NationStates Jolt Archive

...................

Where you read that? Or where the voices in your head that told you that?

lol j/k

meh.. most likly syria.. and he'll totally forget about the real world threat.. north korea.. :rolleyes:

...................

Let's hope it's a typo, and that Mr. Bush wants to get into Bran instead. You know, really really make 'fibre his friend' and all that.

OH!

Mock invasions!

Well lets see: The US as no international support, after the lies in Iraq, no country will go after the US in another adventure, so the US would have to go alone.

The US military is stretched thin in Iraq, they don't have the manpower to attack another country, unless Bush declares a draft, which he promised his heart out he wouldnt do.

Iran, North Korea, or Syria, unlike Iraq, have their armies at maximum strengh, not having been bombed by the first gulf war. They are also alot more indoctrinated than the IRaqui army, would put a most bitter fight. Iran and North Korea are also alot bigger than IRaq, so the fight and occupation of either country would be an even mess than IRaq.

So, no invasion, no attack on Iran or NK.

Which gives them plenty of time and breathing room to develop nukes on their own. WASNT BUSH SMART?

yes a great intelligent man that will lead the world into a brighter future!
*vomits*
thats true he can hardly do anything military wise anymore without support.. well he can but lets not go inot that.. oh he can also sucure a tighter grip on the west by lying about the constant threat of terrorism!

I heard it through the grape vine.

No real evidence, that is why I ASKED to see what others said. Although, wouldn't it be funny?

"Thank you for electing me for a second term. For this, I shall invade the country of Iran, just for you guys!"

OR

"Thank you for electing me for a second term. Because I know half of you don't like me, I'm watching my diet and eating Bran so if someone takes a shot, I'm well prepared".

I sincerly don't believe in Bush getting into a second war (Im naive, i dont believe he can be that stupid, but i can be wrong), which is great for Iran and North Korea, which can go on developing their nukes (not so great for the west, since at least NK is known to sell weapons to everyone, it is plausible, considering the funding that alqaeda as, that they could sell one to bin laden).

No, that was just the sound of saber rattling. The Empire of Presidency does it all the time.

I heard it through the grape vine.

No real evidence, that is why I ASKED to see what others said. Although, wouldn't it be funny?

"Thank you for electing me for a second term. For this, I shall invade the country of Iran, just for you guys!"

OR

"Thank you for electing me for a second term. Because I know half of you don't like me, I'm watching my diet and eating Bran so if someone takes a shot, I'm well prepared".

LMAO dude I just coughed liquid through my nose. Oh, my monitor screen...oh dear me.

LMAO dude I just coughed liquid through my nose. Oh, my monitor screen...oh dear me.

Sorry. What kind of liquid? Hope it wasn't koolaid. That stuff stains.

He won't attack Iran straight out first he has to have a "reason" (and I use that term lightly, its more of an excuse) and that where the next terrorist attack will come into play. We'll hunt down the real terrorist for a while, and then attack Iran just when we have the leader of the terrorist group cornered. Thus letting him go free. Hmmm this sounds familiar.

The US military is stretched thin in Iraq, they don't have the manpower to attack another country, unless Bush declares a draft, which he promised his heart out he wouldnt do.
Since when have election promises meant anything, especially to a double-dealing lying politicians?

No, you didn't. You may have heard wild and paranoid rumors, but that's it. Considering the size of the US military this would be impossible. There will not be a draft. Congress would have to authorize this and it would not be a good idea for many reasons. The military is not its current size because we can't get recruits, but because that is how large Congress lets it become. Please read the following article and pass it on to friends if they fear a draft. It explains in very clear terms why it would not happen and why we could more than double the size of the military without a draft. Remember, there are 280 million US citizens, but the military only has about 1.4 million troops.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm

Since when have election promises meant anything, especially to a double-dealing lying politicians?


I said i was naive :fluffle:

Don't forget he promised to free Cuba!

So did JFK and that didn't work out so well did it? After getting hung out to dry during the Bay of Pigs, there's a reason why Cuban-Americans tend to vote republican.

