Which country is Bush likely to invade next..?? ...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by violat3, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. vince3425

    vince3425 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2004
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "RETREAT, HELL! WE JUST GOT HERE!"
    to quote a fellow Marine...
     
  2. digerati

    digerati Everyones life has worth

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think Bush will invade California next.
     
  3. Nicky-chan

    Nicky-chan formally Elclair

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Iran i think. lol we'll see.
     
  4. Nacht

    Nacht ein Krieger

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Surely you have an english class where you actually have to write eh?
     
  5. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the US government can't afford another war. Not if he maintains current tax cutting policies. Bush said he had no plans for this before the election. Instead he plans to deal with them through a policy of 'positive engagement' (basically offering them bribes if the play ball and threatening them with sanctions if they don't).

    All the same i do think the problems Iran presents do need confronting - even if that meant if negotiations failed that some kind of military response was needed. However I couldn't support any kind of all out war - such as took place in Iraq. The idea of an American presence in Iran really would be an abhoration to a great many muslims around the world. But if negotiations did fail - then air strikes certainly should be considered as an option. They estimate that it will be about 18 months before Iran succeeds in producing their first nuclear weapons - so what ever Bush's (and the world's) response is, it would have to be within that time frame.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2004
  6. The PIT

    The PIT New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I doubt the US will invade any other country until Iraq is quiet or they've been forced out. As soon as Blair gets voted out they'll lose another source of man power for any futher invasions.
     
  7. BWC

    BWC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, I know you go by "raid" and have a plane as you avatar but dude, whats your deal with air strikes?:D

    Fear you in command of your countries air force;)
     
  8. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hardly. I just think that maybe Iran is where one of the bigger dangers are at this time. Though culturally it would be almost impossible to consider the idea of putting anyone in on the ground there - as this would almost certainly confirm in the minds of the entire Arab world that this very much was a war on Islam. Another war in in the Mid East - culminating this time in an invasion of Iran would begin to look very much to some people like Hitler's grand tour of Europe in the 1940's - so how you would get round that would be extremely interesting to learn. Of course after they do get the bomb your options are very much more limited because they could use it to hit Israel or in time perhaps even the US itself. (Their next generation of rockets will almost certainly have this capacity). Of course the US is unlikely to launch a genuine war against any country that did possess WMDs (particularly nuclear) because these dangers really would be too great. The only possible military response would be a premptive nuclear strike - but I doubt that would happen either because this would automatically give those who planned and carried out such an attack the status of monsters, in a similar league to Stalin, and the Nazis in Germany and so on. So what do you do? If in 18 months the Iranians build their bomb - what response should you have to this? As I said, whatever happens must happen within that time frame.

    In any case its all kind of empty speculation - Bush already said he doesn't plan to do too much. It was Kerry who said he was going to bomb them. But with him out of the picture the Iranians probably have a green light to do whatever they want. Oddly in the poll that was conducted before the election of all of the other countries in the world and of who they would vote for if they could vote in the US elections, only Iran and Russia chose George W. Bush. Make of that what you will.

    GJ
     
  9. p0rChM0nK3y

    p0rChM0nK3y New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    violat3, why do you assume we will have another military conflict under Bush? If we did, it would be for a good reason.

    i.e. North Korea invades South Korea.
    China invades Taiwan.
    Iran continues its Nuclear Development.
    France, just because they're French.
    vbmenu_register("postmenu_481225", true);
     
  10. BWC

    BWC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Raid,

    First of all just kidding, seeing as how we discussed air strikes before.:p

    Second, you didnt mention all of the other countries that endorsed Kerry..:uhoh: not such a hot list either. make of that what you will:)

    3rd. Your hitler analogies are getting to be not only tiresome but a little offensive. Hitlers grand tour wasnt about liberation and spreading freedom. (although some would argue that iraq isnt either (i personally think it is) but regardless the analogy is a twisted point of view)

    4th. The US went into Iraq thinking it had wmd's (as i explained before, the ammount of prep and training that went into it... we thought they were there.) So saying that we wouldnt invade because there actualy are wmd's is simply not valid.

