Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

Who should America strike first, Iraq, N. Korea, or niether?

  • Iraq

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Total voters
    50

Skyfire

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
Hehe. I seriously doubt that the US would want to get into a fight with China...
I'm sure the same could be said about many countries, as long as we're not assuming China holds some, "Hey the US fears us!" concept, then I'm prone to agree with you. (Since there are quite a few people we wouldn't want to fight.)

Originally posted by steampunk
Gee whiz, maybe it's because the US is not as rich in oil deposits *gasp*. Not to mention all the ecological nightmares you might end up causing.
Actually, we have quite an amount of oil we could call upon, but the belief that we'll "use their oil, and destroy their lands-so ours will be nice and when they really need it, they won't have it" has been our policy for quite a while now.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Skyfire
I'm sure the same could be said about many countries, as long as we're not assuming China holds some, "Hey the US fears us!" concept, then I'm prone to agree with you.
Well, the impression I get is that China's concept is more along the lines of "Hey, the US should fear us". They're almost the third super-power in a world that generally only acknowledges the existence of two super-powers (or indeed, one super-power and one ex-super-power). A somewhat bizarre analogy would be that they are in that nether state between teenagerhood and adulthood. Not quite an adult, but treat them like a teenager at your own peril - as the US has learned on two occasions.
Of course, that's just a broad generalisation, since the reality is vastly more complex.
 

Concordia

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Quarto
TC said almost everything that needs to be said. I'll just fill in one little detail...


The Dome of the Rock isn't even in Mecca, it's in Jerusalem. Before you express any further opinions, please find out a bit about what you're talking about.
Okay forget about the dome of the rock. But the Kamikaze Mecca was a clever idea. Take a building of real importance to them Kamikaze it.

Sure every arab on earth would now hate us... It's not like we'd destroy the city though, just a really important building.

They could still make pilgrimmages.

-Concordia
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
And then what? Kill off every Arab and Middle Easterner in the world? What of our own religions such as Christian and Jewish, which have very close ties to the Middle East?
 

Needaham45

Spaceman
I've avoided the debate so far, but this is where I'm gonna step in.

There is no reason to attack Middle Easterners, or Arabs. Contrary to popular belief, they're not all bad. Only a select few that you hear about making all of them seem bad. But every group of people has a few wackos in it hated by people within as well as outside that group. You think most Middle Easterners like Osama bin Laden, or Sadamm Husiane (I know that spelling is horrible, but it's late and I don't feel like looking it up)? Most Arabs, Middle Easterners, and Muslims a like hate both of them, because they give the group a bad image. All the media focuses on are the select few in the middle east who hate America to death, and are the terrorists - but like I said - there are a very small minority. There's no reason to be angry at Arabs, Middle Easterners, or Muslims. The problem is terrorists. It doesn't matter where they're from, what they look like, or what religion they are - we shoudl be fighting terrorists, and nothing else. Osama and the U-Bomber are no different. Both are horrible people, both are terrorists. It makes no difference what religion or race they are - they both killed a lot of people in terrorist actions. The real target in a war on terrorism should be the terrorists, and nothing else. Not Arabs. Not Middle Easterners. Not Muslims. Just Terrorists.

*EDIT* - and as for the destroying an important building in Mecca idea - that's possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard (no offense to supporters of it). But really - why should we do that? Mecca is a religious place. That would be targetting all Muslims, not just the terrorists. To use my example before, U-Bomber was American. Does that mean someone should destroy the Capitol building? I didn't think so. I hope whoever suggested this idea is now using reason and seeing the problems with it.
 

Skyfire

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
Well, the impression I get is that China's concept is more along the lines of "Hey, the US should fear us". They're almost the third super-power in a world that generally only acknowledges the existence of two super-powers (or indeed, one super-power and one ex-super-power). A somewhat bizarre analogy would be that they are in that nether state between teenagerhood and adulthood. Not quite an adult, but treat them like a teenager at your own peril - as the US has learned on two occasions.
Of course, that's just a broad generalisation, since the reality is vastly more complex.
Sure, they have that assumption (I'm with ya on that one) but that still doesn't mean that it's true. :)
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Skyfire
Sure, they have that assumption (I'm with ya on that one) but that still doesn't mean that it's true.
Yet, when China growls, the US whimpers :).
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Well, both Clinton and Bush did... so, so far the China-US relationship has an ublemished record of two growls/two whimpers :).
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Quarto
Yet, when China growls, the US whimpers :).
only cause our last pres couldn't do anything right except the economy, which, unfortunately, many people think is the only job of the president (which is how he got elected for that 2nd term). and bush i think didn't want to get called a warmonger
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Last I checked, Bush really doesn't care what people think of him. Indeed, he's quite proud of being a warmonger.
 