I said i was naive :fluffle:

Naive, maybe, but you are correct.

I think his campaign cry should have been "TWO MORE WARS!"

meh.. most likly syria.. and he'll totally forget about the real world threat.. north korea.. :rolleyes:

Did you read the NY Times today... N. Korea is willing to open up multilateral talks of disarmament. So much for Bi-lateral talks being the only thing that works.
Also what do you expect of Bush? You expect him to storm the beaches of Inchon. Occupy a country (S. Korea) that doesen't want us there. Fight a war we couldn't win fifty years ago. Take enormous casualties the like that Iraq will never turn out. Face an enemy with superior combatant numbers and a possible allie with China. Blow our own landmines on the paralell and send relations with S. Korea down the toilet. There is no active opposition to Kim Jong Ill's rule like there was in Iraq or is in Iran. Iran has a huge opposition to the cleric rule especially among women and students. Risk war in Japan's backyard and have relations with that country down the toilet. Expand into a new theatre when were already over-extended...

The casualties would be horrendous. Invading N. Korea would be a disaster. America is not even sitting well with what we already have in Iraq.

OH!

Mock invasions!

Well lets see: The US as no international support, after the lies in Iraq, no country will go after the US in another adventure, so the US would have to go alone.

The US military is stretched thin in Iraq, they don't have the manpower to attack another country, unless Bush declares a draft, which he promised his heart out he wouldnt do.

Iran, North Korea, or Syria, unlike Iraq, have their armies at maximum strengh, not having been bombed by the first gulf war. They are also alot more indoctrinated than the IRaqui army, would put a most bitter fight. Iran and North Korea are also alot bigger than IRaq, so the fight and occupation of either country would be an even mess than IRaq.

So, no invasion, no attack on Iran or NK.

Which gives them plenty of time and breathing room to develop nukes on their own. WASNT BUSH SMART?

"Iran and North Korea are also alot bigger than IRaq,"

ummm north korea is smaller then iraq LOOK AT A MAP

Don't forget he promised to free Cuba!

We can only do that through free trade. When the Cubans see what they are missing many will embrace capitalism. Just as they did in East Europe.

"Iran and North Korea are also alot bigger than IRaq,"

ummm north korea is smaller then iraq LOOK AT A MAP

hahahahah... I think he means population wise. But even then Iran and Iraq are fairly equal in population.

OH!

Mock invasions!

Well lets see: The US as no international support, after the lies in Iraq, no country will go after the US in another adventure, so the US would have to go alone.

The US military is stretched thin in Iraq, they don't have the manpower to attack another country, unless Bush declares a draft, which he promised his heart out he wouldnt do.

Iran, North Korea, or Syria, unlike Iraq, have their armies at maximum strengh, not having been bombed by the first gulf war. They are also alot more indoctrinated than the IRaqui army, would put a most bitter fight. Iran and North Korea are also alot bigger than IRaq, so the fight and occupation of either country would be an even mess than IRaq.

So, no invasion, no attack on Iran or NK.

Which gives them plenty of time and breathing room to develop nukes on their own. WASNT BUSH SMART?

N. Korea had enriched uranium shortly after 1994. Clinton gave them a nuclear reactor and made them promise never to make nuclear weapons. In 1996 they had an ongoing project enriching uranium. Your right that they may have not had weapon systems until Bush's administration. But it is irrelevent. There is hardly anything you can do once they have enriched uranium. Who looks more guilty to you? If you think I'm spinning look it up the New York Times had a big article in 1998 about how stupid Clinton was.

I was talking in population, and the thing is

Iraq as 23 million people
Iran as 66 million people


And i screwed with Korea, they have 22 million people :P

My bad... I didn't look at the numbers I just assumed. Kind of thought you were talking about population.

N. Korea had enriched uranium shortly after 1994. Clinton gave them a nuclear reactor and made them promise never to make nuclear weapons. In 1996 they had an ongoing project enriching uranium. Your right that they may have not had weapon systems until Bush's administration. But it is irrelevent. There is hardly anything you can do once they have enriched uranium. Who looks more guilty to you? If you think I'm spinning look it up the New York Times had a big article in 1998 about how stupid Clinton was.