    And lastly there havent been 13 failed resolutions to Iran or North Korea. The international talks havent yet broken down either. As far as offering them bribes... we offered to give them the nuclear tech to make energy not weapons grade, and then some money for relief aid... I guess you could call that a bribe...:wtf:
     
  11. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I didn't directly compare Bush to Hitler. All I said was that if he did invade Iran - or launch a nuclear first strike against them, he might well aquire that reputation. At the moment a little (although admittedly still oil rich) coutry in the Middle East doesn't quite qualify him as a Hitler. Hitler's ambition was on a much grander scale.

    In any case you could hardly claim to be spreading peace and democracy if you premptively nuked them could you? There isn't much democracy on the end of a nuke - because quite simply there would be nobody to take part in it. Democracy certainly doesn't arrive on the end of nukes.

    On the 4th point we will have to continue to differ. Do you seriously think though that the US would have risked a nuclear attack against themselves - or worse still against the Israelis and the virtual obliteration of the Israeli state, if they didn't have information that Saddams WMD capacity had already been severly depleated? Or do you think that maybe your government really is crazy? As far as I remember Saddam was supposed to be a madman - no one knew how he would respond. Many people thought that maybe if he did have WMDs he might use them in one final desperate act, even though he knew that any such action would gurantee his own destruction. From his perspective he hardly had much to loose did he? Why on Earth would you do this if you didn't already know that these risks were all fairly minimal?

    On the last point I always find it ironic that people who claim to hate or mistrust the UN so much alway point to UN resolutions as a justification for their actions. Moreover one of the primary reasons given by your own government for going to war was that Saddam was not allowing the UN weapons inspectors to properly complete their work. Now several months on from the initial invasion UN weapons inspectors have been virtually banned from entering Iraq at all - but this time it is the American administration that is preventing them from completing their work. Who then I wonder will puninsh America for refusing to play ball with UN weapons inspectors? Why is it so unnaceptable that Saddam should do this - and so acceptable that the US should do exactly the same thing? At least Saddam did let them in - even if some people felt he wasn''t showing them everything there was to see.

    Perhaps Bush should consider invading California after all?

    GJ

    PS

    I can't really be assed getting into all this Iraq stuff again so hopefully we can just disagree and get the thread back on topic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2004
  12. violat3

    violat3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so pinching another sovreign country's oil is a valid reason to go to war all the other reasons quoted have been proven to be baseless min FACT their is nae way of getting round that fact

    i think i'll stick to being another cultured Scot & European something your culturless country will never grasp .. no wonder America has no class
     
  13. p0rChM0nK3y

    p0rChM0nK3y New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "i think i'll stick to being another cultured Scot & European something your culturless country will never grasp .. no wonder America has no class"

    The sad part is, no one cares what you think.
     
  14. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    everyone relax please.
     
  15. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Although many other countries harbor terrorists, deal arms to our enemies, or supply drugs to our children, Bush is concerned with the immediate threat that has grown over the past 120 years, just as the Europeans faced in the 11th or the 12th century, or the Romans before them. Expansionism, religious fundamentalism,empire building, what ever you want to call it. We are not above it, regardless of our country. Since we first took the lives of our brothers or sisters to recieve our fathers inheritence, it is as old as time, our greatest enemy is ourselves, you want to find the demons of destruction or the Gods of war, look into the eyes that you see in the mirror everyday, stand and try to imagine a child learning how to kill for the first time. Watch as that child is taught that people who are different in race, color or religion are evil and should be killed. Remind yourself that your children and your families have carried and will carry on the tradition of hatred till the final minutes or seconds of the riegn of man on this planet, no matter where we go, the beast within us that brought us to the apogee of our technical mastery of the earth, land sea and sky brings us also to our own destruction, without the hand of a higher power, it doesnt matter what country your from or where you find yourself sleeping tonight, without the divine grace of a higher power, whatever you think it may be, the faith that man can continue to live without destroying his world and his children is in jeapordy.
     
