve anything.

The UN has no teeth to make anything happen, and what teeth is does have belong to the US military.

So what do you propose the UN do to diffuse this situation? Should we continue playing the weapons inspection shell game? Do we let the UN keeping writing useless resolutions that condemn terrorist nations?


Or do we step up and act. I vote we step up and act.

Charrison, if you didn't realize, most of the world is not with us on this one. More respect meaning people will start empathizing with us more, instead of ridiculing our foreign policy. I'm not talking specifically about Israel or Palestine, i'm talking right now about Iraq.

What do we do? We do whatever the U.N. wishes we do. We dont' blame Iraq before the inspections are fully over. We dont jump to conclusions. We dont (as Rumsefeld has tried) look far and wide desperately searching for ANY connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to justify an invasion of the country. We play it by ear. Sometimes we blow hot, sometimes we blow cold. We have patience, we see what happens, then, we strike when the iron is hot. Right now is NOT a good time, with Al Qaeda still strong and running, with a lack of world support (by Asia and Europe in particular), and with our economy on thin ice.

Bah, we waited 10 years, worst mistake ever. Iron was hot then, they shoulda finished the job. As far as those pansies in Europe and Asia, we need to start cashing in on some IOUs FROM WW2 .

Chiz
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
more U.N. support means more world respect.

It means playing by the de facto rules of the civilized world.

It means a step away from our bullying tactics, such as the No Fly Zones that we artificially created, and not recognized by the U.N.

More respect for what? How has the UN helped the Isreal/Palestin issue over the past 20+ years? Do they respectfully help? Sure, but it sure does not solve anything.

The UN has no teeth to make anything happen, and what teeth is does have belong to the US military.

So what do you propose the UN do to diffuse this situation? Should we continue playing the weapons inspection shell game? Do we let the UN keeping writing useless resolutions that condemn terrorist nations?


Or do we step up and act. I vote we step up and act.

Charrison, if you didn't realize, most of the world is not with us on this one. More respect meaning people will start empathizing with us more, instead of ridiculing our foreign policy. I'm not talking specifically about Israel or Palestine, i'm talking right now about Iraq.

What do we do? We do whatever the U.N. wishes we do. We dont' blame Iraq before the inspections are fully over. We dont jump to conclusions. We dont (as Rumsefeld has tried) look far and wide desperately searching for ANY connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to justify an invasion of the country. We play it by ear. Sometimes we blow hot, sometimes we blow cold. We have patience, we see what happens, then, we strike when the iron is hot. Right now is NOT a good time, with Al Qaeda still strong and running, with a lack of world support (by Asia and Europe in particular), and with our economy on thin ice.

Bah, we waited 10 years, worst mistake ever. Iron was hot then, they shoulda finished the job. As far as those pansies in Europe and Asia, we need to start cashing in on some IOUs FROM WW2 .

Chiz

We should have finished it off. I still dont know why we never did. The PGW was stupid if we couldn't reach our objective, right when we were at the the entrance of Baghdad. By not finishing it off, we were ethically and morally irresponsible (according to Machiavellian thought)



 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Charrison, if you didn't realize, most of the world is not with us on this one.



That does not make us wrong.

More respect meaning people will start empathizing with us more, instead of ridiculing our foreign policy. I'm not talking specifically about Israel or Palestine, i'm talking right now about Iraq.

Yes I know, but I was just pointing out the UN has a terrible track record for fixing problems.

What do we do? We do whatever the U.N. wishes we do.

I refuse to be governed by an organization that we do not elect.

We dont' blame Iraq before the inspections are fully over.

Willing to wait another 10 or 20 years to judge? We have trying the inspection route for 12 now.

We dont jump to conclusions. We dont (as Rumsefeld has tried) look far and wide desperately searching for ANY connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to justify an invasion of the country.

I think the goverment should be looking for such connections with any country, not just iraq. Snippet I heard on the radio the other day, the US goverment has over 100 credible reports of iraq and Al queda working together. Should we ignore reports like this because iraq says they are not true, or should we investigate them more?


We play it by ear. Sometimes we blow hot, sometimes we blow cold. We have patience, we see what happens, then, we strike when the iron is hot.

My patience for counties that openly support terrorist is gone.


