I know this is kind of old news. But what do you think?
Uh, why would their be a war?
TiE
Because good ole G dubblya wants to rid the world of terror.
He should start by geting rid of himself...
They have "not discarded the possibility" of bombing Iran, so I fear it might happen... :(
Originally posted by jon_hill987
Because good ole G dubblya wants to rid the world of terror.
He should start by geting rid of himself...
*snap*
You're right! God, I teh hates hims....
Not to kill him or anything....... *nervous laugh*
TiE
He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters.
Originally posted by TiE 23
*snap*
You're right! God, I teh hates hims....
Not to kill him or anything....... *nervous laugh*
TiE
Smeagol!
Originally posted by Anthony
Smeagol!
Stupid Bushesses! Stupid fat Bushesses!
TiE
Originally posted by TK-8252
He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters. I dunno, quite a lot of people dislike Iran.
I wouldn't count it out as a possiblity.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
I dunno, quite a lot of people dislike Iran.
I wouldn't count it out as a possiblity. Well, I don't know much about this subject. So, for a start, what have they done to us?
TiE
Originally posted by TiE 23
Well, I don't know much about this subject. So, for a start, what have they done to us?
TiE After what I've heard they've kept their nuclear weapon plans hidden... But it might be wrong.
Originally posted by TK-8252
He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters.
He needs no stinky supporters anymore. There's no third term as a president, so what use would he have for supporters (those few he has left anyway?).
Yet, I voted no. There's so much work to do in Iraq that you would think that's quite enough even for Mr. Bush.
Originally posted by Pie™
After what I've heard they've kept their nuclear weapon plans hidden... But it might be wrong. Gee, thats all?
Nuclear weaps have only been used twice in war/offense. And Im pretty sure you all know which ones those are.
If anyone used nukes, they would be kicked out of the UN and it would be them and their allies vs. everyone else.
They would be pretty boned after that.
TiE
Originally posted by TiE 23
Well, I don't know much about this subject. So, for a start, what have they done to us?
I got a better question, what has Iraq done to us. But I don't think that's the point. Bush has already talked about in the past how he wants to expand his war to Iran and Syria and a few other countries. All to eliminate several parties in the "Axis of Evil".
Originally posted by InsaneSith
I got a better question, what has Iraq done to us. But I don't think that's the point. Bush has already talked about in the past how he wants to expand his war to Iran and Syria and a few other countries. All to eliminate several parties in the "Axis of Evil". yah, I've heard the stories.
______________________________________
Bushes Chek List:
By: George w. Bush
Grade: Presedent
1. Kill/Kapture Saddam guy
2. Kill/kapture that Osama S.O.B
3. Kill/capture terrrorist leader guys
4. Kill all terrorists
5. Kill anything that looks like terrorists
>>>Inluding children who pick up guns
6. Bomb the **** outa them.
7. Find WMDs.
8. "Free Iraq and its people."
9. Really free Iraq and its people.
10. Elections
11. Keep the good canidents alive.
12. Stay away from pretsells
14. Drop a "big boom" bomb
15. Become a hero ~ Lookin bad so far [Bush]
______________________________________
TiE
Bush has a great dislike of many countries including North Corea where he is afraid off but I donґt think he would go for Iran. Why on earth would he want to go there? And he already burned his ass at Iraq.
On the other hand, he doesnґt have an extra term which allows him to do the things he always wanted to do without giving a **** about peopleґs opinion. So he will do some evil things.
Perhaps heґll bring peace to the Middle East. ;)
Originally posted by TiE 23
If anyone used nukes, they would be kicked out of the UN and it would be them and their allies vs. everyone else.
I'd imagine they'd head for major cities of their enemies countries. And let the fallout spread. Plus they'd probably unleash their entire surplus, pretty much being the victor.
Originally posted by Pad
Perhaps heґll bring peace to the Middle East. ;) Ah yes, peace through killing everyone.
PS: Korea*
Originally posted by TK-8252
He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters. I would have thought that would have happened before now...
Well, the younger pro-democracy populace doesn't want a war to free them. It reminds them of the islamic revolution.
But meh, Bush might do it. Certainly wouldn't amaze me.
