who will be the next Iraq?

this is sort of a hyperthetical question cause i hope BUSH wont get in another term.

but if the worst happens and he does, what will his next target 2 invade be? could he possibly risk a War with countries that DO have WMD, like North Korea? or maybe Iran? Sudan?(yeah right). or maybe he will actually quit invading countries after the Iraq disaster.

what do u ppl in the US in the know think his next step to world domination be?( ok i,m not really sounding serious but i am serious, and would really appreciate serious replys, even if u r pro-Bush and think my anti-Bush feelings are stuiped).

I think the next country is probably going to be Iran. There is already talk about how the Iranians are trying to build WMD's. There is no way we would attack North Korea because they would whoop our ass. It would just be another Vietnam, we'd go in there, lose a few lives and the public would turn against it and that would be the end of it. Again, I imagine Iran is next, as Bush really isn't intent on conquering the world, only the middle east.

chaos: Iran...

Rubedo: Then Syria. I do not think he will fight countries that are actually a threat to the world.

I agree with that statement.

He has never said anything abut "invading" another country. And why would N. Korea kick our ass? We have the best military in the world. And we weren't really beat in nam we just left because everyone was pissed we were there.

Exactly. Everyone would be pissed if we were in North Korea. To many lives would be lost and to many people would turn against the war. The American people seem to be able to agree with a war one minute, then protest it the next. Im sure you saw how it was even with Iraq. Just a few soldiers would die and that week the support for the war would go down. Then when everything seemed to be going good it would go back up. Pathetic in my opinion. But if we invaded N. Korea to many people would die and the American people would explode, even though they probably supported the whole thing in the first place. It would be even more disastrous if China got involved... That's probably another reason why we wouldn't go to war with North Korea.

I don't think it will be anyone. I seriously doubt the Senate would allow such an act again. Please don't forget that it isn't just the President's decision. There I've said my peace...I won't get involved in these conversations anymore.

Why won't you get in these conversations anymore?

and in my opinion, the senate would vote for another war. They know we arent fighting over WMD's or terrorism or freedom or any of that crap. They know how it will be beneficial to the U.S. in the long run economically.

Thats true. It's not just the President that declares war the senate must pass it. ANd I agree that it would be stupid to invade N. Korea because china would most likely get involved. I agree with you nik0tine that the US population needs to grow up and stick by one thing instead of being so wishy washy. I think we should support our troops and not give them a hard time liek what happend in nam. All they're doing is there job. And half the people in nam were drafted so it's not liek they had a choice. I'm gettign quite sick of being in the US not because of the government but the people. They just seem so petty and self centered.

I agree with every thing you said there, escobar.

My money's on France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by princeofdarknez

My money's on (SPOILER)France.

---

That's a bad word. not to mention unpatriotic! :eek:

Yeah, I respect the hell outta those guys over there in Iraq. Man nobody knows what war is like except those guys.
Sorry Nik0tine, it's just something I don't like talking about. *Bans Himslef from these types of threads...is just tired of hearing about it*

yeah, i respect them, but at the same time i can't stand alot of them. I know that they are all good people however. My cousin recently volunteered to go to Iraq. He's just like most other soldiers, or people for that matter. just a great guy. again though, i find it hard to respect what them for what they are doing over there. I jsut do. However, i know that as people, most of them are fine individuals and i respect that. It's hard to judge a book by its cover, so i guess that's why we should always be civil, even if we find what they are doing to be deplorable.

This is certainly a slippery question as it all hings on who exactly is in the White House come next term. In my opinion, Saudi Arabia HAS to be the next logical place to clean out if we really want to make a difference in terrorism. Yet, the chances of that occurring during any Bush Administration are slim to none with slim leaving the building already.

That being said, I think that if and when new news about Osama, (remember him?) surfaces, such as where he might be now, the USA will invade their next. My money is he's somewhere in Pakistan, but who knows really?

Take care all.

[q=Kilika]Please don't forget that it isn't just the President's decision. [/q]While the president alone can't order a declaration of war, he can order airstrikes and "reinforcements" to be sent in without legislative approval. That's how the Vietnam war and Operation Desert Fox took place. The soldiers sent to Vietnam were officially reinforcements for the local troops, and the action in Desert Fox was entirely air or sea-based, with no troops landing in Iraq itself.