Please show me the article. And even assuming that Bill Clinton was stupid. Well, Bush wasnt smarter, was he? And at least, there used to be UN monitoring of NK nuclear instalations, but when the NK goverment dropped from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in the Bush admnistration, in 2003, what did he do? Nothing.

Well lets see: The US as no international support, after the lies in Iraq, no country will go after the US in another adventure, so the US would have to go alone.
Nah. Blair is already drooling at the opportunity for another 4 years of Britain serving America. His boss just has to give the word. And if Bush makes haste he can get Schröder on board as well. At least untill 2006 when the next election is held.

Please show me the article. And even assuming that Bill Clinton was stupid. Well, Bush wasnt smarter, was he? And at least, there used to be UN monitoring of NK nuclear instalations, but when the NK goverment dropped from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in the Bush admnistration, in 2003, what did he do? Nothing.

Heres one better... Mcain on Congressional record talking about how N. Korea already has Plutonium. http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1994/s941007dprk.htm

He has had multilateral talks for quite some time. What is it that you expect him to do?

Heres one better... Mcain on Congressional record talking about how N. Korea already has Plutonium. http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1994/s941007dprk.htm

He has had multilateral talks for quite some time. What is it that you expect him to do?

Linky doesnt work..

Heres one better... Mcain on Congressional record talking about how N. Korea already has Plutonium. http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1994/s941007dprk.htm

He has had multilateral talks for quite some time. What is it that you expect him to do?

Heres one from New York University that says Clinton legacy with N. Korea was leading to war.
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/pubs/ib42.html

Last I heard Bush had N. Korea at the bargaining table willingly. I fail to see what the brightline between Clinton/Bush negligence is... other than their respective parties.

*Edit
It also talks about the "two nuclear reactors" that were given to N. Korea to keep them from building nukes. Anyone that knows/reads IAEA reports knows they enriched uranium at both of those reactors. Cheers Clinton.

Linky doesnt work..

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1994/s941007-dprk.htm

my bad I erased the - thing mistakenly.

We never had osama cornered.
You would like to beleive he would have been caught if we hadn't taken out saddam :rolleyes:

Very well, Clinton was stupid. And Bush wasnt better, Korea is now nearer than ever from having a Nuke. In late 2002 North Korea expelled United Nations weapons inspectors, and announced plans to reactivate a dormant nuclear fuel processing laboratory if the United States did not agree to a non invasion pact.
Even though Bush had named North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil" following the 9/11 Attacks, The US didnt even pallned any immediate miltary action, you just stood there, even if contradicting the the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military action aimed at preventing rogue nations and groups from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

OH!

Mock invasions!

Well lets see: The US as no international support, after the lies in Iraq, no country will go after the US in another adventure, so the US would have to go alone.


Your wrong about that actually. One country that would blindly follow Dubya into another war would be Australia. Gotta love our idiot of a Primie Minister. :(

Very well, Clinton was stupid. And Bush wasnt better, Korea is now nearer than ever from having a Nuke. In late 2002 North Korea expelled United Nations weapons inspectors, and announced plans to reactivate a dormant nuclear fuel processing laboratory if the United States did not agree to a non invasion pact.
Even though Bush had named North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil" following the 9/11 Attacks, The US didnt even pallned any immediate miltary action, you just stood there, even if contradicting the the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military action aimed at preventing rogue nations and groups from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

Once again I ask you what other than negotiations we could do? And N. Korea invited the US, China, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan to a bargaining table to willingly disarm on Nov. 3.
I will restate what I said earlier. We could not invade N. Korea pre-Iraq or post Iraq. Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire he didn't invade it. I agree with his analysis and his action. It would have been suicide to attack Moscow. Just as it would've been political suicide to attack Pyongyang. At the point where they are talking about disarmament I don't see what the big deal is?

