NationStates Jolt Archive

Whether or not Simon Hersch's article is true or not, no one can blame the US for conducting reconaissance in Iran. They have known links to terrorists, hostile to the US, and are developing weapons stockpiles at a tremendous rate. Should the US act? Yes, and they should act unilaterally if needed be. But not yet. Patience is in order. In fact, it should be at least two or three years before any offensive action occurs. Here is what I'd do if I were president.
1. Monitor Iran. Know everything from where they are stockpiling their nukes to the dick size of all of the guards on the Armenian border. Pressure the Iranians to give ever-increasing acsess to the IAEA.
2. Work covertly on Iran. I'd send a few commando teams to attack targets in Iran every now and then, but not often enough to tip anyone off. In the meantime, spirit away any insurgent leaders in Iran. Train their militaries here, set them under a unified command, and discuss plans for postwar Iran.
3. Create a diversion. My suggestion is this: launch an attack on North Korea. The South Koreans have huge interests in Central Asia, and have large deployments in Tajikistan. They also want to unify with the North. This is a great way to kill two birds with one stone. This particular thing, however, works only with South Korean consent. If the US can't get it, they can try something else, like maybe more noise from Iraq. Just keep the attention off Iran.
4. Regime change in Tehran. I think it may happen with an internal revolt, but that may not happen for another five years, and by then, Tel Aviv may be a crater. However, in three years, if this plan is followed, attacking Iran should be a sinch. Any questions?

Hang on... I'm not exactly wide awake at the moment, but you would attack North Korea (a nuclear power) as a diversion so you can launch an attack on Iran more easily? So you want to fight two major wars at once. That's pretty unwise, especially considering that troops will be tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time.

The US attacking Iran? Rediculous. The US cannot even manage such tiny and militarily weak countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. How could they be victorious against a real foe?

"My Take on Iran"

I have read your last thread. Is this going to be like your take on sex? :fluffle:

Whether or not Simon Hersch's article is true or not, no one can blame the US for conducting reconaissance in Alabama. They have known links to terrorists, hostile to the US, and are developing weapons stockpiles at a tremendous rate. Should the US act? Yes, and they should act unilaterally if needed be. But not yet. Patience is in order. In fact, it should be at least two or three years before any offensive action occurs. Here is what I'd do if I were president.

1. Monitor Alabama. Know everything from where they are stockpiling their nukes to the dick size of all of the guards on the Mississippi border. Pressure the Alabamans to give ever-increasing acsess to the UAB.
2. Work covertly on Alabama. I'd send a few commando teams to attack targets in Alabama every now and then, but not often enough to tip anyone off. In the meantime, spirit away any trailor park leaders in Alabama. Train their militaries here, set them under a unified command, and discuss plans for postwar Alabama.
3. Create a diversion. My suggestion is this: launch an attack on North Dakota. The South Dakotans have huge interests in the Midwest, and have large deployments in Montgomery. They also want to unify with the North. This is a great way to kill two birds with one stone. This particular thing, however, works only with South Dakotan consent. If the US can't get it, they can try something else, like maybe more noise from Tennessee. Just keep the attention off Alabama.
4. Regime change in Birmingham. I think it may happen with an internal revolt, but that may not happen for another five years, and by then, Dallas may be a crater. However, in three years, if this plan is followed, attacking Alabama should be a sinch. Any questions?

I agree 100%. Very good.

So I guess we shouldn't have Iran now because of philosophical ramifications.

I can't say invading North Korea would be the best plan in the world, considering they have a couple of thousand of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul.

And I sure hope Iran doesn't have any nuclear/chemical/bioligical weapons .. I like Tel Aviv.

A major flaw in the plan is that it would be an awful lot easier to just attack Iran rather than messing about attacking a country like North Korea, which is certainly a more difficult target than Iran (even without splitting your forces between the two).




So I guess we shouldn't have Iran now because of philosophical ramifications.

I don't quite get what you're talking about. Nobody mentioned the philosophical ramifications, they mentioned the practical ramifications of such a move.

A major flaw in the plan is that it would be an awful lot easier to just attack Iran rather than messing about attacking a country like North Korea, which is certainly a more difficult target than Iran (even without splitting your forces between the two).

Why is war with Iran easier than with North Korea? Iran is far larger, the terrain is more mountainous, and Iran has a far greater poplation (i.e. potential guerilla resistance) than North Korea.

Why is war with Iran easier than with North Korea? Iran is far larger, the terrain is more mountainous, and Iran has a far greater poplation (i.e. potential guerilla resistance) than North Korea.

North Korea is a nuclear power. I think they've got a pretty good military, too, after hearing some stuff about the fortifications along the border with South Korea.

And the main issue I have is that the plan is to attack both at roughly the same time. We still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember.

North Korea is a nuclear power. I think they've got a pretty good military, too, after hearing some stuff about the fortifications along the border with South Korea.

And the main issue I have is that the plan is to attack both at roughly the same time. We still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember.
We could take care of their nuke capability with a surprise carpetbombing. They have a huge land army but because North Korea is so small and their terrain is not rough we can force them to fight pitched battles, which the US would most definitely win. Iran is an enormous mountain nation, if we attacked them the Iranians would retire into the mountains and pull us into an endless quagmire of guerilla warfare. And our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are already having a hard time keeping the peace in those countries, it would be impossible for them to launch an effective invasion of Iran which is bigger than both Afghanistan and Iraq. We have troops in South Korea and Japan, and our bases in East Asia are far more secure than our bases in Iraq/Afghanistan. I'd say a war on North Korea would go far quicker and smoother than a quagmire in Iran, even though I wouldn't want to actually see such a war happen in real life.

