Guest Downhome Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 I simply wanted to poll you guys on this one, that is all. Since we went into Iraq, and basicly took over in short order and things have gone very well, will we now after Iraq, go after other nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc...? I am not asking for a specific, I simply mean ANY of them. Will we do so within the year, or will we wait, or even simply let them be? We have done a great thing for the people of Iraq, as they are now free (at least more free than they were a month ago). Will we continue to do this sort of thing, or will we wait untill they are a threat to us? Sincerely, ...Downhome...
Guest EricMM Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 The political ramifications of us going to war again would be huge. I don't think it will happen again. But never say never right?
Guest Sandman9000 Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Yes. There is an election next year, right?
Guest Mad Dog Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 It depends on how mant trails lead to Syria and how much they cooperate. I doubt there will be a war with North Korea, b/c they are likely to crumble before our eyes considering the country is starving.
Guest Downhome Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 It depends on how mant trails lead to Syria and how much they cooperate. I doubt there will be a war with North Korea, b/c they are likely to crumble before our eyes considering the country is starving. Speaking of North Korea, how exactly does their milatary stack up against us?
Guest Mad Dog Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 They outnumber us by quite a bit. That's about the only advantage they have. A war with them would take a few months just b/c of the size of their army but they don't have the skill or the supplies to beat us.
Guest Krotchenjudge Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 I hope we overthrow any government that looks at us crosseyed basically. This war in Iraq was justified, whether we find WMD or not. And since Syria couldnt stay out of it, they should be next. Let this be a lesson to anyone who dares to fuck with America. Obey the big dawgs, or get chewed up like the rest. Fro Cheez, Krotchenjudge
Guest Mad Dog Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Wow, A brand new troll for us to punch around.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 A war with them would take a few months Yeah just like the last war you had with them eh?
Guest Powerplay Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 A war with them would take a few months Yeah just like the last war you had with them eh? Are you one of the people who would compare Iraq to Vietnam as well? North Korea then and now would be totally different for many of the same reasons.
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 I hope we overthrow any government that looks at us crosseyed basically. This war in Iraq was justified, whether we find WMD or not. And since Syria couldnt stay out of it, they should be next. Let this be a lesson to anyone who dares to fuck with America. Obey the big dawgs, or get chewed up like the rest. Fro Cheez, Krotchenjudge I agree with the statement, not the metod of the poster.
Guest Krotchenjudge Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 What does that mean? How can you agree with what I say, but not me? That makes about as much sense as saying you wouldnt have sex with Kylie Minogue. Hassa Salama Lakum, Krotchenjudge
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Pretty much. If you were saying that under any other name but a Kotz rip off, I'd be cool with it. I think you're right. But you should change your name.
Guest Krotchenjudge Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Seriously, what would be wrong with overthrowing any oppressive regime? Syria, Libya, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Lebanon... the list is endless. We've done 2 in the past 18 months with such ease. If pussies like France and Germany don't like it, they can consider themselves NEXT!!! Goldberg to France: YOU'RE NEXT. HUUUAHHHHH!!!
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Such ease? Tell that to the soldiers that have perished and their families.
Guest converge241 Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Dude wheres your gimmick? theres no "fo whatever" in that post!
Guest Downhome Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Such ease? Tell that to the soldiers that have perished and their families. Well, considering the wars of the past and looking at this one over all, it has been done with "such ease". Not to mean it's been EASY, as a lot of shit has been going on, but considering what could have happened, and what did not, this has been a very smooth war.
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Such ease? Tell that to the soldiers that have perished and their families. Such is war. Neither was a disaster in regards to casualties, and both went fairly quick, so I think you could say it was somewhat easy. And I don't mean to sound cold hearted, but there IS NO draft. Anyone who died enlisted, fully aware of what could possibly happen. It's still a shame, though.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 True, but the point is that you don't want to say "Oh, that was easy, let's go do another!!!!" Iraq, on some level (the level is debatable), was a threat. The world is a better place without Saddam, but the main reason we took him out is the remote threat to us. Guess what? It's not our job to go in and exterminate the world's leadership because we don't agree with them. We take out whomever poses a threat to us (via the Bush doctrine -- not my opinion, obviously), and we don't risk our soldiers' lives in other unnecessary cases.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Such ease? Tell that to the soldiers that have perished and their families. Such is war. Neither was a disaster in regards to casualties, and both went fairly quick, so I think you could say it was somewhat easy. And I don't mean to sound cold hearted, but there IS NO draft. Anyone who died enlisted, fully aware of what could possibly happen. It's still a shame, though. Except for those people who joined because they had to... or the ones that joined to have money to go through college... or....