Wulf

Vice Admiral
You know, this whole ordeal has really got me pissed. Here we have a problem that could have been eliminated in '91, but instead, the ground war was brought to a halt and left. Now I continue to wait for something to happen while every second of time we give the enemy makes them ever more bold to attack our turf.

I'm glad I'm not the Prez...I would go down in history as the Butcher of Baghdad. Just turn the entire region into a giant glass wonder (and no, not with nukes; we can do it without 'em). Needaham mentioned the old "don't judge the whole tree by the bad apple" bit, but in reality, it's the reverse. Most of the people over there are, unfortunately, so brainwashed that they would lobotomize themselves and drink acid at the drop of Saddam's hat should he will it. Should we liberate Iraq, we need to show them something they can understand. First, tie Saddam down in the town square for everyone to see, open his belly up, crush his appendix bare-handed, and pour angry fire ants inside to let them burrow deep. Then, continuously broadcast over loudspeakers that thy are free nonstop, all the while helping them rebuild. Once we do that, we get the fuck out and let them run their own damn country in peace.

Also, an unfortunate fact remains that we have to persuade a bunch of weasels before we can act...supposedly. Really, it's the French that have me pissed right now. I can understand the Germans; they have strong economic ties with Iraq. That's why they don't want to side with us...money. As much as I hate to admit it, that is a reasonable excuse to oppose, becaus they do need the money. So does Russia, and folks, I wouldn't care if Russia sides with us and not support us JUST AS LONG AS THEY DON'T VETO. I think we really need to help them, because those people are in a bad way right now. And here we have France with no excuse, but they just want to be a little bitch about it. Just because Saddam has missiles that MIGHT be able to explode dirty warheads in to their borders, they run with their tails between their legs. Do you see Israel running for cover? Hell no. They have wanted a piece of Saddam always.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
lets see, china has 5 times the population of the US, its military is vastly larger. More importantly it has more than enough nukes and ICBMs to destroy every square inch of the US, sure the US can do that to every square inch of the world (a few times over) but so long as china can kill us easily enough, does it really matter?

Ohh and china within the next 20 years or so, will probably be in the top 4 economically, leaning towards #1 (unless europe unites as one in which case itll be china, europe, us vying for the top 3)
 

Dominator

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by Napoleon
lets see, china has 5 times the population of the US, its military is vastly larger. More importantly it has more than enough nukes and ICBMs to destroy every square inch of the US, sure the US can do that to every square inch of the world (a few times over) but so long as china can kill us easily enough, does it really matter?

Ohh and china within the next 20 years or so, will probably be in the top 4 economically, leaning towards #1 (unless europe unites as one in which case itll be china, europe, us vying for the top 3)
They only have 20+ ICBM nukes that are not capable of destroying even1/4 of US, their economy seems to be strong but will never be as strong as western as long as they remain communist country (much of their income is `lost`along the way due to corruption and overall ineffeciency that is typical to communism).
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Originally posted by Dominator
They only have 20+ ICBM nukes that are not capable of destroying even1/4 of US, their economy seems to be strong but will never be as strong as western as long as they remain communist country (much of their income is `lost`along the way due to corruption and overall ineffeciency that is typical to communism).
where the hell is that data comming from? and just FYI 20 nukes is just about sufficient to make the entirety of the US unlivable, radiation and such.

you seem to have the worlds mixed up, their government is communist, their economy is capitalist. They used to have a socialist economy, but since the 1970s they have been capitalizing their economy, and basically you are assuming that since capitalism beat out soviet socialism, that it would happen today too, which is kinda silly, since china is a very interesting hybrid.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Wulf
Most of the people over there are, unfortunately, so brainwashed that they would lobotomize themselves and drink acid at the drop of Saddam's hat should he will it.
As someone coming from an ex-communist state, I can assure you that you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I'd say more, but then, as moderator, I'd have to delete my own post.
 
Top