It's possible that no further attacks will be launched; any further “liberations” of Arabic nations would just be too obviously part of a trend. The world’s considerable criticism of the recent rogue action by the US, UK and others would increase. I think that the coalition nations will realise that they need to act with their old allies, rather than waging illegal campaigns and condemning those who don’t help them, then demanding that those other states help to clean up the mess that’s left behind. “One law for all” is supposed to be the basis of international relations, rather than “one power exempt from the rules while it summarily judges any it disagrees with”. It might, just might become apparent that it’s just a tad hypocritical for the nations with the world’s biggest WMD stockpiles to demand that other countries declare and destroy their own; that it’s similarly hypocritical to breach international law and UN conventions to punish countries that do not comply with international law and UN resolutions.
One thing is pretty certain, though: invading one country after another, killing politicians and destroying governments, replacing them with a system based on America’s model, is not going help in the fight against terrorism, nor is it truly bringing self-determination to any nations where it might be lacking.
I have high hopes that the next US president and British PM will realise that “diplomacy” does not mean telling your enemies, “do exactly what we say, when we say, and how we say to do it or else we’ll kill you and possibly your families and a few of your people as well.”
Change can happen without military intervention; forcibly re-shaping other countries into our own image is not the way to go.

Having said all that, I'd also guess that Syria and Iran would be the next logical targets, based on their policies and systems of government, not to mention their recent histories.

[QUOTE=Big D][q=Kilika] It might, just might become apparent that it’s just a tad hypocritical for the nations with the world’s biggest WMD stockpiles to demand that other countries declare and destroy their own; that it’s similarly hypocritical to breach international law and UN conventions to punish countries that do not comply with international law and UN resolutions.
QUOTE]

that is such an amazing statement. it portays beautifully the main reason i hate US and my own UK foreign policy. you rule Big D :cool:

Well, I don't know who will be next... but I'm hoping either Iran, Saudi Arabia (yeah, right..), or North Korea. The first two... well, they support terrorism, and should be brought down. The last... well, North Korea has grown waaaaay too powerful already. A war with it should've been waged BEFORE they had nukes, so now it's going to be a lot more difficult, if not to say catastrophic.

Quote:

---

And why would N. Korea kick our ass?

---

Nukes, mon ami, and the will to use them. Their army is pretty darn big, too... but that's not the problem. The problem is nukes, and their usage by North Korea against military and civilian targets. Even if you do beat them in the end.. at what cost?

North Korea or Iran would be my guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Well, I don't know who will be next... but I'm hoping either Iran, Saudi Arabia (yeah, right..), or North Korea.

---

You're "hoping" that another nation will face air strikes, the destruction of its infrastructure and government, and the collateral deaths of thousands of its people?

Quote:

---

The first two... well, they support terrorism, and should be brought down.

---

France, the US, Israel and many other nations have supported acts considered 'terrorism' by many. It's a very subjective concept.

Quote:

---

The last... well, North Korea has grown waaaaay too powerful already. A war with it should've been waged BEFORE they had nukes, so now it's going to be a lot more difficult, if not to say catastrophic.

---

"Too powerful"? I don't like the idea that it's the US's job to be the most powerful nation on earth, and to annihilate anyone who opposes them. North Korea may be unstable and introverted, with a similar leader, but it is not a suicidally crazy country. No sovereign nation is ever going to start a nuclear war; to do so would assure annihilation. If the US and its allies are "permitted" to have weapons of mass destruction, then other sovereign states should have an equal right. If bans and restricitons are to be imposed, or governments reformed, then that should be the will of the international community as a whole, not the fancy of a handful of states furthering their own self-interest behind a veil of "humanitarian reasons".

The recent UN action in the Solomon Islands is but one piece of proof that the global community can act together to reform a troubled nation without having to make deadly, renegade assaults. In the Solomons, an international force comprising mainly Australian and New Zealand police and army was able to weed out militants and widespread corruption. No ad hoc POW camps, no denial of human rights, no bungled bombing missions. Also, superpowers demanding, "do as we say, not as we do, or else we kill you".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

That's a bad word. not to mention unpatriotic! :eek:

---

Wait, since when has it been unpatriotic to attack France? :exdee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by princeofdarknez

Wait, since when has it been unpatriotic to attack France? :exdee:

---

hahaha.

Iran has already threatened pre-emptive strikes on US troops in the region, so if anyone's next, they are. However, I think everyone's holding their breaths until the next US election. If Dubya gets back in, I can see things going pear-shaped. Or rather mushroom shaped...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

Iran has already threatened pre-emptive strikes on US troops in the region, so if anyone's next, they are. However, I think everyone's holding their breaths until the next US election. If Dubya gets back in, I can see things going pear-shaped. Or rather mushroom shaped...