Right now is NOT a good time,

If not now, when? Today is bad, but tommorow is better?

with Al Qaeda still strong and running,

The key word there is running, and we need to keep them on the run.

with a lack of world support (by Asia and Europe in particular),
I could care less how europe and asia thinks we should handle countries that support terrorists. If Europe and Asia want to submit to Islamic radical, that is their problem.


and with our economy on thin ice.

House sales remain strong
Unemployment is flattening out
consumer confidense is up
inventories are shrinking
productivity up 5% last quarter
Economy grew at 3.1% last quarter
Walmart has record sales of $1.4B friday after turkey day.
Most economist agree this will not be a double dip recession.

what is this thin ice you are talking about?



 

sniperbob

Member
Oct 22, 2002
155
0
0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
more U.N. support means more world respect.

It means playing by the de facto rules of the civilized world.

It means a step away from our bullying tactics, such as the No Fly Zones that we artificially created, and not recognized by the U.N.

More respect for what? How has the UN helped the Isreal/Palestin issue over the past 20+ years? Do they respectfully help? Sure, but it sure does not solve anything.

The UN has no teeth to make anything happen, and what teeth is does have belong to the US military.

So what do you propose the UN do to diffuse this situation? Should we continue playing the weapons inspection shell game? Do we let the UN keeping writing useless resolutions that condemn terrorist nations?


Or do we step up and act. I vote we step up and act.

Charrison, if you didn't realize, most of the world is not with us on this one. More respect meaning people will start empathizing with us more, instead of ridiculing our foreign policy. I'm not talking specifically about Israel or Palestine, i'm talking right now about Iraq.

What do we do? We do whatever the U.N. wishes we do. We dont' blame Iraq before the inspections are fully over. We dont jump to conclusions. We dont (as Rumsefeld has tried) look far and wide desperately searching for ANY connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to justify an invasion of the country. We play it by ear. Sometimes we blow hot, sometimes we blow cold. We have patience, we see what happens, then, we strike when the iron is hot. Right now is NOT a good time, with Al Qaeda still strong and running, with a lack of world support (by Asia and Europe in particular), and with our economy on thin ice.

Bah, we waited 10 years, worst mistake ever. Iron was hot then, they shoulda finished the job. As far as those pansies in Europe and Asia, we need to start cashing in on some IOUs FROM WW2 .

Chiz

We should have finished it off. I still dont know why we never did. The PGW was stupid if we couldn't reach our objective, right when we were at the the entrance of Baghdad. By not finishing it off, we were ethically and morally irresponsible (according to Machiavellian thought)

But we did reach our objective, which was to free Kuwait, although it should have been topple Saddam, but I believe Bush was wise to end the war when he did. Else we would have been fighting a war with ever changing objectives, which we already done and lost in the 60s and 70s.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
more U.N. support means more world respect.

It means playing by the de facto rules of the civilized world.

It means a step away from our bullying tactics, such as the No Fly Zones that we artificially created, and not recognized by the U.N.

More respect for what? How has the UN helped the Isreal/Palestin issue over the past 20+ years? Do they respectfully help? Sure, but it sure does not solve anything.

The UN has no teeth to make anything happen, and what teeth is does have belong to the US military.

So what do you propose the UN do to diffuse this situation? Should we continue playing the weapons inspection shell game? Do we let the UN keeping writing useless resolutions that condemn terrorist nations?


Or do we step up and act. I vote we step up and act.

Charrison, if you didn't realize, most of the world is not with us on this one. More respect meaning people will start empathizing with us more, instead of ridiculing our foreign policy. I'm not talking specifically about Israel or Palestine, i'm talking right now about Iraq.

What do we do? We do whatever the U.N. wishes we do. We dont' blame Iraq before the inspections are fully over. We dont jump to conclusions. We dont (as Rumsefeld has tried) look far and wide desperately searching for ANY connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to justify an invasion of the country. We play it by ear. Sometimes we blow hot, sometimes we blow cold. We have patience, we see what happens, then, we strike when the iron is hot. Right now is NOT a good time, with Al Qaeda still strong and running, with a lack of world support (by Asia and Europe in particular), and with our economy on thin ice.

