I guessed missed the fact that we are greatly reducing our nuke arsenal.[/quote]
When you're down to one, let me know.
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
I could see Iran arming themselves to the teeth against Iraq. But if you suggest that their nuclear program is for us, then thats another story.
BTW, why are we dissing other countries, friend or foe, for wanting the same deterent as we have?
Was the US supposed to be world cop? Not according to the guy in the white house now. I'm pretty sure he said we are not the world cop. At least that's how I remember his campaign speeches.
N Korea can have them,India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, China, Japan, France,Germany, Russia, who the hell cares?
The fact is it takes just one to make it an all out retallitory desaster for the country that uses one.
And if we use them, we damn well better be ready to face the conseqences of our action.
What ever happened to diplomacy? Did this administration throw that out with the rest of his promises?
2004 can't come soon enough.
What is this diplomacy you speak of?
Highly doubtful. You forget that all the countries you are guys are talking about (Pakistan, Iran, Syria) are soveriegn nations.
Iraq lost a war. They lost their soveriegn rights to defend themselves in any manner they saw fit (WMD). The other nations have not.
It doesn't matter how many "credible links" the US makes between individuals in those countries and al-Qaeda; unless they link the the highest branches of their governments, we have no right to attack them.
Ditto and ditto again.
When you're down to one, let me know.[/quote]
It is doubtful that we will ever get rid of them all, as it remains a powerful deterant.
>>>What is this diplomacy you speak of?<<<
I'm not sure, but it seems to me the world has a hell of alot more violence and hatred towards the US since Bush took office. Sometimes I think those who wish us harm are acting just because they have a cowboy in the white house to take shots at. And I really think Bush likes it.
10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, I don't think we had enemies that couldn't be numbered on one hand. Now, the whole damn world has taken issue with the US.
There is no diplomacy. We dictated to the UN what we were going to do; we reigned in the only diplomat in the adminsitration when he started to look like a pacifist (Collin Powell).
We give Kudos and the nobel peace prize to people like Jimmy Carter, but in this forum, that would only get rebuke. And that is a reflection of what is wrong with the US now, too many arm chair hawks. I have sons who may be called to war. As a father, I want that to be the last resort, not the first.
But if we do go to war, I'll be happy to serve, if they ask me.
Just get some diplomacy going again and start using common sense.
I'm not sure, but it seems to me the world has a hell of alot more violence and hatred towards the US since Bush took office. Sometimes I think those who wish us harm are acting just because they have a cowboy in the white house to take shots at. And I really think Bush likes it.
10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, I don't think we had enemies that couldn't be numbered on one hand. Now, the whole damn world has taken issue with the US.
There is no diplomacy. We dictated to the UN what we were going to do; we reigned in the only diplomat in the adminsitration when he started to look like a pacifist (Collin Powell).
We give Kudos and the nobel peace prize to people like Jimmy Carter, but in this forum, that would only get rebuke. And that is a reflection of what is wrong with the US now, too many arm chair hawks. I have sons who may be called to war. As a father, I want that to be the last resort, not the first.
But if we do go to war, I'll be happy to serve, if they ask me.
Just get some diplomacy going again and start using common sense.
It is doubtful that we will ever get rid of them all, as it remains a powerful deterant.[/quote]
Hmmm that just might be why other countries are devolping them as well.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You forgot China. When do we attack them and start WWIII?Originally posted by: her209
And India and Pakistan.Originally posted by: hagbard
You forget N. Korea and Israel..oh, and France.Originally posted by: her209
Russia and Britain has nukes too.
Originally posted by: Vic
You forgot China. When do we attack them and start WWIII?Originally posted by: her209
And India and Pakistan.Originally posted by: hagbard
You forget N. Korea and Israel..oh, and France.Originally posted by: her209
Russia and Britain has nukes too.
Cutting our trade off with china would hurt them more than a nuke.