---

lol! that was funny. Im gonna use that as a pick up line someday. :p

[q=Skogs]Iran has already threatened pre-emptive strikes on US troops in the region[/q]That's interesting, 'cos the US threatened pre-emptive strikes against North Korea. I guess, though, that's it's ok for the US government to lash out in 'self defence', but if anyone else threatens to do the same then that's proof that they're war-mongering terrorists who must be destroyed...[q=nik0tine]lol! that was funny. Im gonna use that as a pick up line someday.[/q]Skogs' words of wisdom can be so hard to apply in other circumstances.
"Baby, thanks for a great evening! When I first saw you, I was sure you were looking really pear-shaped, but then you turned out to be the mushroom cloud that nuked my heart...."
Hmm. Perhaps not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

[q=Skogs]Iran has already threatened pre-emptive strikes on US troops in the region[/q]That's interesting, 'cos the US threatened pre-emptive strikes against North Korea. I guess, though, that's it's ok for the US government to lash out in 'self defence', but if anyone else threatens to do the same then that's proof that they're war-mongering terrorists who must be destroyed...

---

That's because the western world is civilised, whereas the rest of the world are mangy dogs who deserve death for their non- capitalist beliefs and refusal to make lots of money.

On- topic, it's gonna be Iran. War noises are being made.

lol i was about to rant at u then Mei, until i realised your sarcasm :D .

so if its Iran, what excuse will they use to attack, and how long will they wait after the UN says no?

Quote:

---

You're "hoping" that another nation will face air strikes, the destruction of its infrastructure and government, and the collateral deaths of thousands of its people?

---

Suffering is a by-product of justice - and that's all I'll say.

Quote:

---

France, the US, Israel and many other nations have supported acts considered 'terrorism' by many. It's a very subjective concept.

---

Neither one does it now. And no, terrorism is not a subjective term, it's a very defined and objective term, used in reference a very specific kind of action.

Quote:

---

I don't like the idea that it's the US's job to be the most powerful nation on earth, and to annihilate anyone who opposes them.

---

It's not like that, and you know it. The USA is currently the strongest nation in the world, and as such, acts as its guardian. That means taking out threats to peace, such North Korea.

Quote:

---

so if its Iran, what excuse will they use to attack, and how long will they wait after the UN says no?

---

Iran will probably do something stupid, like attack American soldiers, or advance into Iraq... and who cares about the UN, or what they say?

wow, u really are a WAR angel...

"Suffering is a by-product of justice - and that's all I'll say."

that is very scary, sumthin a brutal dictator would say.


"Neither one does it now. And no, terrorism is not a subjective term, it's a very defined and objective term, used in reference a very specific kind of action."

"what he means is when the US suppprted Terroism, they would not call it such a thing. but to most ppl it was. it dont matter if they dont now. if it was not for their support of terroism, then there would not have been a 9/11. US are hypocrites."

"It's not like that, and you know it. The USA is currently the strongest nation in the world, and as such, acts as its guardian. That means taking out threats to peace, such North Korea."

i hate that USA thinks its the worlds police man. such a notion as made USA invade so many countries since the end of the second world war, and certainly has screwed the world over seriously. and you reap what you sow, which is why 9/11 occured.

since when was North Korea a threat to peace? its no more a threat then anyone else with nukes. so lets invade UK, France and Germany! quick, we must stop Russia! its dumb. leave north Korea alone and it will do nothing. not to mention USA has the BIGGEST WMD stock pile. and looking at US activity since 1945, i,d say USA is the biggest threat to peace in the world.

"Iran will probably do something stupid, like attack American soldiers, or advance into Iraq... and who cares about the UN, or what they say?"

well i guess its true, the UN is about as useless as the league of nations was before WWII. but as Big D said, punishing Iraq for breaking UN resolutions, by breaking them yourself, is beyomd hypocritical. its pure arrogance. in invading all these countries and dealing out *Justice*, there be many more US haters. does the US want to create more Osama Bin Ladens and bring about more 9/11 style attacks???

they should start by leaving north Korea etc alone and stop condoning the murderous Israel's actions.

It's not like that, and you know it. The USA is currently the strongest nation in the world, and as such, acts as its guardian. That means taking out threats to peace, such North Korea.
North Korea is NOT a threat to the peace. The only real threat to peace is the united states.


Neither one does it now. And no, terrorism is not a subjective term, it's a very defined and objective term, used in reference a very specific kind of action.

If memory permits, the U.S. has it's own little terrorist cell itself. I've heard of The school of the America's in fort benning georgia... they train alot of latino paramilitary groups to carry out terrorist acts in latin america. Ill go read up on it some more in a little bit and i'll get back to you if i find anything more than that.

