Whom should US invade next

King of Creation said:
...
Click to expand...
Iran is tripple bigger than Iraq - by territory and by population.
Iran's weapons are better than the Iraqi ones and as you said - they're military much more advanced than Iraq.Also - Iran is said to hide a secret weapon.
In 1979 Iran's population was about 30 - 40 millions, I don't know exactly, but now - they are 60 millions.
Iran is one of the most anti-american nations in the world.I have spoken to a Russian, who had been to Iran during the USSR times and he said that people had to wipe their shoes into an American flag at the border line, and then - enter Iran.

Americans will have big problems, if they attack Iran.
 
It'd be pretty funny to see the Americans trying to cope with one single huge warzone from the Iraqi deserts to the Afghan mountains, tho'.

Hot damn, I'd be eating a lot of popcorn.
 
Elissar said:
As an american soldier. say the US should "bring democracy to" New Zeeland next...
Click to expand...
The bringing of THE DEMOCRACY is what all the USA haters, hate most. You don't bring a democracy, you bring the democracy, the one that you can bye everything and get out with money from what ever you have done. And maybe the US doesn't think, that every country has it's own kind of democracy in it's hearth.They are, 'cause if they wouldn't be, how could they function, and if the establishment doesn't work, the revolution is what is needed, but the foreign army doesn't help the situation, especially if it's the USA's, " 'cause it's there to resecure it's OIL supplies ". :evil:

That is how I see it.
 
Ст&am said:
Also - Iran is said to hide a secret weapon.
Click to expand...
Oh NOES! A Sekret weapon! You make it sound like they have a doomsday device. The more likely scenario is that they will use biological and chemical weapons. Iran "has manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons, including blister, blood, and choking agents." Central Intelligence Agency, "Report of Proliferation-Related Acquisition in 2001," (Washington, DC: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 2001) http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/bian/bian_feb_2001.htm

They probably don't have nuclear weapons yet, but if no action is taken by the UN, then they will soon enough.


In 1979 Iran's population was about 30 - 40 millions, I don't know exactly, but now - they are 60 millions.
Iran is one of the most anti-american nations in the world.I have spoken to a Russian, who had been to Iran during the USSR times and he said that people had to wipe their shoes into an American flag at the border line, and then - enter Iran.
Click to expand...
Yes...during the Cold War, when the USSR and the US were at complete odds with each other, etc. You think Americans or any other western state were cuddling around a nice big red blanket then? No. However, in the years since then, pro-western ideologies have been rallying in Iran. "The current population of Iran is estimated at 72 million people. 15 million households with substantial buying power have satellite television. There is an estimated (3) persons per household for a total satellite viewership of 45 million in Iran." What do you think those people watch? Western TV shows, movies, music. In Iran, it's illegal to be caught transporting a satellite dish. However, it is not illegal to have one in your home. Those with satellite dishes immerse themselves in western culture and ideologies every time they turn on their TVs. They love it...otherwise they wouldn't have a satellite. The people of Iran are much more educated than those of Iraq. It will be much easier to convince them to accept modern culture, as most of them already have!

Jarno Mikkola said:
The bringing of THE DEMOCRACY is what all the USA haters, hate most. You don't bring a democracy, you bring the democracy, the one that you can bye everything and get out with money from what ever you have done.
Click to expand...
I think you're completely confusing Democracy with capitalism. And no one is bring democracy anywhere. What's being brought are liberal democratic traditions. Like free and fair elections, freedoms like speech, press, and stuff. Logically explain to me why people wouldn't want those. You can't.

And maybe the US doesn't think, that every country has it's own kind of democracy in it's hearth.They are, 'cause if they wouldn't be, how could they function, and if the establishment doesn't work, the revolution is what is needed, but the foreign army doesn't help the situation, especially if it's the USA's, " 'cause it's there to resecure it's OIL supplies ". :evil:
Click to expand...
Please try again. Does not compute.

That is how I see it.
Click to expand...
Apparently you need glasses.
 
John Uskglass said:
No, we should not have. It would have aggrevated the USSR, and no one wanted a Vietnam so close to the real one.

But I think we should have considered keeping a war with Iran option open instead of invading Iraq. But that is the past and mere speculation.


And no, there are NOT more moronic people in America then in Europe, let alone Asia, Africa and Australia. Our 'idiots' may preach about ID, but yours try to teach Marx. Frankly, Of Pandas and People has not been the basis of 100 million deaths and literally dozens of failed economies.
Click to expand...

The solution would have been to not reinstated the Shah in the first place.

Also, I love "Ст&am" (if that's you're real name...). Iran may very well have better weapons than Iraq. They may even have some old Soviet tanks, of the same model that were wasted by the bushel in Desert Storm. They may have an airforce composed of MIG's that will be destroyed on the ground in the first few hours of the war. Unless you're referring to an insurgency (which is certainly possible after the radical shahs are disenfranchised), then you're spouting bullshit.