Hmmm that just might be why other countries are devolping them as well.[/quote]
I dont have any real problems with politically stable countries doing so.
Originally posted by: Vic
You forgot China. When do we attack them and start WWIII?Originally posted by: her209
And India and Pakistan.Originally posted by: hagbard
You forget N. Korea and Israel..oh, and France.Originally posted by: her209
Russia and Britain has nukes too.
My guess is during the 11th hour of the 2004 Presidential Election, when Bush sees his Presidency fading away.
Why these countries hagbard? Oil? Then why is North Korea on that list?
Better yet, if this is a list of countries the US 'wants to add to thier empire' why isn't the largest oil producer of all, Saudi Arabia, on that list?
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. And wealthy Saudis are known to support Al Qadea. So it seems as though the US would have a built in excuse to already have
invaded and annexed. The US would never have to worry about oil again and could manipulate OPEC to set any price they like.
Hell, if the US is so bent on building the empire, why not just invade and annex Canada and nearly double the land mass of the US instantly and have all of Canada's vast natural resources?
Truth is, the US has the military might to do exactly as you are suggesting they are doing... building an empire. I don't see much military might being flexed at the moment.
Bin Laden is in the mountains of Pakistan laughing at us. Saddam sits and rallies the Arab world while we do nothing. A Saudi princess was linked giving funds to a charity that was a front for Al Qaeda.
North Korea is flaunting thier nukes in front of us and our Asian allies.
Yet, the guns are virtually silent. We wait for the UN. Why? Why would the most militarily dominant nation on earth, hell bent on building an empire, be sitting on thier hands while the UN reads Saddam's 12,000 page fairytale?
the US should also add to its conquest list:
1. the bahamas so that we can have some nice tropical beaches
2. brazil. i hear they have some racy soap operas there
3. south africa. it's still pretty segregated right? trent lott can be governor there
4. australia. bush jr like huntin right? he can go out to the outback and track down those damn koalas
5. and of course switzerland for their wonderful timepieces and chocolate. can't live without that chocolate.
1. the bahamas so that we can have some nice tropical beaches
2. brazil. i hear they have some racy soap operas there
3. south africa. it's still pretty segregated right? trent lott can be governor there
4. australia. bush jr like huntin right? he can go out to the outback and track down those damn koalas
5. and of course switzerland for their wonderful timepieces and chocolate. can't live without that chocolate.
Highly doubtful. You forget that all the countries you are guys are talking about (Pakistan, Iran, Syria) are soveriegn nations. Iraq lost a war. They lost their soveriegn rights to defend themselves in any manner they saw fit (WMD). The other nations have not. It doesn't matter how many "credible links" the US makes between individuals in those countries and al-Qaeda; unless they link the the highest branches of their governments, we have no right to attack them.
Who will attack? They won't be attacking us, that's for sure. When was the last time a nation openly attacked us on our soil? An argument can be made that Afghanistan had enough ties to al-Qaeda to be considered as attacking us, but the last real attack was Japan in Pearl Harbor.
Will we attack them? I already made my argument why that's doubtful. We're having one helluva time going through the motions with Iraq, who is required by the UN to disarm. To make sovereign countries disarm by using force...that's something the US can't get away with. Anybody with high-school level knowledge about world politics knows this.
9/11 was without question the last attack on American soil. If you want to get really technical, Hawaii was not a state during the attack at pearl harbor.
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Nope. Oil is secondary issue, even in Iraq.
They are. They know what they're doing...you don't
It would be stupid to do so at this time. Establish a base in Iraq, attack Iran and setup a puppet government there. Take are of Syria, N. Korea, Lebanon, Libya and all the other "trouble makers", then go for SA. Maybe ever earlier than that, the US gov't will be in a pretty powerful position once they're established in Iraq, they won't need to appease the Saudi royal family anymore in exchange for oil. The US gov't doesn't let me in on their planning sessions, but I do see these events falling in line (based on "America's best interests").