EDIT: Here is a link to an activist's website agains the SOA. If you wanna hear the other side of the story, you can look yourself. You can go to It's official website i guess. anyways, here is the link. http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8

Most likely - Iran
Hopefully - Sudan
Long shot - North Korea
Worst Case Scenario - Defense of Taiwan

[q=War Angel]and who cares about the UN, or what they say?[/q]Well, if you count that the UN represents every world state except Southwest Africa and the Vatican, and that they've been responsible for most major treaties of the last half-century, and that the US wants their approval for all their wars... it kinda matters. The UN is the forum in which the global community makes its collective calls.
Only problem is that it functions on the principles of international law and non-violent intervention, except where necessary, so it's anathema to the US government's desire to commit, without challenge, acts of aggression while denying the sovereignty of other states.
(Incidentally, the state of Israel only exists because of the UN.) [q=Doomgaze]Hopefully - Sudan
[/q]What the Sudan needs is peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid. Bombing the place to hell will just lead to an even bigger humanitarian crisis. The world's already taking an active role there, and the UN's pushing for peacekeepers and aid agencies to be deployed. :rolleyes2 Stupid UN, wanting to keep people alive instead of bombing power infrastructureand replacing their government.[q=War Angel]Suffering is a by-product of justice - and that's all I'll say.[/q]So... if an infant is killed when its home is mistakenly bombed, that's "justice"? Ah well, I guess that if the child was an Arab then it must've been evil by default, thus deserving whatever "justice" it gets... [q=War Angel]It's not like that, and you know it. The USA is currently the strongest nation in the world, and as such, acts as its guardian. That means taking out threats to peace, such North Korea.
[/q]And what makes them a "threat to peace"? Their disagreement with the US. Basically, anyone who doesn't submit to the US's demands is a threat to peace.

With Afghanistan, and then Iraq, not to mention the several of the other interventions in recent history, we have been showing that the US's justifications for going to war have become progressively more flimsy, less substantial. It won't be too long before any excuse will do, or none at all - "we invaded because they have an anti-American system of government" or something similar. That is what the world is afraid of, and that is why it is for the good of the world that the US's rogue militaristic antics be stopped. International law binds the US as much as it does anyone else; fortunately, the rest of the world is strong enough to resist the US's demands to aid in criminal acts. The EU, PRC and other major world powers can - and are less reluctant than ever to be critical of illegal campaigns, and to refuse to take a hand in them. It won't be too long before the US's list of allies is so short that they are forced to either comply with the laws and treaties their rulers claim to hold dear, or to continue acting alone as the world's biggest "rogue state".[q=War Angel]Neither one does it now. And no, terrorism is not a subjective term, it's a very defined and objective term, used in reference a very specific kind of action.[/q]"Terrorism" varies in its definition. It doesn't even have a clear definintion at international law. Is it the act of a politicised group, a government-recognised organisation, rogue individuals? Destruction of property, murder of innocents, threats to do those things? At home or abroad? There's still no clear definition, even at international law. I'm sure the CIA never calls the Nicaraguan paramilitary activities "terrorism", even after two decades. I doubt the Frech government would claim responsibiltity for the "terrorist" bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, either. A "Terrorist" becomes a "freedom fighter" as soon as they start working for a cause that someone agrees with; thos who support their cause call them freedom fighters, while others consider them terrorists. While the latter is probably true in all cases, the "world powers" will never call their allies or pet causes "terrorists".

Oh, um. That's what I meant. I was thinking more "next place to deploy troops," not "next place for a royal cockup"

Good point. The international forces are starting to trickle into the Sudan, but the situation's still too volatile for much to happen without more numbers and a more co-ordinated effort. The US's participation in an international effort would be very valuable. As long as the action takes place as a result of international consensus, the potential for disaster can hopefully be minimised.

What exactly's goign on in Sudan? Sorry I'm horrible on kieeping up with things :p

Massive humanitarian crisis is brewing.
All the usual causes - ethnic violence, mainly. Thousands dead for having the wrong religion/skin colour; a vast number of refugees camped out in the desert in squalid conditions. The refugees are short on water and sanitation; the international effort will be focussed on securing the necessities of life for these people. However, a large peacekeeping contingent will also be needed to protect the aid convoyes, and to suppress any further bloodshed.

Ok I've got a question. If say only the US had gone in and taken out the "bad" peopel or whatever and helped those in trouble would the rest of the world be pissed? My guess is yes.

"Taking out the bad people" is quite an over-simplification. Just killing every visible militant would accomplish nothing; the underlying sentiments would remain, and the weapons. Also, we're talking about large numbers of people spread over a very wide area, merged in with the general population. US-style combat would kill more innocents than guilty.
Besides, there are better solutions to problems than merely killing everyone with a different viewpoint. A long-term commitment of peacekeepers will be needed; it'll be their job to protect the innocent (not just kill anyone they think is a militant) while restoring order and peace to the affected areas, ensuring that schools and hospitals are kept running, making sure funds go to those in need. Kind of like the UN operations in East Timor or the Balkans, but on a much larger scale. A gung-ho, shoot-em-up killing spree won't solve anything though.

if they did that in Sudan, no i personally would not be pissed. it would be USA on the road to redemption for her past crimes.

its never going to happen though. there is no economic worth in such things...