Bah, we waited 10 years, worst mistake ever. Iron was hot then, they shoulda finished the job. As far as those pansies in Europe and Asia, we need to start cashing in on some IOUs FROM WW2 .

Chiz

We should have finished it off. I still dont know why we never did. The PGW was stupid if we couldn't reach our objective, right when we were at the the entrance of Baghdad. By not finishing it off, we were ethically and morally irresponsible (according to Machiavellian thought)

We never did because we bowed to UN and world pressure. So should we bow again so you can complain again later?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sniperbobBut we did reach our objective, which was to free Kuwait, although it should have been topple Saddam, but I believe Bush was wise to end the war when he did. Else we would have been fighting a war with ever changing objectives, which we already done and lost in the 60s and 70s.



No, we overwhelming force and world support. Iraq was finished at that point.
 

sniperbob

Member
Oct 22, 2002
155
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sniperbobBut we did reach our objective, which was to free Kuwait, although it should have been topple Saddam, but I believe Bush was wise to end the war when he did. Else we would have been fighting a war with ever changing objectives, which we already done and lost in the 60s and 70s.



No, we overwhelming force and world support. Iraq was finished at that point.


world support aint going to get us into Baghdad, it still going to need the grunts that's going to occupy a very large city in a hostile environment. But I agree with you, we should have done it, had it been a clear objective in the beginning. But I doubt the American public would have the support for it before 9/11
 

TheWart

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2000
5,219
1
76
I just had to chime in about someone posting earlier in the thread saying how we should not attack without full UN support out of respect for the UN....well, the UN, thanks to Iraq and other nations that blatantly violate its mandates, is slowly becoming a non-entity, and so the people who swear by the UN better hope that the US gets up and holds countires accountable (Iraq's violatons of multiple UN mandates for example), lest we have another LON on our hands.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sniperbob
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sniperbobBut we did reach our objective, which was to free Kuwait, although it should have been topple Saddam, but I believe Bush was wise to end the war when he did. Else we would have been fighting a war with ever changing objectives, which we already done and lost in the 60s and 70s.



No, we overwhelming force and world support. Iraq was finished at that point.


world support aint going to get us into Baghdad, it still going to need the grunts that's going to occupy a very large city in a hostile environment. But I agree with you, we should have done it, had it been a clear objective in the beginning. But I doubt the American public would have the support for it before 9/11


We had the support in 92 to do it, but we caved to the world/un.
 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
Originally posted by: novon
How about we go to war, the oil industry gets a boost, pollution increases, global warming happens, and we all die.

my heating bill will go down at least.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Charrison, if you didn't realize, most of the world is not with us on this one.



That does not make us wrong.

More respect meaning people will start empathizing with us more, instead of ridiculing our foreign policy. I'm not talking specifically about Israel or Palestine, i'm talking right now about Iraq.

Yes I know, but I was just pointing out the UN has a terrible track record for fixing problems.

What do we do? We do whatever the U.N. wishes we do.

I refuse to be governed by an organization that we do not elect.

We dont' blame Iraq before the inspections are fully over.

Willing to wait another 10 or 20 years to judge? We have trying the inspection route for 12 now.

We dont jump to conclusions. We dont (as Rumsefeld has tried) look far and wide desperately searching for ANY connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to justify an invasion of the country.

I think the goverment should be looking for such connections with any country, not just iraq. Snippet I heard on the radio the other day, the US goverment has over 100 credible reports of iraq and Al queda working together. Should we ignore reports like this because iraq says they are not true, or should we investigate them more?


We play it by ear. Sometimes we blow hot, sometimes we blow cold. We have patience, we see what happens, then, we strike when the iron is hot.

My patience for counties that openly support terrorist is gone.


Right now is NOT a good time,

If not now, when? Today is bad, but tommorow is better?

with Al Qaeda still strong and running,

The key word there is running, and we need to keep them on the run.

with a lack of world support (by Asia and Europe in particular),
I could care less how europe and asia thinks we should handle countries that support terrorists. If Europe and Asia want to submit to Islamic radical, that is their problem.


and with our economy on thin ice.