As for your Bush is worse because now they have nuclear weapons. Under Clinton N. Korea aquired the key elements. After Uranium 238 and Plutonium there isn't a whole lot more you need. Especially if your using a basic delivery system as they would be with terrorists. All you really need is a basic radiological weapon to hurt the US. Slap some U238 or even TNT to nuclear waste and explode it in Times Square. Radiological weapons in my opinion are just as dangerous.
Under Bush N. Korea aquired aluminum tubes and missile delivery systems (very basic mind you). Both of these things reside in Syria. Iraq has aluminum tubes so do virtually all other countries outside of Africa and even some in Africa (Syria, Lybia, Egypt).
Now put yourself in Bush's shoes. What would have you done? This is not to excuse all of his actions. I have many problems with Bush policy like the failure to sign CTBT, BWC etc. But to put more blame on him than Clinton is ridiculous... I voted for both; but I am still willing to admit both may have done better.

Nah. Blair is already drooling at the opportunity for another 4 years of Britain serving America. His boss just has to give the word. And if Bush makes haste he can get Schröder on board as well. At least untill 2006 when the next election is held.

As opposed to Thatcher, Attlee, Churchill and virtually every other British administration post- 1941?

Since when have election promises meant anything, especially to a double-dealing lying politicians?

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."

- George W. Bush
CNN online chat, august 30, 2000

We never had osama cornered.
You would like to beleive he would have been caught if we hadn't taken out saddam :rolleyes:

We did have Osama cornered, but Bush was too much of a pussy to impose on our pakistani "friends" by crossing the border.

Can anyone say Pax Americana? That is the Neo-cons true goal. Bush is only their puppet

Can anyone say Pax Americana? That is the Neo-cons true goal. Bush is only their puppet

Name an American colony that the US has aquired under Bush... Iraq is a sovereign country. I find it very amusing that Europe is saying Iraq doesen't deserve democracy. Its also funny how they were too "pussy" to say that they didn't go to Iraq because they were giving Saddam weapons for oil.
Wheres the outrage against these countries like Russia, France, and Germany? They were actively undermining the UN oil for food program, they were playing into a dictator's hands. Oh well it doesen't matter how much those AK-47s and Mirage fighter jets kill after all France, Germany, and Russia got their cheap oil bribes.
Some how I don't think its realistic to think you can win your case in front of a bribed council but thats just me.

Name an American colony that the US has aquired under Bush...

Afghanistan.

Last time I checked Karzai was elected by his own people. Nice try though!

Last time I checked Karzai was elected by his own people. Nice try though!

"Elected" after being hand-picked by the USA, you mean? *LMAOAMSOMN*

"Elected" after being hand-picked by the USA, you mean? *LMAOAMSOMN*

So your saying an election that the United Nations was oberving is rigged? Good luck making that case. The United Nations isn't exactly in the pockets of the US. He was popularly elected.

No, he actually said "Well I'm definitely going to my Gran's!"

So your saying an election that the United Nations was oberving is rigged? Good luck making that case. The United Nations isn't exactly in the pockets of the US. He was popularly elected.

Yeah, a cantidate hand-picked by the US government wins in an election where those who have already voted are recorded by hand-stamps. Funny how the UN is good enough when they do something you like, huh? ;)

i dont get this thread. Who cares how big these countries are? They are both threats that need to be dealed with.

The big difference between the two is that korea has a phyco dictator who is a control freak. He will never let nukes go unless he gets a huge price for them. This is easier to control and track.

Iran is a weird theocracy. No one really controls that country, you have leadership that DO have have PROVEN ties to terrorists. The states should have went into IRAN and wiped out that shithole of the face of the earth. Iran is the biggest threat right now.

You know russia is building them a nuke reactor right now? :confused:

:) J

Did I hear Bush wants to go into Iran?.......

Most likely. Iran, Syria or North Korea are on the red list. My guess is he'll attack two or all three of these in the next four years.


meh.. most likly syria.. and he'll totally forget about the real world threat.. north korea.. :rolleyes:

The real world threat is the US, with Bush in the White House at least.