Guest Krotchenjudge Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 You're outnumbered stinko pinko. Go protest the endangerment of the spotted turtle or something. Fo Turtle Power, Krotchenjudge
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 A war with them would take a few months Yeah just like the last war you had with them eh? Are you one of the people who would compare Iraq to Vietnam as well? North Korea then and now would be totally different for many of the same reasons. No I don't compare Iraq and Vietnam. But North Korea would be no easy victory either. China would never stand Idly by and let you invade them, Germany,France, and Russia would also be alarmed at youre actions. Also North Korea does supposedly have the Bomb now.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 LOLZ STINKO PINKO? THAT HURTS MAI PRYDE One intelligent man can beat a hundred dumb sheep. Dispute my points, troll.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 True, but the point is that you don't want to say "Oh, that was easy, let's go do another!!!!" Iraq, on some level (the level is debatable), was a threat. The world is a better place without Saddam, but the main reason we took him out is the remote threat to us. Guess what? It's not our job to go in and exterminate the world's leadership because we don't agree with them. We take out whomever poses a threat to us (via the Bush doctrine -- not my opinion, obviously), and we don't risk our soldiers' lives in other unnecessary cases. Amen.
Guest Downhome Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 True, but the point is that you don't want to say "Oh, that was easy, let's go do another!!!!" Iraq, on some level (the level is debatable), was a threat. The world is a better place without Saddam, but the main reason we took him out is the remote threat to us. Guess what? It's not our job to go in and exterminate the world's leadership because we don't agree with them. We take out whomever poses a threat to us (via the Bush doctrine -- not my opinion, obviously), and we don't risk our soldiers' lives in other unnecessary cases. This is a very fine line with me, it really is. I am 100% anti-war, but when it is needed, I support it. I, just like many of you here, wish that we could just go towards the future without a single drop of blooed being spilled, but that is not possible in the world we live in today. While a part of me says to leave certain nations alone and let them live their lives as they know it, another part of my says that since we are the most powerful nation on the planet, we almost owe it to our fellow man to help out those who are being treated so badly. Not to mention that most of the places that do treat their citizens so badly also have it either in for the US, and are obviously evil in the first place. I don't know what to think about it, part of me says let it be, and another part of me says it's partly our duty. I'm really torn on this at times. I do look at TV however, and see much of Iraq being very thankfull for what we did, cheering us on in the streets, obviously glad that we did what we did, and very glad they can finally speek their minds and show their true feelings. I wish things weren't so complicated, heh.
Guest Anglesault Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Except for those people who joined because they had to... "had to" in what way? The Government literally forced them into the armed forces. or the ones that joined to have money to go through college... or.... In the end, it was still their decission. Even if you join at a time of peace, it still has to be in the back of your mind. Iraq, on some level (the level is debatable), was a threat. The world is a better place without Saddam, but the main reason we took him out is the remote threat to us. Guess what? It's not our job to go in and exterminate the world's leadership because we don't agree with them. But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America.
Guest Downhome Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 Just for the record, I do not think there is even a CHANCE of us going after North Korea any time soon as is. If we do anything, first will be Syria then will come Iran, and all the while we'll be doing the best we can to handle North Korea diplomatically. North Korea is an entirly different beast than Syria, Iran, and Iraq. We do not want to go into a full fledged war with them, I assure you.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 12, 2003 Report Posted April 12, 2003 "had to" in what way? The Government literally forced them into the armed forces. I know quite a few of my friends who were forced into the military by their parents. But is it our job to feed the world? Save it from poverty? So many people have heaped that role on America. Do our soldiers die when we send money and aid to other countries?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now