EDIT- reading Big D's post now...ok scratch my last point. Big D is right once again(becoming a bad habit ;) )

I wasn't saying just a gung-ho killing spree and I agree that they should try to keep the lives of the population as normal as possible. My point is that the "invasion" of Iraq will help many people in country. I mean look at the soccer team, when they would loose a big game Sadams son would torture players and kill some of them. The regime needed to be taken out. I don't think the bombing was exactly the best way by anymeans but it did the job with few to no American lives lost. I think and I feel most people would agree the Iraqis as a whole will be a lot better without them there.

The US is one of the biggest members of the UN; if and when the UN commits to intervention in the Sudan, the US will undoubtedly be at the forefront.
France has already begun sending troops from its bases in Chad to help with the distribution of aid supplies.[q=Escobar]I think and I feel most people would agree the Iraqis as a whole will be a lot better without them there.[/q]Few would disagree that the Hussein regime needed to be brought to justice for its atrocities; but one crime is not the best way to punish another. Illegal vigilante acts aren't always the best solution, especially when 10,000 or so Iraqi civilians are killed in the process. There are so many things that are fundamentally wrong with the history and implementation of the US's intervention in Iraq, that the positive outcomes are easily overshadowed at times.

and when u see the Iraqi tortue pictures, it shows USA are not the *moral crusaders liberating Iraq* but a corrupt regime as bad as Sadam.

And that's why those people are in big trouble and there's an investigation on the matter where as the Husseins promoted torture.

except it most certainly goes right up the chain of command. reminds me of the Racism rife in VietNam. except its covert now.

Its not a few bad eggs. its corruption at the heart of the army.

And every army on earth is perfect?

Hussein's regime was guilty of attempted genocide; nothing done by rogue US forces can ever come close. At least the US is acknowledging the illegality of what some of its troops have done...

i never said any Army was perfect. the reason i think its bad is cause they claim "oh its only a few soldiers". its just scape goating. there is NO excuse for those tortue pics i saw.

i get what u say Big D, but they STILL claim they are "liberating" Iraq and i dont like the notion of "we are not as bad as Saddam because our War Crimes are not as bad". maybe it was not Mass Genocide, but murdering and tortue are still absolutly discusting. who is the USA to Preach to Saddam and other *Rogue* states and terroists when they do that sort of abhorent stuff themselves?

Who is France and Germany to preach to the US about what they think is right and wrong?

lol, true, there past is not exactly clean of such crimes. But at least they dont go round invading other countries anymore...(well to the best of my knowledge)

grrr, the UK is screwed. US way sucks, Europe sucks. what to do... :confused:

join Japan! :jap:

Most every country in the world has a bad history at one point or another, that does not make whatever they say invalid.

I've mostly just been reading this thread... and I'd just like to say that I fully agree with everything Big D has said.

edit: Aeris, just so you know, Japan commited many many horrific war crimes during WWII.

I dunno but all I can say is the quote from Gundam Wing Endless waltz "as long as there is man there will always be battles"

i dont think i,ve ever read a post of Big D that i did not agree with, at least on sum level(and normally all).

yes of course Japan were assholes at some point.But they wised up now. of course i dont agree with them sending sum troops to Iraq but a minor blip. if US was to turn over a new leaf then i would like the new US. i just dont like the current US.

i totally agree with that quote. it is human nature to kill each other. there will always be war. but we can try and minimise the war as much as possible.

Originally Posted by War Angel:

Quote:

---

Suffering is a by-product of justice - and that's all I'll say.

---

So when a Palestinian blows a Jew to smithereens, that is a buy product of justice?



Sure, Saddams regime was bad, but the U.S. had NO RIGHT to oust them in my opinion. Especially not in the manner in which they went about doing it. I don't care if they find the weapons of mass destruction tommorow, i'll still be against this war. Anyone with half a brain can see that just because a man had weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean he can use them against us. This war caused people to die, and that is reason enough for it to be deemed unacceptable.

heres a question. if u knew a rogue state could launch and WOULD launch a nuke at you in 24 hours, would it be ok to invade that country, killing civillans in an attempt to stop the launch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aeris2001x2

yes of course Japan were assholes at some point.But they wised up now. of course i dont agree with them sending sum troops to Iraq but a minor blip. if US was to turn over a new leaf then i would like the new US. i just dont like the current US.

---

Then remember that when you speak about the Germans. They turned around too. They're a strong and great nation now, same as France. Everyone's just badmouthing them because they refused to help the US in Iraq, which most will agree was the right choice.

The civil war caused people to die. As did world war I/II. So did the American revolution. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

Then remember that when you speak about the Germans. They turned around too. They're a strong and great nation now, same as France. Everyone's just badmouthing them because they refused to help the US in Iraq, which most will agree was the right choice.