We'd be a drain on your economySeriously though, why bother? You get the resources at rock bottom prices, and can slap tariffs on when you want to protect your own producers.
Wait and see (and you won't have to wait long to see things starting to unfold). Hey, I hope YOU'RE RIGHT and I'm just clinically paranoid. I've heard some people mention that Bush might be wanting to bring about the rapture. He's a scarey guy, imo.
I never question that, but when you trace the attackers back to their origin, are we supposed to blame al-Qaeda as an organization, the Afghani govt. for supporting them, the Saudi people for supporting them, the Saudi govt. for turning a blind eye, etc. etc.
So while we were able to sufficiently convince the world that a war in Afghanistan was necessary, we'd need a higher burden of proof to convince the world that a pre-emptive strike on countries like Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. is necessary. Realistically, that burden of proof is too high; the Taliban made it easy to draw the lines from Bin Laden all the way to the top of the chain, but it will never be that easy in the other countries mentioned.
Thanks for the info on Hawaii. A technicality really, but good to know.
God i hope this isn't true.
Can't we finish one job at a time? I know Bush is super intelligent and competent and all, but we should still do it one job at a time.
Can't we finish one job at a time? I know Bush is super intelligent and competent and all, but we should still do it one job at a time.
I'm Canadian, so when I say "they" I mean "you" the US. The US will attack Iran...etc. By the time Bush has "the American people" pumped up with victories in Afghanistan, Iraq many of you will be cheering him on into whatever crusade he wants.
I would guess that we after we take care of Iraq our militarys hands are going to full. It is real doubtfull that we will see a draft, but probably an increase in recruited force. The US controlling iraq not only removes a country that openly supports terrorists, but it gives the world a new preferred location for the buying of energy. This will have great impact on the ability of mideast countries to sell oil worldwide. This will cause a rapid decrease in worldwide terrorist funding.
At least that is how i see it.
lol, I find it humorous that many people think Bush is on some sort of 'crusade,' like the last post alluded to. What reasoning do you have that points to the fact that the US is going to go after some of the aforementioned countries? Let me go over a few things:
- China: No, we are not going to attack them, our only real beef with them is that Clinto lifted sanctions weapons tech a few years ago and they are a Communist nation. Also, they are flagrant abuser of human rights (yet they are on the UN Human Rights commision...go figure). While we could probably defeat them 1 on 1 in a war, it would be disastrous...so thats not going to happen
- North Korea: Like China, we oppose them, but are not going to go to war with them. We oppose (as should any sane country) because they are trying to develope nukes...
- Pakastan: absolutely not. They are a key ally, however unappealing that is. However, I would not be suprised if we 'urge' reforms in their islamic schools (madrassahs) which are fermenting points for future terrorists
- Saudi Arabia: Again, like Pakastan, they are our allies, and they have oil. So, because enviromentalists dont wanna drill in ANWAR and Russia's oil production isnt up to par, we cant afford to break relations with them, although they are a MAJOR source of terrorists and funding for terrorsits
- Iran: haha, why would we attack them now? They are on the brink of a revolution, and many citezens want to have closer ties with the US....I wouldnt be suprised if we help along Khomeni's downfall, esp with the news of their secret nuke factories being broken today
- Iraq: Hmm, lets see, they ignore the UN by creating WMD, they gass thousands of Kurds, and the UN does nothing, finallly, when they invade Kuwait, the US (not UN) has to lead a coalition. If the US does not step in and force Iraq to be held accountable for its hazerdous WMD program and flaunting of UN mandates, then the UN might as well go the way of the League of Nations, whose inablility to do anything played a large part in 'allowing' world war II to happen
And as for this whole topic, I find it hilarious that people who dont like Bush always go back to the ignorant-cowboy criticism...well let me tell you a thing or two, laugh at him now, but were he a weaker pres, he could have cow-towed to UN pressure and that would have hastend the road the downfall of our national sovereingty (sp?). As it is, he is hardly ignoring the UN, as he is taking careful steps to comply with it every step of the way. So I dont know where people get the idea that he wants to make an 'empire'as no sane country does anymore, it is just not as profitable/easy as it was earlier in history. Lastly, if we were going after Iraq for oil, wouldnt it make more since simply to call off the attack, lift sanctions, and call Saddam a friend of peace? We would lose less people, could establish lucrative business deals in Iraq, and get more oil...