The US attacking Iran? Rediculous. The US cannot even manage such tiny and militarily weak countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. How could they be victorious against a real foe?
:headbang: your not very inteligent are you? we took a country with a fairly large population (iraq) with only 130000 soldiers. we conquered iraq the first time in 3 days. we conquered afghanistan in a few weeks with about 50000 men. america has over 3.5 million members in the military. we could slaughter korea if we really wanted to. you must realise that america has all kinds of tricks up their sleeves. if we wer to go to war with korea we would dominate them with sheer airpower just like we did to afghanistan. they have nothing that can compete because this time they wouldnt have russia helping them. china wouldnt get involved because russia hates china as much as we do and if china got involved then russia would get involved and russia would roll through china like a plasma torch through butter. especially since they are in direct contact with china by land. they wouldnt have to transport their tanks like america they would just drive in. the only thing china has is numbers their technology is a pathetic attempt at apearing powerful. they are still using mig 17's russia has mig 29's now for gods sake. and for iran . since we are already stationed on both sides of them (iraq and afghanistan) we would roll through them like nothing. kinda makes you wonder if iran wasnt the real target in the first place :rolleyes: . afterall we did surround them and make it apear as if we werent even interested in them. we have more then enough troops over there already to crush them and still keep afghanistan and iraq under control. and if they tried to retaliate by rolling into afghanistan or iraq the natives there would fight them cause both iraq and afghanistan have iran with a passion. we could take both north korea and iran and still maintain control over afghanistan and iraq and only send about 200000 more people over if that. and THAT is my take on iran :sniper:

Iran is gradually growing more stable at this stage, and I think that it would be best to let well enough alone. However, I think that it should be made clear to them that they are being closely watched because they are still very much a potential danger.

Iran is gradually growing more stable at this stage, and I think that it would be best to let well enough alone. However, I think that it should be made clear to them that they are being closely watched because they are still very much a potential danger.

The voice of wisdom here..

:headbang: your not very inteligent are you? we took a country with a fairly large population (iraq) with only 130000 soldiers. we conquered iraq the first time in 3 days. we conquered afghanistan in a few weeks with about 50000 men. america has over 3.5 million members in the military. we could slaughter korea if we really wanted to. you must realise that america has all kinds of tricks up their sleeves. if we wer to go to war with korea we would dominate them with sheer airpower just like we did to afghanistan. they have nothing that can compete because this time they wouldnt have russia helping them. china wouldnt get involved because russia hates china as much as we do and if china got involved then russia would get involved and russia would roll through china like a plasma torch through butter. especially since they are in direct contact with china by land. they wouldnt have to transport their tanks like america they would just drive in. the only thing china has is numbers their technology is a pathetic attempt at apearing powerful. they are still using mig 17's russia has mig 29's now for gods sake. and for iran . since we are already stationed on both sides of them (iraq and afghanistan) we would roll through them like nothing. kinda makes you wonder if iran wasnt the real target in the first place :rolleyes: . afterall we did surround them and make it apear as if we werent even interested in them. we have more then enough troops over there already to crush them and still keep afghanistan and iraq under control. and if they tried to retaliate by rolling into afghanistan or iraq the natives there would fight them cause both iraq and afghanistan have iran with a passion. we could take both north korea and iran and still maintain control over afghanistan and iraq and only send about 200000 more people over if that. and THAT is my take on iran :sniper:

So please tell me, i just missed out on this, how many innocent civilians, as well as American soldiers would be slaughtered in this plan?

I think the way to deal with Iran is internally, and to NOT HAVE THE AMERICANS INVOLVED! I know you'll take offense all you yanks out there, but dealing with Iran is a surgery operation, not a texas chainsaw massacre like you created in Iraq.
I'd try to get the British involved secretly in promoting the young reformists in the nation, who are practically begging for a change in the hardline regime. If they believed they had enough international support, who knows what they could do? Hopefully a second revolution which would restore people power to Iran, and with a friendly Britain, America & co their need and justification for nuclear weapons would be gone.

But gee i guess we could always just shoot a whole bunch of em and make anotehr iraq. doesn't really matter, their not white Americans after all

my points wasnt that we should go into iran my point was that we could easily take it if we wanted. but now that you have pissed me off. if you started a revolution in iran you would have basicly a war between the civilians and the military. and your telling me MY plan would cost alot of inocent lives. wow i love how brits love to make fun of Americans by saying how they would do stuff so much better when in reality they are ignorant when it comes to warfare. revolutions ALWAYS equal large amounts of civilian casualties especialy in the mideast. personally i dont think we need to change their government. forcing democracy is not democracy it is fascism. we just need to get the psychopathic leader out of the picture and let them have someone who isnt a lunatic then that would be all that was needed. if you really want to make it easy we could simply send in an assassin and just kill their leader and that would be it. end of story unfortunatly america cant assasinate because of a treaty signed when jfk was in office. how ironic concidering jfk was assassinated huh?

And our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are already having a hard time keeping the peace in those countries, it would be impossible for them to launch an effective invasion of Iran which is bigger than both Afghanistan and Iraq.

You know more than me about the issue, so I guess I'll have to agree with you on this.

However, when I mentioned the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I was making the point that starting another two wars at once may be stretching the American military a little when we still have troops in those countries as well.

revolutions ALWAYS equal large amounts of civilian casualties especialy in the mideast.