---

i like the Germans now. i hate them back then(though 2 be fair, US, UK, France etc screwed them over after WWI, so they only have themselves 2 blame for Hitlers reign).

and France are ok too. alot of ppl here in UK bad mouth them too but thats mostly over the debate about joining the Euro.

i,m undecided on whether there has ever been a JUST war that had 2 be fought. i guess the American war of independence was pretty important, otherwise we would still be your rulers...

i do know that UK should not have got involved in WWII. the US would still have kicked German/Japanese ass without us. it scares me 2 think how different the outcome could have been if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour. the USA would have just let Hitler take over the whole of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aeris2001x2

i like the Germans now. i hate them back then(though 2 be fair, US, UK, France etc screwed them over after WWI, so they only have themselves 2 blame for Hitlers reign).

and France are ok too. alot of ppl here in UK bad mouth them too but thats mostly over the debate about joining the Euro.

i,m undecided on whether there has ever been a JUST war that had 2 be fought. i guess the American war of independence was pretty important, otherwise we would still be your rulers...

i do know that UK should not have got involved in WWII. the US would still have kicked German/Japanese ass without us. it scares me 2 think how different the outcome could have been if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour. the USA would have just let Hitler take over the whole of Europe.

---

If it wasn't for the british i dont believe there is ANY possible way that the US could have defeated nazi germany. It was through the crushing defeats At Stalingrad and in the battle of britian that put germany on the defensive. No one nation could have done this alone. What really scares me however, is how damn close hitler came to having his own atomic bomb. But again, supposedly the Germans were masters at defense, and had just the united states gone into germany i think they would have been crushed. Also, if the germans hadn't screwed it up big time during the battle of the bulge it could have played out very differently. Also, great britian didnt have much of a choice as to be in the war or not, as the germans bombed the hell out of them. I can't even imagine what that must have been like.

I dunno about crushing the US since the US showed power in the air and sea by midway through the war. Also the 101st Airborn kick some serious ass all over the place :p. But I agree The US did need the help from the UK. ANd france too oh wait... France didn't do anything.

Quote:

---

Most likely - Iran
Hopefully - Sudan
Long shot - North Korea
Worst Case Scenario - Defense of Taiwan

---

Yeah, I can picture it. When we going to defend Taiwan against invading China.... Crazy

Quote:

---

and when u see the Iraqi tortue pictures, it shows USA are not the *moral crusaders liberating Iraq* but a corrupt regime as bad as Sadam.

---

Psh, that like saying all Muslims are bad. Just because a small group of people committed these acts, doesnt mean the entire U.S. military is like that. And the Bush Adminstration isnt a regime.

Quote:

---

i never said any Army was perfect. the reason i think its bad is cause they claim "oh its only a few soldiers". its just scape goating. there is NO excuse for those tortue pics i saw.

i get what u say Big D, but they STILL claim they are "liberating" Iraq and i dont like the notion of "we are not as bad as Saddam because our War Crimes are not as bad". maybe it was not Mass Genocide, but murdering and tortue are still absolutly discusting. who is the USA to Preach to Saddam and other *Rogue* states and terroists when they do that sort of abhorent stuff themselves?

---

You should see what they do to captured U.S. operatives. They behead them? And you think undressing them and humilating them as just as bad as killing them.

Quote:

---

Then remember that when you speak about the Germans. They turned around too. They're a strong and great nation now, same as France. Everyone's just badmouthing them because they refused to help the US in Iraq, which most will agree was the right choice.

---

Yeah, they didnt support the Iraq war because they had oil contracts with Saddam.

And sold them weapons. SAme with France and Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

Yeah, they didnt support the Iraq war because they had oil contracts with Saddam.

---

Yep. And now they arent mired in a go-nowhere war with a split nation at home.

Quote:

---

And sold them weapons. SAme with France and Russia

---

Yeah that certainly gives them the moral high ground over the US, who gave Mr. Hussein weapons.

i dont think it would have been easy, but i still believe the USA could have beaten Nazi-Germany. whatever the case, without US help,Hitler would have kicked our ass.

though UK did have a choice. Germany only bombed them because they declared War on the germans after invading Poland. Hitler respected the UK and was shocked when UK declared War.


"You should see what they do to captured U.S. operatives. They behead them? And you think undressing them and humilating them as just as bad as killing them."

ermm...i covered this sort of...

"i get what u say Big D, but they STILL claim they are "liberating" Iraq and i dont like the notion of "we are not as bad as Saddam because our War Crimes are not as bad". maybe it was not Mass Genocide, but murdering and tortue are still absolutly discusting. who is the USA to Preach to Saddam and other *Rogue* states and terroists when they do that sort of abhorent stuff themselves?"

same principle.