Which seems to follow the precedent, actually.
 
King of Creation said:
What's being brought are liberal democratic traditions. Like free and fair elections, freedoms like speech, press, and stuff. Logically explain to me why people wouldn't want those. You can't.
Click to expand...

Except there are people who don't want those things. You don't even have to leave your country to find people who see concepts such as the "freedom of the press" to be an unjustifiable threat. Much less free elections.
 
And "free elections", do you really think that they are even free or democratic, do 100% of the people that have the voting licence, vote and does it take more than 50% of the voting capacity to rule or is it the convenient 25%, at least in our western countries, it is.
You know the ironic thing about this is that in iraq, the 99% of the people voted Saddam.

And the foreign army thing, tries to get your attention to the people in the countries, where there are USA soldiers that shouldn't be, the soldiers are there to oppress the people, so "the greatest nation" gets it's needed oil(purchased from corrupted governments). And as long as the resistance has nothing to sell, so long they will be looked as terrorists(in the eyes of the americans), and so long they will be oppressed by the USAs army. And so long there are no peaceful solutions for this. Remember who put Saddam to his seat of power, it wasn't the people, it was the americans.

The only wars that have been won, are the kinds that one or the both sides are dead. That's kind of lot of people to be killed if it goes to that. At least 4 billion actually.
 
Ok...99% of the people in Iraq voted Saddam becaue they were scared they would be killed if they voted for anyone else.

And who doesn't want to be free, Kotario? Who doesn't want to be able to have the power to elect their own rulers, or have the chance to represent the people themselves? There is no possible reason at all why someone would not want to be free from tyranny.
 
You are thinking about it from the wrong angle. There is no end to the number of people that would like to impose their specific brand of tyranny on everyone (for their own good, of course). There are people who would be perfectly fine in a stable and prosperous dictatorship, there are other people who want to follow certain codes (for religious or philosophical reasons) which don't fit your freedoms.
 
Jebus said:
It'd be pretty funny to see the Americans trying to cope with one single huge warzone from the Iraqi deserts to the Afghan mountains, tho'.

Hot damn, I'd be eating a lot of popcorn.
Click to expand...
Cyrus did it. I vote we reintroduce Zoroastrianism.
 
You know, anti-bush, anti-war, oil price debates are really getting repetitive and boring. Besides CCR and a handful of "deep America" posters, who supports and approves the current US administration on these boards anymore? The only novelties appearing in these debates are the occasional mocking of some newbie's opinion, the latter usually badly formulated and containing Aegis-grade stupidity.

I say we start an anti-shrubbery or possibly an anti-tree debate, to make things more interesting. We already know Bush R teh eville, thank you.
 
For the record, I disagree with Bush on most of his domestic views, and I can't really disagree with him on his international views because I don't think he even knows what they are yet.
 
King of Creation said:
For the record, I disagree with Bush on most of his domestic views, and I can't really disagree with him on his international views because I don't think he even knows what they are yet.
Click to expand...

I have to say I am reaching a similar conclusion, and will probably continue to think that of him unless zombie David McCullough does a book on him in 50 years.
 
I absolutely could not believe that people would see "Korea" down by Austrailia and say "ah, there it is." Are you retarded? Have you looked at a map, ever? I could probably label 95% of a map from memory. I'd only have trouble on the obscure pacific islands and the teeny tiny East European splinter nations. Man alive!
 
Invade Iran.....

Let's look at history- the iran-iraq war- the fact that a technologically inferior Iran, which had just undergone a tremendously difficult Islamic Revolution, stopped a technologically superior Iraq in its tracks and then threatened to invade Iraq, fought a war that lasted most of a decade and led to the bloodshed of countless hundreds of thousands.

So yes, that would be a real war, a big war, a nasty war. Many thousands of Americans killed for a little more oil. One more international blunder by the Bush administration that will bankrupt the US and will have to be paid for by future generations.

I say, if we're going to invade, we invade Bora-Bora. Since global warming destroys our beaches on a yearly basis, we need to take over new ones. We should be able to kick Bora-Bora's ass!
 
Could it please be Georgia? Georgia needs some woopass opened up on them by an international power very soon.

I'll help!
 
If Georgia had hot chicks, than maybe we should.

But if the US conquered Georgia, than what? We'd have two Georgia's? That would just be confusing. I don't think most Americans would get it.

"Georgia, you mean "Georgia peach" "Georgia, on my mind?" "Georgia on my mind?" "

"No? There's another Georgia over on the Eur-Asia landmass? Really? We're invading? Why?"

Also invading a country because it's got hot chicks (does Georgia have hot chicks?) is politically incorrect in a nation that has supposed sexual equality.

Now Bora Bora- not many hot chicks, but great beachs were we can take fat American chicks to get skin cancer. That's what we should invade. Furthermore, we have a better chance of winning that one than invading Iran or Georgia.

Alternatively we could invade France only because the French need to be spanked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top