  16. TJ-

    TJ- New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    very true....

    those with power use it to obtain more power... at any cost...

    rich get richer, poor get poorer...
     
  17. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    123
    I give unto to Ceasar what is Ceasars
     
  18. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That might be more apt than you think Jeff...

    GJ
     
  19. BWC

    BWC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess when i think wmd, I think more bio terror then nuke...

    If i remember correctly... (2 years ago now) part of our whole deal was that we thought he had bio wmd's and we were going to stop him before he was able to finish a nuke he could deliver.

    I acutally very much agree with the philosophy of the UN. But the problem is that the UN is corrupt. (Im *not* pointing fingers) But every country has its own agenda, we all have to. And the "Larger" countries, specifically the US because we are the only "super power" (i guess) left, agendas will inevitably step on another "Larger" countries toes. And then each country has to do what It believes it has to do. No country can be true to its own people if it truly feels its in danger but accepts a "sit and wait" policy from other countries.

    Lets go waaaaayyyy out into left field and say that the UK had intel that Israel was going to lauch an attack on her... (like I said waaayyy out there) but at the UN the US vetoed any action you wanted to take, and another European country for whatever reason wanted to back out of it as well. Would you expect the UK to just sit there? I would hope not. I would hope youd say "screw the UN" we have to protect our people.

    Like I said that was very hypothetical, and I know the majority of the disagreement on this board is to whether or not the US trully believed there was justification or just wanted to invade and this was not meant to illustrate why the US was right... This was just my (bad)illustration as to why unfortunately I dont think the UN can currently work.

    And it'll take a wiser man than I to figure out how to make it work for the "big" countries. For smaller countries that need help, its a great tool. We obviously need the UN, but i sure dont know what to do about it...i dont want to put clinton in charge of it though... thats for sure :D
     
  20. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I can point you to a lot of sites where you can see them talking about nukes too - but even then the risks would be huge if you didn't already have some intelligence that the offensive capability of your enemy had already been severely depleted. For one thing in purely military terms, the actual Invasion force that wen't into Iraq was too small to deal effectively with any large scale threat from WMDs. The impression given at the time was that the scale of the invasion force used was proportional to the relative risks that they faced - which in itself is quite telling.

    As for the UN being corrupt.... Sigh... I wish you guys would get off this track... The UN is not some vast extra national government. It is simply a beurocratic body who's only purpose is to impliment the decisions made by individual member countries. In other words it's a little like the IRS. You wouldn't blame the IRS if Bush decided that he needed to raise taxes in order to try to get the deficit under control now would you? It might feel natural to blame the IRS - but in the end all they do is impliment policy. The UN is similar - though not quite. It doesn't just have one guy (or coutry) at the top making all the decisions - it has many. It is entirely possible that some member governments might be corrupt - but then such is the nature of politics that many politicians are corrupt. This has been true since history and politics began and I doubt your own government is entirely free from blame. But to say the whole of the UN is corrupt due to the actions of a few individuals or a few member countries is a complete misrepresentation of reality. You appear to imagine that the US is the only member state that has anything it views as being vital national interests that it needs to protect - but that is not true at all. In fact the UN is better regarded as a collective of states who are all there in order to represent their own individual national interests. Very often these national interests will compete and clash against each other - so the knack is in finding a way to get those individual interests to coincide so that something effective can be done whenever action is required. This is not always such an easy thing to do.

    Nonetheless it is clear that we still need the UN. Can you imagine a world where no one ever talked to anyone and everyone just acted alone - without ever consulting anybody or caring very much about the concequences of their actions? Even if the UN is just a big talking shop - it is better that we continue talking rather than simply stop - because the second we stop talking, this world will become a much more dangeous place.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2004

Share This Page

visited