toms Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by TK-8252 He wouldn't dare go that far. He'd lose so many supporters. When has that ever bothered dubya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRAVE Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 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 ), 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 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... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Here Is a hint that they will also invade Cuba.Castro: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Cuban Leader Castro Calls Bush 'Deranged' Well, can't argue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 They won't invade Cuba. Fidel is close enough to death. When he'll die, he'll let the CIA put someone into power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 (clicky) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.