"Psh, that like saying all Muslims are bad. Just because a small group of people committed these acts, doesnt mean the entire U.S. military is like that. And the Bush Adminstration isnt a regime."

of course not everyone is like that but the corruption still goes 2 to the top. and look at Guntamano(sp) Bay? that is disgusting :mad2: .
oh the Bush Administration is a Regime in many ways. *Do what we say, or die!*. just as there is no such thing as a true Democracy.

[q=noname]You should see what they do to captured U.S. operatives. They behead them? And you think undressing them and humilating them as just as bad as killing them.
[/q]You ought to pay a little more attention to the news...
Numerous Iraqi prisoners were murdered by their captors; mainly beaten to death during "interrogations". Others were drowned after being forced to jump into rivers. They were murdered, just as US captives have been murdered. Also, the Iraqi prisoners are in prison; they cannot personally have been responsible for what happened to others while they were incarcerated.

Quote:

---

though UK did have a choice. Germany only bombed them because they declared War on the germans after invading Poland. Hitler respected the UK and was shocked when UK declared War.

---

He was badly deluded, believing no-one would challenge such a blatant show of strength. The League of Nations had been launching legal challenges to Germany's growing might in the years leading up to the Second World War. The Nazi regimes' acts were too horrific to go unchallenged; the world had to fight back, for the sake of survival and basic justice.

Oh, and decades-old history has little bearing on what nations are like now. Just because some Japanese and German people did bad things in the past, or some American and British people once did good things, has no impact on whether the nation is "good" or "evil" now. It's a different matter when the current government is directly continuing the acts of a previous one, though; or when a government refuses to accept responsibility for correcting mistakes its predecessors made, and indeed wants to go down the same path again.

I worry though that US and UK *self righteousness* will lead to disaster, just as it led to the rise of hitler via the treaty of Versailles. i see history repeating itself in that respect...

Well history repeats itself :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aeris2001x2

i do know that UK should not have got involved in WWII. the US would still have kicked German/Japanese ass without us. it scares me 2 think how different the outcome could have been if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour. the USA would have just let Hitler take over the whole of Europe.

---

Actually, even if the attack on Pearl Harbor had not happened, the US would have entered the war eventually. Ever hear of Lend- Lease? The Atlantic Charter? Both were pre- Pearl Harbor. Also, the British Empire was strong. We only needed the US materials (tanks, ships etc.) and until December 1941, that's all we got.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand- I have recovered the Bush strategy for dealing with terrorists here.


=P

i thought the US isolationism and hatred of all of Europes *pety* wars, would have kept them out of the war. no i havent heard of Lend- Lease? The Atlantic Charter? please enlighten me :) .

the British Empire was strong, but still Hitler was stronger and would have trashed us without US support. correct me if i,m wrong, but was a major reason the Empire broke up that WWII had put so much financial,economic stress on us, as well as the state of the armed forces after, that we just could not hold it together?

The US was not hating Europe at the time... they just wanted to be Isolated. They didnt want to be like the US is now... getting into everyone else's business all the time, having people in theirs, and having to go fight wars they have absolutely nothing to deal with. They broke the policy in WWI, but returned to their Isolationalism. After WWII, they realized that, as such a large and prosperous nation, they had a moral duty to be involved with the rest of the world. And that turned it to what it is now, take it as you will.

The US and England were strong allies, even during the Isolationist point. Mei mentioned Lend-Lease, and he's got a good point. The US was 'lending' (read: giving) Britian a lot of weapons and equipment when Britian was having problems, but staying out of actually fighting the war and assuming the middle-ground about all this crap. Then Pearl Harbor happened and everything changed.

Would England have defeated Germany without US troops? That I dont know. Germany was making a lot of screw ups towards the end there. But regardless, the US did help, and blah blah blah I'm done with my WWII rant.

Not even sure I had a point. xD

i understand. though i thought USA was Selling weapons to us, and we r still paying the debt off now.

it seems though USA has gone from one extreme to the other. imho i think they need 2 find a middle ground.

World War II would have been won without the US, but France would have been a Warsaw Pact nation.

For one thing, I think it is a VERY encouraging sign that there are young folk such as us that ARE interested in the world, in history and in what makes everything tick to a degree. Regardless of where we may stand on a war, a leader, an ideal, I think it's very clear that we can all agree on one thing: The world we are going to inherit in the coming years has changed very much from the world that was back, even 10 or 20 years before. History is that rarest of things that can somehow always change and yet have some sort of cycle. The principles in events and the events themselves almost always change, but the circumstances to which most of what makes the world turn in all directions, are somehow always similiar in one regard or another.

More than anything else, this world suffers from severe polarization, in that every issue can no longer be in shades of grey, but must be either one side or the other. In my modest opinion, in many cases, this is a very dangerous viewpoint to take as the answers to so many riddles and obstacles in our lives and in this world itself lie in the middle. Sometimes, we may even be so close to agreeing to one another, yet through pride, stubbornness or just lack of oversight we fail to see where we might be able to work together and overcome something much more easily.