Name an American colony that the US has aquired under Bush... Iraq is a sovereign country. I find it very amusing that Europe is saying Iraq doesen't deserve democracy. Its also funny how they were too "pussy" to say that they didn't go to Iraq because they were giving Saddam weapons for oil.
Wheres the outrage against these countries like Russia, France, and Germany? They were actively undermining the UN oil for food program, they were playing into a dictator's hands. Oh well it doesen't matter how much those AK-47s and Mirage fighter jets kill after all France, Germany, and Russia got their cheap oil bribes.
Some how I don't think its realistic to think you can win your case in front of a bribed council but thats just me.
Yes...sovereign. HA! Everybody knows that Iraq is and will be a Us puppet in the region for years to come

Yeah, a cantidate hand-picked by the US government wins in an election where those who have already voted are recorded by hand-stamps. Funny how the UN is good enough when they do something you like, huh? ;)

Sounds alot like Charles Dugaulle after WW2... hand picked by the US government as a viable aternative to vichy. Although Dugualle never won an election and wasn't at all liked by the French. Interesting how that country never became a puppet of the US. Interesting how you think that a bribed UN security council is something we should support. I have no doubts about the good UN peacekeepers on the ground, I have doubts about the morally bankrupt bribed officials of France, Germany, and RUssia. Interesting how this fact is never answered. Interesting that you think the security council has any validity when there is documented evidence all these countries were paid off. Nice try at an answer.

It is one thing to oppose the war in Iraq for legitimate moral reasons. It is quite another to take secret oil deals under the table and oppose the war for that reason.

Yes...sovereign. HA! Everybody knows that Iraq is and will be a Us puppet in the region for years to come

Ya like France did after WW2, and Germany after WW2, and Japan... Wait a second these didn't become puppets. Oh thats right you don't know what your talking about. Tell me is S. Korea a puppet of the US? Should I keep listing countries or are you going to continue with baseless arguments. Ok... lets also list Kuwait and Israel.

I have no doubts about the good UN peacekeepers on the ground, I have doubts about the morally bankrupt bribed officials of France, Germany, and RUssia. Interesting how this fact is never answered. Interesting that you think the security council has any validity when there is documented evidence all these countries were paid off. Nice try at an answer.

It is one thing to oppose the war in Iraq for legitimate moral reasons. It is quite another to take secret oil deals under the table and oppose the war for that reason.

Interesting. Where did you get that from? The only deals German companies made with Iraq took place either

a) a long time before any wars - the time where Saddam was everyone´s good friend because he protected the oil from the evil Ayatollahs
b) or during the sanctions, but with LEGAL materials only, such as certain medcial devices which served no or only limited dual use appliccations

Your claim about "oil bribes" is not proven and possibly a lie made up by certain conservatives. Not to mention - at least from Germany I can say it about 98% sure - does get most of it´s oil from the North Sea (see: Sweden, Norway and the UK) OR from Russia.

Interesting. Where did you get that from? The only deals German companies made with Iraq took place either

a) a long time before any wars - the time where Saddam was everyone´s good friend because he protected the oil from the evil Ayatollahs
b) or during the sanctions, but with LEGAL materials only, such as certain medcial devices which served no or only limited dual use appliccations

Your claim about "oil bribes" is not proven and possibly a lie made up by certain conservatives. Not to mention - at least from Germany I can say it about 98% sure - does get most of it´s oil from the North Sea (see: Sweden, Norway and the UK) OR from Russia.

My bad just France, Russia are fairly certain. Ongoing investigations for all three though.

OH!

Mock invasions!

Well lets see: The US as no international support, after the lies in Iraq, no country will go after the US in another adventure, so the US would have to go alone.

The US military is stretched thin in Iraq, they don't have the manpower to attack another country, unless Bush declares a draft, which he promised his heart out he wouldnt do.

Iran, North Korea, or Syria, unlike Iraq, have their armies at maximum strengh, not having been bombed by the first gulf war. They are also alot more indoctrinated than the IRaqui army, would put a most bitter fight. Iran and North Korea are also alot bigger than IRaq, so the fight and occupation of either country would be an even mess than IRaq.