Yeah, but the point is that your hands are clean. You didn't kill the civilians, they started a revolution and were killed by their oppressive government. You don't have an obligation to send thousands of troops to keep the peace if the government is overthrown by a revolution, generally.

my points wasnt that we should go into iran my point was that we could easily take it if we wanted. but now that you have pissed me off. if you started a revolution in iran you would have basicly a war between the civilians and the military. and your telling me MY plan would cost alot of inocent lives. wow i love how brits love to make fun of Americans by saying how they would do stuff so much better when in reality they are ignorant when it comes to warfare. revolutions ALWAYS equal large amounts of civilian casualties especialy in the mideast. personally i dont think we need to change their government. forcing democracy is not democracy it is fascism. we just need to get the psychopathic leader out of the picture and let them have someone who isnt a lunatic then that would be all that was needed. if you really want to make it easy we could simply send in an assassin and just kill their leader and that would be it. end of story unfortunatly america cant assasinate because of a treaty signed when jfk was in office. how ironic concidering jfk was assassinated huh?

I thought forcing democracy was official American foreign policy.
And I'm not British you fool, I come from America's other stooge, Australia, and I am merely recognising that despite their terrible bridgework in administrative intelligence right now the British can run rings around the Americans.

thats typical of a european perspective. they dont care what the costs are as long as they dont look bad themselves. but your hands ARENT clean if YOU started the revolution and suported it.

Oh by the way, there are bloodless revolutions. Such as the latest Ukranian affair, where peaceful people power restored democracy. Or in Georgia where a corrupt would-be-dictator was replaced with a genuinly democratically elected president

I thought forcing democracy was official American foreign policy.
And I'm not British you fool, I come from America's other stooge, Australia, and I am merely recognising that despite their terrible bridgework in administrative intelligence right now the British can run rings around the Americans.
no offence but brits and ausies are the same thing they just call them selves different things. and incase you havent checked australia has always been britains little play toy. i personally have alot of ausi friends and yall are pretty cool. but i noticed that you believe alot of propaganda. i mean you people are gullable. and about brits spec ops running circles around america's spec ops. apparently you have never heard of the cia. read a book on previous wars like ww2 and you will notice that americans had rediculous amounts of undercover operations that pretty much won the war. the brits get the "brilliant" ideas from american cia but see america isnt ignorant enough to tell the whole world about their missions. the CIA does alot more then you will ever know. read up about them. and youll notice that they are everywhere. they won the cold war after all. without a single american soldier killing a single russian soldier or vice versa the cia ended that war that would have otherwise ended the world

thats typical of a european perspective. they dont care what the costs are as long as they dont look bad themselves. but your hands ARENT clean if YOU started the revolution and suported it.

Are you referring to me? Need I remind you about the Iraqi revolution which America promised support for but never delivered (I'm not sure of recent history, but I think it was before the first Gulf War)? A lot of innocent civilians died because of that.

no offence but brits and ausies are the same thing they just call them selves different things. and incase you havent checked australia has always been britains little play toy. i personally have alot of ausi friends and yall are pretty cool. but i noticed that you believe alot of propaganda. i mean you people are gullable. and about brits spec ops running circles around america's spec ops. apparently you have never heard of the cia. read a book on previous wars like ww2 and you will notice that americans had rediculous amounts of undercover operations that pretty much won the war. the brits get the "brilliant" ideas from american cia but see america isnt ignorant enough to tell the whole world about their missions. the CIA does alot more then you will ever know. read up about them. and youll notice that they are everywhere. they won the cold war after all. without a single american soldier killing a single russian soldier or vice versa the cia ended that war that would have otherwise ended the world

congratulations, that is the largest pile of shit i have ever heard. You know absolutley nothing about me, and obviously know nothing about australia, and seem to be masturbating over a false ideal over your own nations greatness.
besides, in ww2, wasn't it the OSS and not the CIA that did the undercover operating?

oh wait, i guess i do know a little bit about the subject

the CIA does alot more then you will ever know. read up about them. and youll notice that they are everywhere. they won the cold war after all. without a single american soldier killing a single russian soldier or vice versa the cia ended that war that would have otherwise ended the world

So you expect other people to go and do a load of research to back up your claim. That's not on. If you make a claim like that, back it up yourself. Give us shining examples of their operations.

im asuming your talking about when america put saddam in power. i dont really know what your point is. in that revolution we helped them alot. unfortunatly apparently american leaders at the time didnt look at saddams records very hard. cause he was obviously a psychopath. look up his record if you get a chance. dude was crazy. but if your going to start talking about america mess ups look at britain. in the zulu war. the brits had guns and the zulu's had sticks and stones... LITERALLY stick and stones is all they had. AND THE BRITS LOST. now i dont know of anything a country has ever done in the history of man that was as pathetic as that.

Such as destroying democracy in Chile to allow Pinochet to take over, and slaughter as many innocents as he felt obliged to

Why is war with Iran easier than with North Korea? Iran is far larger, the terrain is more mountainous, and Iran has a far greater poplation (i.e. potential guerilla resistance) than North Korea.
Just because North Korea is a nuclear state doesn't mean it is stronger. It isn't. Most of its weaponry dates from WWII. The only reason North Korea exists is because war with them is diplomatically hard.
Iran, on the other hand, is a very powerful nation. It has modern tanks, lots of weapons, and of course, a large and very developed stockpile of missles and WMDS.

im asuming your talking about when america put saddam in power. i dont really know what your point is. in that revolution we helped them alot. unfortunatly apparently american leaders at the time didnt look at saddams records very hard. cause he was obviously a psychopath. look up his record if you get a chance. dude was crazy. but if your going to start talking about america mess ups look at britain. in the zulu war. the brits had guns and the zulu's had sticks and stones... LITERALLY stick and stones is all they had. AND THE BRITS LOST. now i dont know of anything a country has ever done in the history of man that was as pathetic as that.