House sales remain strong
Unemployment is flattening out
consumer confidense is up
inventories are shrinking
productivity up 5% last quarter
Economy grew at 3.1% last quarter
Walmart has record sales of $1.4B friday after turkey day.
Most economist agree this will not be a double dip recession.

what is this thin ice you are talking about?


last post of the night...



1) Does'nt make us wrong, but SHOULD make us think. Definitely means that we aren't clearly right, either.
2) We took part in creating the U.N. in 1945 with a charter signed by us, China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France. How can, as a model nation, expect others to follow U.N. guidelines if we do not?
3) You heard of 100 credible reports of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? I have yet to hear one. I think most people on here have yet to hear of one. If you have any links it would be appreciated. If there is a positive link, then my feelings may change on this matter. Until then, i still believe what i have said.
5) Al Qaeda is hardly running. They have successfully implemented about 5 world attacks since 9/11. They are still going strong, and apparently our best efforts are doing little to stop them.
6) Regarding Europe and Asia comment, we still dont know if Iraq supports terrorists. I would like to see some evidence before i say that.
7) Yeah, i'lla gree our economy is improving, but improving doesn't meant it is healthy. The economy still sucks by and large. I know lots of young people my age that are jobless, and they are smart people. A lot of them have been forced to go directly into grad school after undergrad because the jobs just aren't there. Large companies are still declaring bankruptcy every day.
 

sniperbob

Member
Oct 22, 2002
155
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sniperbob
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sniperbobBut we did reach our objective, which was to free Kuwait, although it should have been topple Saddam, but I believe Bush was wise to end the war when he did. Else we would have been fighting a war with ever changing objectives, which we already done and lost in the 60s and 70s.



No, we overwhelming force and world support. Iraq was finished at that point.


world support aint going to get us into Baghdad, it still going to need the grunts that's going to occupy a very large city in a hostile environment. But I agree with you, we should have done it, had it been a clear objective in the beginning. But I doubt the American public would have the support for it before 9/11


We had the support in 92 to do it, but we caved to the world/un.


support for the initial invasion, but I bet the support will wither away as CNN televise the street to street fighting our troops will face.
But I'm interested, what's your thought on North Korea?
/gets on soapbox
I personally believe that in the next decade, not only will we have to committ troops in North Korea to keep them from blowing all of us up, china will probably make a move on taiwan. Asia to me seems like the new powder keg, waiting to go off.
/gets off soapbox
 

sniperbob

Member
Oct 22, 2002
155
0
0
Originally posted by: Evadman
Originally posted by: novon
How about we go to war, the oil industry gets a boost, pollution increases, global warming happens, and we all die.

my heating bill will go down at least.

or you can invest in a good jacket and turn off the heater ;)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
last post of the night...



1) Does'nt make us wrong, but SHOULD make us think. Definitely means that we aren't clearly right, either.
2) We took part in creating the U.N. in 1945 with a charter signed by us, China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France. How can, as a model nation, expect others to follow U.N. guidelines if we do not?
3) You heard of 100 credible reports of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? I have yet to hear one. I think most people on here have yet to hear of one. If you have any links it would be appreciated. If there is a positive link, then my feelings may change on this matter. Until then, i still believe what i have said.
5) Al Qaeda is hardly running. They have successfully implemented about 5 world attacks since 9/11. They are still going strong, and apparently our best efforts are doing little to stop them.
6) Regarding Europe and Asia comment, we still dont know if Iraq supports terrorists. I would like to see some evidence before i say that.
7) Yeah, i'lla gree our economy is improving, but improving doesn't meant it is healthy. The economy still sucks by and large. I know lots of young people my age that are jobless, and they are smart people. A lot of them have been forced to go directly into grad school after undergrad because the jobs just aren't there. Large companies are still declaring bankruptcy every day.



1. This country would not exist if the founding fathers had taken the easy route and stuck with the majority. The majority did not want to break away with England and cause war. The world is currently wrong and we are currently right.

2. What part of the UN charter are we not following. Every country has the right to defend itself.

3. I have personally heard several reports of Iraq/Al queda connections. They are not smoking guns, but it is without a doubt mounting circumstantial evidence. It would not surprise if the goverment had over 100 credible reports of al queda/iraq connections. Credible does not mean the report the is true, but conversly means it is not false and needs further investigation.