PS: Doesn't this belong in the Senate?
Discussion over war in a country seems serious enough to me...
We'll let Skinwalker handle this 'un.
I don't think the U.S. has the resources to invade and occupy Iran like it has Iraq. Not to mention if the U.S. did manage to exert that kind of control over that region while Iraq still hadn't settled down, the military would be taxed rather heavily.
I know the U.S. has a considerable number of reserve troops at home, but I wonder if it would really be enough. They have to consider future campaigns in the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Asia as well, not to mention any unexpected situations that develop overnight. Allied armies, coupled with a more vigorous recruiting campaign within the U.S, could provide the necessary soldiers. However, support for the former abroad is practically nonexistent outside of Great Britain, and gaining support for the latter would be an uphill battle. Talk of a draft was enough to give even Bush supporters pause.
Originally posted by Loopster
...not to mention any unexpected situations that develop overnight...
As Bush himself saidOne word sums up the resonsibility of any Governor, and that one word is, 'to be prepared'.
so maybe you are right, he wouldn't risk war because it would leave the country open to atack when it is drained of troops.
I am a supporter of what has been referred to as 'Bush Doctrine', which he laid out after Sept 11th terrorist attacks. What it says is:
- We will find terrorists and their WMD's and eliminate them swiftly and efficiently, *wherever* that may be.
Note that the Iraqi invasion *is not* part of Bush Doctrine.
So, if Iraq is a (a) open supporter, supplier, financier and trainer or terrorists & their tools, and (b) they support 'a' being used against USA and (c) have a nuclear weapons program operating in flagrant violation of international accords ... then, so long as there is (c) credible proof and (d) discrete targets I have no issue.
Unfortunately that Doctrine would take a level of patience and discipline I don't think exists, especially when we might have 'friends' working against us, as in Iraq.
The problem with Iraq, of course, is that only 'b' was somewhat true, they didn't really have 'd' and didn't wait long enough to get 'c'. I still remember watching the TV thinking - *NO* this is too early for ultimatums! Oh well ...
Mike
well, on the one hand it the increasing "get troops out of iraq" thing would probably work against him...
...but on the other hand, it is his final term and so he will be thinking about his legacy ("scumbag idiot who destabilised the world" probably:D ) and won't have to worry about re-election.
Still, maybe he will be too busy dismantling freedom, ignoring the constitution, bringing religion into government and dismantling social security to have time to start getting "ideas" about iran.
On the other other hand, if his backers and neo-conservative advisors want to go after iran as well, he doesn't exactly have the independence and knowledge to go against them.
Who knows.
Originally posted by lassev
Yet, I voted no. There's so much work to do in Iraq that you would think that's quite enough even for Mr. Bush.
Afganistain anyone?
I feel he will move onto Iran in 2 years. I believe a speech of his outlined that to "stabliles democracy in iraq we must first turn the conutrys around iraq to democracy". Or something along the lines of. And anyone wondering about were the troops for an invasion would come from, dont you think Iraq would be conventently 'Liberated' From terror so the U.S. troops could go?
One word sums up the resonsibility of any Governor, and that one word is, 'to be prepared'.
http://www.clancro.co.uk/forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif) Superb
Originally posted by Captain Wilson
Afganistain anyone?
Dammit, now you have me worried. Despite my dislike of bush i had, on balance, decided that he would be too bogged down with iraq to be able to carry out his religious plans to "save" the rest of the world.
But now ou mention it, everyone has completely forgotten about afganistan (in which troops and civilians are still dying and disorder is getting worse) while concentrating on iraq. I can actually see them trying the same thing again, moving on to iran and leaving iraq in the same state as they abandonned afganistan.
Sigh. maybe i'm just getting too cynical...
No such thing as being too cynical. ;)
They never really had Afghanistan in any fashion of control, ever. And I too have been thinking Iraq will be a new Afghanistan, they'll have "elections" and then move on to another country and end up dumping that war on whoever the next president is.
I don't think the American public and the Congress would allow another war without some very serious and convincing grounds... i.e. a very imminent threat of our sovereign terrritory. We've lost too much to the Iraq debacle and have a trillion dollar deficit to show for it.
But Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker writes an interesting article and if this quote is accurate....
“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”
Obtained from: The Coming Wars, New Yorker, January 24 & 31, 2005 (
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact)
Originally posted by TK-8252
He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters.
When has that ever bothered dubya?
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I don't think the American public and the Congress would allow another war without some very serious and convincing grounds... i.e. a very imminent threat of our sovereign terrritory. We've lost too much to the Iraq debacle and have a trillion dollar deficit to show for it.
But Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker writes an interesting article and if this quote is accurate....
Obtained from: The Coming Wars, New Yorker, January 24 & 31, 2005 (
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact)
Oh I don't know, I've a strange feeling that Bush won't care about any of that, going by all that he has done so far.
UK Won't Join US in Attacking Iran
British newspapers are reporting that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has created a 200-page dossier which states that the best course of action against Iran's nuclear program is diplomacy led by Britain, France and Germany.
Reports state Straw will meet with US secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice in February and argue his case. Reports that the US intends to attack Iran increased when a "New Yorker" story reported that US commandos have been operating in Iran.
The Pentagon said that story was "riddled with fundamental errors" but it didn't deny conducting such missions. VP Cheny said Iran is "right at the top of the list" when it comes to international issues.
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=2552224)
You'd think that they would finish up in Iraq and Afghanistan first so they could.. y'know... send more than 10 people to Iran....And so it begins...just like all of the build up to war with iraq...
indeed.
Soon there will be lots of statments that mention iran, 9/11, wmds and terrorists in the same sentance, without actually technically linking them.
Then there will be opinion polls showing most americans believe iran is giving wmds to the terrorists who did 9/11.
Then they can go to war, but still deny they actually said anything.... again.
That said, i don't think ANY foriegn country would support a war on iran (except maybe iraq :D ), not even the UK or all the countries the US bullied into supporting iraq.
Then again, the US can bring an awful lot of pressure to bear... and bush doesn't seem that bothered about being isolated in the world, so he may just go ahead anyway...
Originally posted by Captain Wilson
Afganistain anyone?
From a purely military POV Iraq is a much greater cluster**** than Afghanistan: In the latter, they mostly shoot at the locals (civilian as well as military (and I sometimes get the feeling that the line between the two are somewhat less than clear)), whereas in the former, American troops, civilians and local auxillia are targeted with equal vigour (though not equal success).
Originally posted by jon_hill987
Because good ole G dubblya wants to rid the world of terror.
He should start by geting rid of himself...
Amazing! Now there is MY pick for "Statement of the week!" nice one joghn hill.
My dad says we are running out of troops. My dad says Bu$h don't care abou his veterans, or old people who want to retire. The way Bu$h is going, there will be a draft soon, so anyone over 18 better watch out.
There won't. The standing army is still at least a million men strong.
I've read in the local newspaper that expert says Iraq will be able to take care of its own security in 18 months. Start the countdown to the next war. 18 months left.
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
There won't. The standing army is still at least a million men strong.
Wouldn't that make it as large as China's army, though? Or do they have two million in thier army?
Anyway, while there probably won't be an Iraqi Freedom-esque war, it's entirely possibly that the U.S. goes into Iran along with the help of Isreal, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Originally posted by Tyrion
it's entirely possibly that the U.S. goes into Iran along with the help of Isreal, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I can't imagine anytime in the forseeable future where Afghanistan or Iraq would have the assets to actually help in a war against Iran.....
Originally posted by ET Warrior
I can't imagine anytime in the forseeable future where Afghanistan or Iraq would have the assets to actually help in a war against Iran.....
They'd be like Poland I guess.
:p
Cuban Leader Castro Calls Bush 'Deranged'
Well, can't argue with that.
They won't invade Cuba. Fidel is close enough to death. When he'll die, he'll let the CIA put someone into power.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Here Is a hint that they will also invade Cuba.
Yeah, well Dubya actually promised during his campaign that he would remove Castro... Of course, he could just lean back and wait for that to happen all by itself :D
what does it have to do with him? If the people of cuba wanted castro removed they could do it themselves... it isn't like he has a particularly strong grasp on power.