Actually I'm talking about a revolution against Saddam. The Americans offered support but never gave it.

Oh, by the way, the Zulu war was quite a long time ago. Not like Vietnam. Sorry to bring that up, but you're being an asshat.
EDIT: Not to mention the huge numbers which the Zulus had.


And if you want to insult us Brits, you may want to mention the Boer war, in which we made quite heavy use of concentration camps.

welll i dont like to talk about operations im not suposed to know about unless its in a face to face conversation. im a paranoid person.... let me think of one that has been declassified.......aha... during the korean war when the mig 15 was brand new . the cia stole one from a russian train shiped it to an american airforce base had them test it out and find out its capabilities. then they sent it back to russia and put it in the crate disassembled exactly the way it was before and put it on the train. and the russians never new it was even removed from the train. the brits have never done anything that even comes close to that

plus considering they did conquer their country and nick their lands natural resources, i'd say that the British did win in the war against the zulus.

and asshat. well if you look into the vietnam war. we won by technicality. when america pulled out of vietnam we had won. but after all the americans were gone we said F*#% it and just let them have it. we lost about 54000 people in vietnam and killed over 1000000 vietnamese if that is suposed to be a bad ratio then you must have some twisted view on war that the winnning side doesnt lose a single person

welll i dont like to talk about operations im not suposed to know about unless its in a face to face conversation. im a paranoid person.... let me think of one that has been declassified.......aha... during the korean war when the mig 15 was brand new . the cia stole one from a russian train shiped it to an american airforce base had them test it out and find out its capabilities. then they sent it back to russia and put it in the crate disassembled exactly the way it was before and put it on the train. and the russians never new it was even removed from the train. the brits have never done anything that even comes close to that

So they dissembled it, shipped it to an American airforce base, tested it thoroughly and put it back exactly the way it was before the train arrived at it's destination? Somehow I find that hard to believe. Besides, the british have done loads that comes close to that. Haven't you ever seen a Bond movie? ;)

by the way sorry for cracking down on brits so much. its just it seems america recieves the most heat from yall. so i give you people a little taste of your own medicine. no offence personally

and asshat. well if you look into the vietnam war. we won by technicality. when america pulled out of vietnam we had won. but after all the americans were gone we said F*#% it and just let them have it. we lost about 54000 people in vietnam and killed over 1000000 vietnamese if that is suposed to be a bad ratio then you must have some twisted view on war that the winnning side doesnt lose a single person

Sure. But generally if you've been expelled from a country you're the loser. And you were fighting an inferior foe. And I'm guessing that the ratio in the Zulu war wasn't too bad either, if you're going to look at it that way.

So they dissembled it, shipped it to an American airforce base, tested it thoroughly and put it back exactly the way it was before the train arrived at it's destination? Somehow I find that hard to believe. Besides, the british have done loads that comes close to that. Haven't you ever seen a Bond movie? ;)
i was wondering when someone was gonna bring up james bond. yes it was pulled off. it wasnt tested throroughly it was just given a quick runthrough to get the top speed and stuff like that. but concidering trains at that time had a max speed of about 30 mph or around 55 kph and it was going from west russia to korea which is several thousand miles. giving them a few days to do all this i dont see why that is so hard to believe. i mean the train had to stop for refueling to. if you really dont believe me you can look it up. it was on discovery wings not to long ago

Just because North Korea is a nuclear state doesn't mean it is stronger. It isn't. Most of its weaponry dates from WWII. The only reason North Korea exists is because war with them is diplomatically hard.
Iran, on the other hand, is a very powerful nation. It has modern tanks, lots of weapons, and of course, a large and very developed stockpile of missles and WMDS.
They're army is decent for the Middle East, but calling their tanks modern is ridiculous. The conventional Iranian military would be squashed.

by the way sorry for cracking down on brits so much. its just it seems america recieves the most heat from yall. so i give you people a little taste of your own medicine. no offence personally

No offense taken. I don't reckon America takes that much criticism from us. I mean, we are participating in a war alongside you.


By the way, I think I'll go now. It's getting late, got an exam tomorrow, got revision to do.

This thread is so lame it gave me cancer.

well the iranians still have the weapons we gave them in the iraq iran war. but those are out of date by a decade or so

"welll i dont like to talk about operations im not suposed to know about unless its in a face to face conversation. im a paranoid person.... let me think of one that has been declassified.......aha... during the korean war when the mig 15 was brand new . the cia stole one from a russian train shiped it to an american airforce base had them test it out and find out its capabilities. then they sent it back to russia and put it in the crate disassembled exactly the way it was before and put it on the train. and the russians never new it was even removed from the train. the brits have never done anything that even comes close to that"

your so badass and covert with all your secret CIA knowledge (even though you don't seem to know something as basic as when it began) you so tough and mighty, you just make me want to go "oooooooooooooo"

Well your plan has a lot of flaws, but what we should be concentrating on is what the Bush Admin is going to do. Rumsfeld's warfare plan basically dictates that you conquer one country and then move to the next.