5. So what country is AL queda currently operating in without harrasment? How many AL queda leaders have been killed or picked up lately? Their ability to operate has been degraded.


6. Hussein cuts checks to the family of every suicide bomber. This is more than enough evidence for me.


7. I agree the economy is not perfect, but it still not on thin ice. Unemployment is 6%, most economist call full employment at 5%. The tech sector was hardest hit and will need longer to recover, but overall things are looking up. To say otherwise is being a pessimist.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sniperbob
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sniperbob
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sniperbobBut we did reach our objective, which was to free Kuwait, although it should have been topple Saddam, but I believe Bush was wise to end the war when he did. Else we would have been fighting a war with ever changing objectives, which we already done and lost in the 60s and 70s.



No, we overwhelming force and world support. Iraq was finished at that point.


world support aint going to get us into Baghdad, it still going to need the grunts that's going to occupy a very large city in a hostile environment. But I agree with you, we should have done it, had it been a clear objective in the beginning. But I doubt the American public would have the support for it before 9/11


We had the support in 92 to do it, but we caved to the world/un.


support for the initial invasion, but I bet the support will wither away as CNN televise the street to street fighting our troops will face.
But I'm interested, what's your thought on North Korea?
/gets on soapbox
I personally believe that in the next decade, not only will we have to committ troops in North Korea to keep them from blowing all of us up, china will probably make a move on taiwan. Asia to me seems like the new powder keg, waiting to go off.
/gets off soapbox


IN case you dont know we already have about 40k troops in South Korea and it has been that way since the "end" of the Korean war. North korea is on the virge of collapse and probably only need a little kick to make it happen.

China is interesting. We stop imports we kill 1/2 their economy. Their military by most reports is getting worse because lack of modernization of equipment.
 

sniperbob

Member
Oct 22, 2002
155
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison

IN case you dont know we already have about 40k troops in South Korea and it has been that way since the "end" of the Korean war. North korea is on the virge of collapse and probably only need a little kick to make it happen.

China is interesting. We stop imports we kill 1/2 their economy. Their military by most reports is getting worse because lack of modernization of equipment.

That's what worries me, a stable north korea probably wouldn't try to cast its dice in a game of chance, but one that's near collapse, its leadership might just try it. But china, I don't know if the import sancition would do anything major, by sheer numbers they might be able to make it to taiwan, hell if not, they do have a good number of nukes and the ability to hit taiwan with them.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: sniperbob
Originally posted by: charrison

IN case you dont know we already have about 40k troops in South Korea and it has been that way since the "end" of the Korean war. North korea is on the virge of collapse and probably only need a little kick to make it happen.

China is interesting. We stop imports we kill 1/2 their economy. Their military by most reports is getting worse because lack of modernization of equipment.

That's what worries me, a stable north korea probably wouldn't try to cast its dice in a game of chance, but one that's near collapse, its leadership might just try it. But china, I don't know if the import sancition would do anything major, by sheer numbers they might be able to make it to taiwan, hell if not, they do have a good number of nukes and the ability to hit taiwan with them.

Nukes??? You'd crater Taiwan with 1, its like the size of Long Island. China's into saber rattling. Give 'em another 10 years and one of the last bastions of communism will fall.

Chiz
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,999
307
126
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
I've seen footage where it did have a basis. Footage from the persian Gulf war, ever seen that? Ever seen it made by a third party, such as a french journalist? I have. We bombed hospitals, schools, and factories. We bombed all sorts of things that had NOTHING to do with the war or Sadams weapons.

One thing, also, i forgot, is that it isn't that easy to get rid of him also because the people in power get a lot of kickbacks, benefit, respect, and priveledges, which, they would not have if Sadaam isn't around. There is a lot of incentive for a lot of people that his policies remain in effect.

Excuse me, but collateral damage (non-military installations destroyed) was unavoidable when Iraqi communications centers revolved around there installations. Special forces had all but destroyed any remote communications targets and F-117s hit the most hardened centers so quickly that Iraqi commanders were desperate to rebuild their communications network. Every attempt ended in a quick decapitation of the network. They resorted to burying their communications network around their civilian facilities as but another desperate attempt. The U.S. showed its resolve by hitting these civilian centers; military targets - even surrounded by human shields - are fair game in war-time.