I'd hope this goes without saying, but blind hatred and animosity toward others either as a whole or because of what we believe we know about them will only lead to ruin. To compare Bush or Kerry to Hitler or an evil tyrant is a bit sensationalisitc, even if sometimes the parallels can be vaguely justified. To say that all of one race, or type of people is inferior or to blame for everything, be it Iraqi, Afghan, Muslim, Palestinian, Israeli, American, Black, White, Christian, Jewish, etc, etc is to give into all that may well rot this world to the core. Somehow or another, we're slowly all slipping apart from one another. Rather than band together and put aside our differences, we attempt to pry them wide open and make ourselves feel superior. We claim to help then hurt, we claim to show mercy but only engage in more of the same tactics. Vengence has become the elixir to which we all cling to and use to justify causes that really cannot be justified. If the world engages in eye for an eye tendencies, eventually we'll all go utterly blind.

What will history say about us when all is said and done? It's almost impossible to be able to see, as it's unfolding before our eyes. For a LONG while, Stalin was revered as a hero in the USSR/Russia and only in the last 20 or so years has he been reviled for the horrible atrocities he committed. Could there possibly be some easier way to solve the problems before us, or are we already on a slippery slope downward and must salvage whatever we can whilst we still can? It may sound overly philosophical to wonder if perhaps we need to look only into ourselves to make true progress, but I do indeed wonder sometimes. Perhaps that IS the key to this whole problem. We've all become so hard wired to find blame and place it, our finger always looking for a new place to point when perhaps sometime, we must point it at ourselves. Yet, the idea of accountibility has all but vanished for us. Where has it gone? Perhaps if we once again took responsibility for our actions as individuals and not as the President, or the Senator, or the High School student, but as basic human beings, then we'd all be better off. Or maybe I'm just being foolishly optimistic toward the past, and the mere fact is that we've NEVER really existed like.

There is so much that can happen in the coming years, and maybe i'm just wishing against hope, but I firmly do hope that we are the generation that can lurch this planet and this history forward instead of the endless cycle of hate and violence. Why must man always have war? Are we really all savages, struggling to survive as Darwin once believed? Are we capable of overcoming our differences and banding together as people of this planet to overcome the evil and hatred that has swept the land? Can we rise up as one loud voice and say that we will not walk down the same path so many have taken, all expecting to overmatch their opponents, overwhelm other cultures and dominate the globe, when perhaps, by working together we can achieve so much more?

Surely, this probably has little to do with the topic at hand, to be frank, but after reading all the debate that had raged, all these sorts of thoughts flew through my head. Instead of pour all our problems and possible solutions at each other, perhaps if we meld them together and find some way to directly channel them into the world, then we can avoid so many battles, wars and deaths in the future.

Take care all.

Wow Captain, thats one hell of a post :) .

to a large extent i agree with what u say. however i,m much more pessimistic in one respect. i dont believe its possible to break the cycle. its in Human nature to be this self destructive. not only do i feel its impossible 2 break, i also feel humanity could not cope without such death anyway. its impossible for life to exist in any other way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aeris2001x2

Wow Captain, thats one hell of a post :) .

to a large extent i agree with what u say. however i,m much more pessimistic in one respect. i dont believe its possible to break the cycle. its in Human nature to be this self destructive. not only do i feel its impossible 2 break, i also feel humanity could not cope without such death anyway. its impossible for life to exist in any other way...

---

At one point in time it was impossible for life to exist in any other way. However, with the techonlogy that we have now, we don't have to worry about that. There is an entire solar system of planets out there that someday we will be able to access. With that, one day we will no longer need to worry about over population. We are living in the age where it is truly possible for war to become extinct. At least, thats how i see it.

Quote:

---

We are living in the age where it is truly possible for war to become extinct.

---

You mean, humans will no longer be humans? War and conflict are essential and inseperable parts of human existence, and you can see it on all levels - it will never go away.

Hey. If France and England can manage to stop trying to kill each other, there's hope for us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aeris2001x2

this is sort of a hyperthetical question cause i hope BUSH wont get in another term.

but if the worst happens and he does, what will his next target 2 invade be? could he possibly risk a War with countries that DO have WMD, like North Korea? or maybe Iran? Sudan?(yeah right). or maybe he will actually quit invading countries after the Iraq disaster.

what do u ppl in the US in the know think his next step to world domination be?( ok i,m not really sounding serious but i am serious, and would really appreciate serious replys, even if u r pro-Bush and think my anti-Bush feelings are stuiped).

---

I say Iran. To da Boosh its like Iraq, except with an N.

~~~Oh look its a link ==> The Idiot Heir Quatrain - FreaQ