A much softer target than Iran and on the Axis of Evil list is Syria. I really believe that Syria is the next one. You have two choices if you want to invade Syria, you can go in on the Mediterranean coast which has a mountain range, or you can go in from the desert on the Iraqi border. Going in from the Iraqi border you can be in Damascus overnight.

In order to invade Syria and hold it you need to be able to supply logistics through Iraq. Currently we are using C130s to truck in supplies to various outposts in Iraq because the roads are too dangerous. A Syrian campaign isn't really doable until the US can truck convoys through Iraq.

and asshat. well if you look into the vietnam war. we won by technicality. when america pulled out of vietnam we had won. but after all the americans were gone we said F*#% it and just let them have it. we lost about 54000 people in vietnam and killed over 1000000 vietnamese if that is suposed to be a bad ratio then you must have some twisted view on war that the winnning side doesnt lose a single person

Dude if there are McDonald's and martini bars in Hanoi we really didn't loose. ;)

"welll i dont like to talk about operations im not suposed to know about unless its in a face to face conversation. im a paranoid person.... let me think of one that has been declassified.......aha... during the korean war when the mig 15 was brand new . the cia stole one from a russian train shiped it to an american airforce base had them test it out and find out its capabilities. then they sent it back to russia and put it in the crate disassembled exactly the way it was before and put it on the train. and the russians never new it was even removed from the train. the brits have never done anything that even comes close to that"

your so badass and covert with all your secret CIA knowledge (even though you don't seem to know something as basic as when it began) you so tough and mighty, you just make me want to go "oooooooooooooo"
hey wow look at that. see that little button at the lower right corner of every post that says quote? try pressing it and see what happens. :rolleyes: moron. well concidering the cia makes over 100,000 surveilances on communications every minute its not very wise to talk abuot stuff you arent suposed to know about. im not a date person your right i dont remember the exact date at which cia was formed

hey wow look at that. see that little button at the lower right corner of every post that says quote? try pressing it and see what happens. :rolleyes: moron. well concidering the cia makes over 100,000 surveilances on communications every minute its not very wise to talk abuot stuff you arent suposed to know about. im not a date person your right i dont remember the exact date at which cia was formed


Oh look i found it (insert stupid 'why the fu*k would you use something like this' smiley). Hey dipshit, considering - notice the s
My point is you arrogant little shit, is this whole implication you make that you're in on the CIA, when the most you know is what you saw on the Discovery channel last week, or what one of your ignorant little friends heard from a friend of a friend.

now please, try and justify yourself, and you intimate knowledge. i'm up for a good laugh.

Well your plan has a lot of flaws, but what we should be concentrating on is what the Bush Admin is going to do. Rumsfeld's warfare plan basically dictates that you conquer one country and then move to the next.

A much softer target than Iran and on the Axis of Evil list is Syria. I really believe that Syria is the next one. You have two choices if you want to invade Syria, you can go in on the Mediterranean coast which has a mountain range, or you can go in from the desert on the Iraqi border. Going in from the Iraqi border you can be in Damascus overnight.

In order to invade Syria and hold it you need to be able to supply logistics through Iraq. Currently we are using C130s to truck in supplies to various outposts in Iraq because the roads are too dangerous. A Syrian campaign isn't really doable until the US can truck convoys through Iraq.
finally another person who actually knows what their talking about. i agree that syria is next. i was just talking about iran cause thats what the thread had started out talking about. syria would be a piece of cake.

finally another person who actually knows what their talking about. i agree that syria is next. i was just talking about iran cause thats what the thread had started out talking about. syria would be a piece of cake.


'US planning strike on Iran'
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent
January 18, 2005
THE Bush administration is conducting secret reconnaissance missions in Iran aimed at identifying three dozen targets it suspects are linked to the Islamic state's alleged nuclear, chemical weapons and missile programs, according to the New Yorker magazine.

Pulitzer prize-winning author Seymour Hersh claims there are about 13 sites suspected of nuclear development and the US might strike this year despite the heavy strain on its military in neighbouring Iraq.

"The (Bush) administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last (northern) summer," writes the veteran reporter who was one of the first to break news of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

"Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile sites, both declared and suspected.

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen and perhaps more such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids."

that was taken from an Australian newspaper, suprisingly called The Australian. So who's next?


Do you bloodthirsty people understand what your debating? Set aside 'who's next' how do you justify this blatant imperialism to yourself?

Oh look i found it (insert stupid 'why the fu*k would you use something like this' smiley). Hey dipshit, considering - notice the s
My point is you arrogant little shit, is this whole implication you make that you're in on the CIA, when the most you know is what you saw on the Discovery channel last week, or what one of your ignorant little friends heard from a friend of a friend.

now please, try and justify yourself, and you intimate knowledge. i'm up for a good laugh.
first off i never said i was in on the cia. thats just you playing things out overly in your head like a 3 year old. secondly wtf does "notice the s" have to do with ANYTHING? thirdly your getting irritated which is amusing because less intelligent people often resort to anger when they are confused or being out witted. if you really want to get into a dick measuring contest though then go for it. you honestly think that the cia didnt have alot to do with the 9/11 incident? after all we had 2 fighters tailing one of the planes for a good few hundred miles. why didnt they fire? because their orders to fire didnt make it to them. (you honestly think orders like that arent given by the person who tells them their orders?) the cia saw an oppertunity and took it. also in the year 1995 a rocket was launched from norway . it was a test rocket testing the atmosphere. well the world almost ended that day because the orders given to the russians didnt make it to the primeir. he had already gotten his little black briefcase out and everything when the confusion was solved when the cia (who already knew about hte russians not knowing) made sure the primeir got the info. we were within 5 seconds of nuclear war. that is a very little known fact because it scares people that russains are that stupid but its true. now stfu and go suck your thumb you little insignificant insubordinate disconbobulated excuse for a human being.