So, no invasion, no attack on Iran or NK.

Which gives them plenty of time and breathing room to develop nukes on their own. WASNT BUSH SMART?

Isnt it clever that you thought that up all by yourself? Good for you. I mean... wow.

I really didnt know that clairvoyance was a part of politics.. or national defence either for that matter.

Why dont we all make up scenarios of evil for Bush's presidency and deem it a failure when it is only halfway over. Stop whining about it and deal with it, liberals; consider it the great republican experiment. The only real thing Republicans need to clinch the country is more congressmen to eliminate the threat from a filibuster. If this administration (i.e. Republican domination)fails, I will rethink my views; but until then, ill be a man and live with America's decision... while praying to god that Hillary doesnt run in 2008.

I think an attack on Iran is likely. That may be one reason why Bush went into Iraq. Because if you havent noticed, Iran has Iraq on one side, and Afghanistan on the other. We already have troops on both sides of the country, and Bush was talking about bring troops home from South Korea and Germany, so its possible these troops would go to Iraq or Afghanistan.

But in this case, the US wouldnt go alone. We at least would probably have Israel along side us because of the threat that an Iran with WMD poses against them. Also much of Europe is concerned with the threat that WMD in Iran poses. But this may make them hesitant to attack from fear of retaliation and the use of those WMD.

Sounds alot like Charles Dugaulle after WW2... hand picked by the US government as a viable aternative to vichy. Although Dugualle never won an election and wasn't at all liked by the French. Interesting how that country never became a puppet of the US. Interesting how you think that a bribed UN security council is something we should support. I have no doubts about the good UN peacekeepers on the ground, I have doubts about the morally bankrupt bribed officials of France, Germany, and RUssia. Interesting how this fact is never answered. Interesting that you think the security council has any validity when there is documented evidence all these countries were paid off. Nice try at an answer.

DeGaulle was not elected in an election where the only bastion against voter fraud was the hand-stamp. And was the french government post-WW-II a provisional government set up by the US military?

And can you provide a link to this documented evidence of bribery of which you speak?

It is one thing to oppose the war in Iraq for legitimate moral reasons. It is quite another to take secret oil deals under the table and oppose the war for that reason.

So why is Halliburton the biggest contractor in Iraq, and so close to our military's provisional government? They, too, were dealing with Saddam in circumvention of sanctions, even under VP Elect Cheney before he took over Lieberman's VP term.

Elected" after being hand-picked by the USA, you mean?

You do Karzai a disservice. Prior to winning the vote in the loya jirga he won the support of both the former king of Afghanistan and the last president of Afghanistan. He also has experience in government, is a descendant of royalty, and the leader of his clan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059622

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/10/05/afghan.karazi.profile/index.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/06/13/afghan.council/index.html

Can you name any other Afghan that's better suited for the task ahead?

:sniper:
this is what i'd like to do to bushy boy and his kronies...

first things first, no oil, he's gotta fix our crap here at home and give us back a stronger dollar and better international relations (cold day in hell). however, on a brighter note, i am employed, but ready to get the hell out of the USA! good ol' usa, heh heh heh, not for another four years - at least!!!!! :headbang:

I think an attack on Iran is likely. That may be one reason why Bush went into Iraq. Because if you havent noticed, Iran has Iraq on one side, and Afghanistan on the other. We already have troops on both sides of the country, and Bush was talking about bring troops home from South Korea and Germany, so its possible these troops would go to Iraq or Afghanistan.

But in this case, the US wouldnt go alone. We at least would probably have Israel along side us because of the threat that an Iran with WMD poses against them. Also much of Europe is concerned with the threat that WMD in Iran poses. But this may make them hesitant to attack from fear of retaliation and the use of those WMD.
I would have agreed with you even a week ago, before I read that China signed an oil deal with Iran where Iran becomes China's biggest foreign supplier. Do you think China would look too kindly on any interference in that region now? I don't. And when you factor in the amount of our national debt that China owns currently, I think you can knock any thought of tweaking the dragon's nose right out. Iran is one thing--China is a completely different one.