Bush couldn't do all that without a serious increase in the available troops at his disposal. Tactically Bush is stretched really thin between Iraq and the hunt for Al Queda. My guess is his people are spreading rumors of such potential military activity as a way to discourage anyone else from trying to do stuff like develop WMD's that could be sold to terrorists(I.E Iran). The actual chance of such a thing happening is actually small when you look at the political side of it.
He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters.
That's why I voted no. After the war on Iraq, US casualties there, and Fahrenheit 9/11, I don't think Bush can muster the support from Congress to start another unjust, illegal war on another sovereign nation. But I'm sure he wants to.
The funny thing is, he's still using the "War on Terror" propaganda, and people still believe it:o . How ignorant is it possible to get?!
what does it have to do with him? If the people of cuba wanted castro removed they could do it themselves... it isn't like he has a particularly strong grasp on power.
It's that easy, huh? Strange how the US, UK, and USSR had to invade Europe in World War II, then. Strange how North Korea is still under Kim Jong-Il. Strange how Communist China is still Communistic...
(Clicky) [News article on Irani Nuclear Program, or the lack of it]
That's what we know - and Rumsfeld said - about Iraq, too, but then when they wanted to invade them they said Iraq had WMDs, knowing it was wrong.
If they could make up a huge story on Iraq, they might perfectly well try it with Iran. I wouldn't dare it, though, was I Bush.
Cuban Leader Castro Calls Bush 'Deranged'
While I agree, I think Bush can live with a dictator calling him deranged... I don't think he gives a bloody care what dictators have to say about him.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
How ignorant is it possible to get?!
You have no bloody idea...really.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
While I agree, I think Bush can live with a dictator calling him deranged... I don't think he gives a bloody care what dictators have to say about him.
I don't think he cares what anybody has to say about him.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It's that easy, huh? Strange how the US, UK, and USSR had to invade Europe in World War II, then. Strange how North Korea is still under Kim Jong-Il. Strange how Communist China is still Communistic...
Its not easy. But you have to want it! Freedom is supposed to be worth dying for. Its supposed to be hard to get, that is why you should appreciate it so much if you have it.
As for after WW2... most countries where we went in and enforced a political solution on the population (iraq for one) all ended in anarchy, internal fighting and eventually dictatorships.
The countries that have got freedom have achieved it themselves (USA?, russia, eastern europe, ukraine) not had it forced upon them. Remove dictators and you need to have something universally popular to put in their place, or you end up with chaos like iraq, afganistan and probably lebanon in a few months.
Even north korea, iran and china have all been moving towards greater freedom and integration intothe world at large.. at least they were until bush attacked them all and put them on the defensive.
While castro doesn't do everything right, he is hardly a tyranical dictator. He hardly has a cast iron grip on power, if there were popular uprisings against him he wouldn't last very long.
Heck, a lot of analysts believed saddam was going to loose power in a few years anyway, his grip had certainly slipped a lot. And if his own people had risen up against him (either now, or back when bush sr. abandoned them) then the transition in power would have been alot smoother than removing him and creating a vacuum policed by a percieved occupying force.
Or something like that. These days it doesn't seem like freedom is worth dying for at all, much better to loose century old freedoms than risk a few bombs...
I think we will go to war with Iran. I heard the troops in Iraq finally got 'good' equiptment. So once the elections in Iraq are done and they have their leader Bush will pack up and move into Iran with his 'new' equpiment. And after there is a war in Iran things might get all crazy and then their will end up not only being a war with Iran but a WWIII. And why is nothing being done about North Korea they are a bigger threat than Iran.
And why is nothing being done about North Korea they are a bigger threat than Iran.
Heard about diplomacy? Just that we aren't pulling a McCarthy/Bush and bombing the last of their GNP to pieces doesn't mean nothing's being done.
There are other ways than fighting, friend.
As for after WW2... most countries where we went in and enforced a political solution on the population (iraq for one) all ended in anarchy, internal fighting and eventually dictatorships.
Hardly. Most countries liberated from the nazis went off and lived happily ever after:) , even West Germany.
As for "liberated by themselves": Hardly again.
Lots of African countries under European rule demanded sovereignity and then collapsed when the "evil whites" left because there were not enough skilled politicians left in the country.