first off i never said i was in on the cia. thats just you playing things out overly in your head like a 3 year old. secondly wtf does "notice the s" have to do with ANYTHING? thirdly your getting irritated which is amusing because less intelligent people often resort to anger when they are confused or being out witted. if you really want to get into a dick measuring contest though then go for it. you honestly think that the cia didnt have alot to do with the 9/11 incident? after all we had 2 fighters tailing one of the planes for a good few hundred miles. why didnt they fire? because their orders to fire didnt make it to them. (you honestly think orders like that arent given by the person who tells them their orders?) the cia saw an oppertunity and took it. also in the year 1995 a rocket was launched from norway . it was a test rocket testing the atmosphere. well the world almost ended that day because the orders given to the russians didnt make it to the primeir. he had already gotten his little black briefcase out and everything when the confusion was solved when the cia (who already knew about hte russians not knowing) made sure the primeir got the info. we were within 5 seconds of nuclear war. that is a very little known fact because it scares people that russains are that stupid but its true. now stfu and go suck your thumb you little insignificant insubordinate disconbobulated excuse for a human being.

where do you get your information?

'US planning strike on Iran'
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent
January 18, 2005
THE Bush administration is conducting secret reconnaissance missions in Iran aimed at identifying three dozen targets it suspects are linked to the Islamic state's alleged nuclear, chemical weapons and missile programs, according to the New Yorker magazine.

Pulitzer prize-winning author Seymour Hersh claims there are about 13 sites suspected of nuclear development and the US might strike this year despite the heavy strain on its military in neighbouring Iraq.

"The (Bush) administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last (northern) summer," writes the veteran reporter who was one of the first to break news of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

"Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile sites, both declared and suspected.

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen and perhaps more such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids."

that was taken from an Australian newspaper, suprisingly called The Australian. So who's next?


Do you bloodthirsty people understand what your debating? Set aside 'who's next' how do you justify this blatant imperialism to yourself?
wow we have been conducting reconasaince on iran? really? weve only been doing that for about 10 years now you retard. tell us something we dont already know

where do you get your information?
that specific incident is actually in a few books. try looking up the book names "Things You Aren't Suposed To Know" its been a while since ive read it though. its and interesting book. all kinds of amusing facts.

wait actually if i remember corectly they realised it wasnt a nuke when it changed course and went over the north pole.

that specific incident is actually in a few books. try looking up the book names "Things You Aren't Suposed To Know" its been a while since ive read it though. its and interesting book. all kinds of amusing facts.

Ahh, you are a conspicarcy theorist. Here i was thinking that i was wasting my time on a nut job who had no credible information. How wrong i was.
And i am very sorry. Very sorry that i wasted my time, being drawn into an argument and trading insults with someone like you.
I think i'll take the high ground and walk away.
Good luck friend, i'm thinking you shall need it

Ahh, you are a conspicarcy theorist. Here i was thinking that i was wasting my time on a nut job who had no credible information. How wrong i was.
And i am very sorry. Very sorry that i wasted my time, being drawn into an argument and trading insults with someone like you.
I think i'll take the high ground and walk away.
Good luck friend, i'm thinking you shall need it
no actually i dont waste time on conspiracies i focus mainly on stuff that has been declassified by the government. and facts. but using that as an excuse for you to get out of the "argument" so you can stop being made into a fool everytime you open your mouth is a smart move

no actually i dont waste time on conspiracies i focus mainly on stuff that has been declassified by the government. and facts. but using that as an excuse for you to get out of the "argument" so you can stop being made into a fool everytime you open your mouth is a smart move

tg me some time mate, everytime i need a laugh im cure your attempts at being clever or snide will cheer me right up.
(I will go now, i just knew you'd have to say something lame and i wanted to hear it)

I think Syria's next, but I bet the Bush Administration wants the Europeans to realize their words aren't doing a thing with regards to Iran before the US takes the Ayatollahs down.

As for North Korea, here's why I bet a US-led attack doesn't break out (without a major change in something soon):
1) South Korea is antsy with the fact that North Korea has enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to pound it out of existence before the first American soldier goes on the offensive. The South Koreans, while possessing roughly (last time I saw any figures) about 600,000 troops, are still rather reliant on the US, meanwhile not all South Koreans enjoy the fact that the US wants a military solution.

2) Hello, China! After cutting 500,000 troops from their army, they're only 2,500,000. On a limited front like NK, I bet the US would have to keep their CVBGs in the Sea of Japan, possibly (possibly) giving the Chinese a shot at air supremacy on the other side. RAND compared the impact of one CVBG in a potential conflict between the PRC and the RoC (Taiwan) and found American aircraft dramatically improved the chances of the RoCAF holding the skies - but only improved the chances. With the CVBGs on the other side of the peninsula that affects sortie generation - unless USAF aircraft use SK airbases, and said airbases don't get pasted by cruise missiles/air strikes.... a lot of variables.

In an engagement between the US and the PRC I think airpower would be the key, as well as mobility. the North Korean front potentially limits.

3) Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, etc, aren't ready for a military solution yet. Japan might (*MIGHT*) be edging towards accepting it, given the problems they've had with Japanese citizens being kidnapped. These nations you want on your side if you're going to punish North Korea.

