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

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Napoleon
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.
Dominator, unlike you, has experienced communism first-hand. Your knowledge of communism is theoretical. Ours is practical.

Besides, you've managed to miss your own point,. China does not run its economy in a communist manner. It's not a communist state, nor is it an interesting hybrid. It's a capitalist state run by dictators who call themselves communists. And why did they turn to capitalism? Because - again, unlike you - they experienced communism first-hand, and they know how bad it is for the economy.
 

Wulf

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Quarto
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.
Well that's a relief; maybe there is hope.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Napoleon
lets see, china has 5 times the population of the US, its military is vastly larger
that doesn't mean shit. Iraq had a larger military than the US before the Gulf War and look what happened to them- they got the shit kicked out of them and the we didn't even use all of our forces to do it. the US has the best military in the world, even if it isn't as large as some others
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
And Iraq has more than the forces that want to attack now too, but America and such have a huge advantage. Why? Iraq has no fighter aircraft, only Hind helicopters. They have no Navy vessels, I believe, and their army is made up of ex Soviet hardware such as the T-72. To explain, the T-80 was a more advanced version and over 8,000 were built. It was the premier battle tank until the Abrams. Then in 1993, Russia built the T-90. So the T-72 is pretty old by military standereds.
 

Skyfire

Spaceman
Originally posted by Napoleon

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)
Their economy will probably continue to grow as long as the US, continues to buy their cheap products. I'd almost say that both of our economies are linked in quite a large way.

And so what if they have that many people, it doesn't matter if you have 8 billion soldiers if you can blow them all away with guns/bombs. And, contrary to what some people will tell me, I somehow doubt there are, "so many of them, we'd fatigue out before beating them." -Ha! People can be silly. :)
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Yeah, slave labour. I think you can guess that I hate slave labour.
So simply because things can be done cheaper in China its slave labour? That's stupid.

And as for cheap. That is no longer the case. Some of the best production in the WORLD can be had in countries like China. In fact IIRC the best welding any where can be done in Taiwan. Yes Taiwan. Do you seriously think that huge companies keep producing things there simply because its cheap? That's stupid too.

Skyfire: What do you think China's army is armed with? Pitch forks? Swords and shields? :rolleyes:

And it's not just the US that buys things from China. The whole world buys things from China. Yes it is true that the US is major part of the worlds economy but it isn't the worlds' economy.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
I would too. But to hear it straight from the horse's mouth, well, it got me so worked up I made myself very ill. Especially that cockbreathed lawyer who kept tripping himself up.
 

Cam

Spaceman
Does anybody know how many hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons the United States has? Any figures? Anybody?
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Too many. However many they have, it's too many.
yeah... but for you guys that live in other countries..... Are you more afriad of USA having nukes... Or Iraq having nukes..... Gee.... would they stop at the US? is everyone else "innocent"....probably not...so i would be way more worried about some country that is run by a complete psycho, than the US.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
I'd be afraid of any country having nukes. For one, what if they choose to use them in a war. For another, it was, I understood, rediculously easy to break into military installations and steal a choice selection of weapons. You know those suitcase nukes you see in the movies? They were issued by the KGB, and were used by SEALS and Marines. A number of them have been lost. And for another, it is nowhere near as hard as you might think to either get nuclear weapons or the materials to create them. You can, I understand, take freon tanks and uranium to get weapons based plutonium. Use a similar technique you use to make moonshine. Besides which, do YOU wanna be in Iraq or America or North Korea if they decide to uses nukes? I know I wouldn't.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Yeah, those suitcase nukes get stolen all the time. And I hear that them smallpox samples disappeared again. Damn, looks like we're in for another epidemic.

Seriously, the threat of nuclear weapons being stolen is a much overblown one. Terrorists seem much scarier when you think they might have access to nuclear weapons.

And for the record, I'm not afraid of any country having nukes. Sometimes I wish all countries - including Iraq, Afghanistan, and whatever other example you might bring up - had nukes.
 
Top