CaptainRAVE Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I know this is kind of old news. But what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Uh, why would their be a war? TiE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Because good ole G dubblya wants to rid the world of terror. He should start by geting rid of himself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 They have "not discarded the possibility" of bombing Iran, so I fear it might happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd_Annhilator Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by TiE 23 *snap* You're right! God, I teh hates hims.... Not to kill him or anything....... *nervous laugh* TiE Smeagol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by Anthony Smeagol! Stupid Bushesses! Stupid fat Bushesses! TiE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassev Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pad Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Bush has a great dislike of many countries including North Corea where he is afraid off but I don´t 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 doesn´t have an extra term which allows him to do the things he always wanted to do without giving a **** about people´s opinion. So he will do some evil things. Perhaps he´ll bring peace to the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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 he´ll bring peace to the Middle East. Ah yes, peace through killing everyone. PS: Korea* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Discussion over war in a country seems serious enough to me... We'll let Skinwalker handle this 'un. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loopster Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by Loopster ...not to mention any unexpected situations that develop overnight... As Bush himself said One 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 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 © have a nuclear weapons program operating in flagrant violation of international accords ... then, so long as there is © 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wilson Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 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'. Superb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.