I'm sure there's other, possibly more important factors (I don't see NK nukes as all that big a deal, but then again Dear Leader doesn't seem the most stable....)

They're army is decent for the Middle East, but calling their tanks modern is ridiculous. The conventional Iranian military would be squashed.
So maybe I was getting carried away. But they do have the strongest army in the Middle East.

finally another person who actually knows what their talking about. i agree that syria is next. i was just talking about iran cause thats what the thread had started out talking about. syria would be a piece of cake.

I just don't see Iran, it would pull the Shia into open rebellion. Even after the elections when they will have political control you wouldn't be able to hold the hardliners back.

Yes Syria would be a piece of cake to take, but a complete pain in the ass to hold. Their army would melt away into the civilian population, Lebanon and the coastal mountains. In six months we'd have the Iraqi "Sunni Triangle" all over Syria. You know Syria has got to have people in Iraq taking notes.

Which isn't saying much. Being the best of the worst isn't really that great.

Reasons the U.S cannot pursue a military solution in Iran.

We dont have the military man power our the desire to increase our ranks by suficient numbers to acomplish the job in any significant way.
China would take advantage of our thinned military capability and destroy us on the ground, in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Iran. If they can intellegently resolve our carrier force early in the conflict they can own the world within tens years of our gross miscalculation.
Everybody is studying arabic and they speak persian over there. :D

Which isn't saying much.
Until they attack Saudi Arabia or Qatar. I'm sure you remember that they gave the Kuwaitis a pounding during the Tanker wars of the 1980s. If US troops weren't there right now, it'd be a cakewalk for them to actually seize Kuwait. If they decided to attack now, at the very least, they'd give the US an extremely hard time.

I think Syria's next, but I bet the Bush Administration wants the Europeans to realize their words aren't doing a thing with regards to Iran before the US takes the Ayatollahs down.

As for North Korea, here's why I bet a US-led attack doesn't break out (without a major change in something soon):
1) South Korea is antsy with the fact that North Korea has enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to pound it out of existence before the first American soldier goes on the offensive. The South Koreans, while possessing roughly (last time I saw any figures) about 600,000 troops, are still rather reliant on the US, meanwhile not all South Koreans enjoy the fact that the US wants a military solution.

2) Hello, China! After cutting 500,000 troops from their army, they're only 2,500,000. On a limited front like NK, I bet the US would have to keep their CVBGs in the Sea of Japan, possibly (possibly) giving the Chinese a shot at air supremacy on the other side. RAND compared the impact of one CVBG in a potential conflict between the PRC and the RoC (Taiwan) and found American aircraft dramatically improved the chances of the RoCAF holding the skies - but only improved the chances. With the CVBGs on the other side of the peninsula that affects sortie generation - unless USAF aircraft use SK airbases, and said airbases don't get pasted by cruise missiles/air strikes.... a lot of variables.

In an engagement between the US and the PRC I think airpower would be the key, as well as mobility. the North Korean front potentially limits.

3) Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, etc, aren't ready for a military solution yet. Japan might (*MIGHT*) be edging towards accepting it, given the problems they've had with Japanese citizens being kidnapped. These nations you want on your side if you're going to punish North Korea.

I'm sure there's other, possibly more important factors (I don't see NK nukes as all that big a deal, but then again Dear Leader doesn't seem the most stable....)

Yes - the US doesnt control the game in Asian - its entirely up to Japan, China, Russia and South Korea weather a military solution is neccesary there and theyd all diffinitly all be oppossed to the above war for teh sake of a 'distraction' or side show to an Iranian regime change - al la more Democratic Imperialism - they would see its obvious purpose the next year and the moment the US inches to try something else in geopolitics they will slap the living silly sh1at out of us pompous westerners for pretending.

So please tell me, i just missed out on this, how many innocent civilians, as well as American soldiers would be slaughtered in this plan?

I think the way to deal with Iran is internally, and to NOT HAVE THE AMERICANS INVOLVED! I know you'll take offense all you yanks out there, but dealing with Iran is a surgery operation, not a texas chainsaw massacre like you created in Iraq.
I'd try to get the British involved secretly in promoting the young reformists in the nation, who are practically begging for a change in the hardline regime. If they believed they had enough international support, who knows what they could do? Hopefully a second revolution which would restore people power to Iran, and with a friendly Britain, America & co their need and justification for nuclear weapons would be gone.

But gee i guess we could always just shoot a whole bunch of em and make anotehr iraq. doesn't really matter, their not white Americans after all

Wow! There are smart people besides me! I totally agree and I'm a yank who lives in a red state! (fyi- I supported Kerry.)

But anyway I agree with the idea to remove the anti-gov't Iranians and train them. Covert raids Could help. Not to mention if the overthrow worked the west would have a friendly country w/ oil access AND location convinient for Iraqi support.

Yes - the US doesnt control the game in Asian - its entirely up to Japan, China, Russia and South Korea weather a military solution is neccesary there and theyd all diffinitly all be oppossed to the above war for teh sake of a 'distraction' or side show to an Iranian regime change - al la more Democratic Imperialism - they would see its obvious purpose the next year and the moment the US inches to try something else in geopolitics they will slap the living silly sh1at out of us pompous westerners for pretending.
The US does not run the show like it use to, but it certainly has influence. All they need to do is show each country what's in it for them. There's a lot in it for South Korea, and Japan can get rid of an irritant. China and Russia don't lneed to get involved, but they just need not help the North Koreans. I'm sure it'll be a heckavullot easier to do this once that missile shield is up. The part closest to reality are modified 747s that can shoot at missiles with lasers.