Wake up people, this is not fantasy world where everyone hammers out their problems on the UN general assembly floor, it is a world filled with people who want to kill all americans, not becuase GW is our pres, but b/c you are american.......Sheesh, there are way too many people on this forum who dont learn from history..just a quick lesson
Who was called a warmonger and belligerent hmm, about 60 years ago....could that be Winston Churchill, now regarded as one of the finest leaders. This was done in regards to his belief that Nazi Germany should be attakced before it take over Europe...well, the peaceniks had their shot then, and look what happened, do you want that to happen again in the middle east?
- China: No, we are not going to attack them, our only real beef with them is that Clinto lifted sanctions weapons tech a few years ago and they are a Communist nation. Also, they are flagrant abuser of human rights (yet they are on the UN Human Rights commision...go figure). While we could probably defeat them 1 on 1 in a war, it would be disastrous...so thats not going to happen
- North Korea: Like China, we oppose them, but are not going to go to war with them. We oppose (as should any sane country) because they are trying to develope nukes...
- Pakastan: absolutely not. They are a key ally, however unappealing that is. However, I would not be suprised if we 'urge' reforms in their islamic schools (madrassahs) which are fermenting points for future terrorists
- Saudi Arabia: Again, like Pakastan, they are our allies, and they have oil. So, because enviromentalists dont wanna drill in ANWAR and Russia's oil production isnt up to par, we cant afford to break relations with them, although they are a MAJOR source of terrorists and funding for terrorsits
- Iran: haha, why would we attack them now? They are on the brink of a revolution, and many citezens want to have closer ties with the US....I wouldnt be suprised if we help along Khomeni's downfall, esp with the news of their secret nuke factories being broken today
- Iraq: Hmm, lets see, they ignore the UN by creating WMD, they gass thousands of Kurds, and the UN does nothing, finallly, when they invade Kuwait, the US (not UN) has to lead a coalition. If the US does not step in and force Iraq to be held accountable for its hazerdous WMD program and flaunting of UN mandates, then the UN might as well go the way of the League of Nations, whose inablility to do anything played a large part in 'allowing' world war II to happen
And as for this whole topic, I find it hilarious that people who dont like Bush always go back to the ignorant-cowboy criticism...well let me tell you a thing or two, laugh at him now, but were he a weaker pres, he could have cow-towed to UN pressure and that would have hastend the road the downfall of our national sovereingty (sp?). As it is, he is hardly ignoring the UN, as he is taking careful steps to comply with it every step of the way. So I dont know where people get the idea that he wants to make an 'empire'as no sane country does anymore, it is just not as profitable/easy as it was earlier in history. Lastly, if we were going after Iraq for oil, wouldnt it make more since simply to call off the attack, lift sanctions, and call Saddam a friend of peace? We would lose less people, could establish lucrative business deals in Iraq, and get more oil...
Wake up people, this is not fantasy world where everyone hammers out their problems on the UN general assembly floor, it is a world filled with people who want to kill all americans, not becuase GW is our pres, but b/c you are american.......Sheesh, there are way too many people on this forum who dont learn from history..just a quick lesson
Who was called a warmonger and belligerent hmm, about 60 years ago....could that be Winston Churchill, now regarded as one of the finest leaders. This was done in regards to his belief that Nazi Germany should be attakced before it take over Europe...well, the peaceniks had their shot then, and look what happened, do you want that to happen again in the middle east?
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