Until they attack Saudi Arabia or Qatar. I'm sure you remember that they gave the Kuwaitis a pounding during the Tanker wars of the 1980s. If US troops weren't there right now, it'd be a cakewalk for them to actually seize Kuwait. If they decided to attack now, at the very least, they'd give the US an extremely hard time.

awe hell - what would happend in Iraq when the US has to divert its resources to deal with it - would Iranian elements in Iraq attempt a popular theocratization backed by steped up terror and gurrilla tactics? If coordinated the Iranians could succeed in forcing the US to either institute a new draft or pulling out of Iraq before a real democratic process can be adopted.

It wont happend though - Iranians dont have nukes yet - and they have a chance of procuring nukes if the status quo continues - they wont try anything agressive. Besides theyd lose the righteous sympathy they could use to levie support against a US invasion. Support they could use to sap US global clout.

Until they attack Saudi Arabia or Qatar. I'm sure you remember that they gave the Kuwaitis a pounding during the Tanker wars of the 1980s. If US troops weren't there right now, it'd be a cakewalk for them to actually seize Kuwait. If they decided to attack now, at the very least, they'd give the US an extremely hard time.
Yes, but reclaiming any territory they seize would be pathetically easy. US forces can mobilize very quickly.

awe hell - what would happend in Iraq when the US has to divert its resources to deal with it - would Iranian elements in Iraq attempt a popular theocratization backed by steped up terror and gurrilla tactics? If coordinated the Iranians could succeed in forcing the US to either institute a new draft or pulling out of Iraq before a real democratic process can be adopted.

It wont happend though - Iranians dont have nukes yet - and they have a chance of procuring nukes if the status quo continues - they wont try anything agressive. Besides theyd lose the righteous sympathy they could use to levie support against a US invasion. Support they could use to sap US global clout.
But if they get them, what you described might happen. It may also embolden the various terrorist networks Iran has supported.

The US does not run the show like it use to, but it certainly has influence. All they need to do is show each country what's in it for them. There's a lot in it for South Korea, and Japan can get rid of an irritant. China and Russia don't lneed to get involved, but they just need not help the North Koreans. I'm sure it'll be a heckavullot easier to do this once that missile shield is up. The part closest to reality are modified 747s that can shoot at missiles with lasers.

China and Russia would destroy us in that therater and theyd burn Japan and South Korea for trying to make it work - US military and geopolitical credibility would be ruined for a century. And the US knows it and is why no further US adventurism will be seen for another decade.

Yes, but reclaiming any territory they seize would be pathetically easy. US forces can mobilize very quickly.
But like I said, it'd be a huge headache. It'd turn into a giant whack-a-mole game.

China and Russia would destroy us in that therater and theyd burn Japan and South Korea for trying to make it work - US military and geopolitical credibility would be ruined for a century. And the US knows it and is why no further US adventurism will be seen for another decade.
But you see, I don't believe the Chinese or the Russians care for North Korea. Even the Chinese, who can claim an ideaological link with North Korea, see their two countries in opposite directions, as is obvious to anyone but a fool.

But if they get them, what you described might happen. It may also embolden the various terrorist networks Iran has supported.

It wont happend anytime soon.

But heres the real problem - when these terrorist get nuclear weapons into US and Nato ports and force them to shut down just for a week to realign security needs our current world economy will cease to exsist and one dominated by the east will begin - as the US pays a hellish price to catch back up China and Russia and Iran and conservative arabian leaders can have a fieldday or century. The hope of peace and security in our time through democracy and fair representation in the world will vanish.

And trying to realign our trade needs solely through the americas will not work - we've been trying for decades.

teehee....the North Koreans have already vowed to use 'everything in their arsenal' to reject an American presence, that includes chemical weapons...it'd be a slaughter, Kim Jong Il isnt a very intellegent man, which makes him pretty dangerous!
And the UK have told Bush they would not ever attack North Korea or Iran, so no human shields there then :rolleyes:
Iran+North Korea=Massacre and your 'great' American army wouldnt be able to do anything about it, hell they cant even afford proper equipment in Iraq!
I do agree with the attempts at political change from the inside though, thats a good idea, non violent approaches are the most sucessful in the long rum IMHO

It wont happend anytime soon.

But heres the real problem - when these terrorist get nuclear weapons into US and Nato ports and force them to shut down just for a week to realign security needs our current world economy will cease to exsist and one dominated by the east will begin - as the US pays a hellish price to catch back up China and Russia and Iran and conservative arabian leaders can have a fieldday or century. The hope of peace and security in our time through democracy and fair representation in the world will vanish.

And trying to realign our trade needs solely through the americas will not work - we've been trying for decades.
That's why we need to stop the proliferation of WMDs in rogue states, and secure stockpiles in weak states, like Russia. We have two badasses that may have lots of nukes in a few years. Why not we get them?

But you see, I don't believe the Chinese or the Russians care for North Korea. Even the Chinese, who can claim an ideaological link with North Korea, see their two countries in opposite directions, as is obvious to anyone but a fool.

They dont need to care for North Korea in as much as theyd like to see the US economically on its knees and on a level playing field with them - the US is the worlds threat to them - so as long as theres a military power capable of defeating them and not allowing them to pursue their goals in the region theyll use any other country around them to bring the west into the begars circle.

Envepoling North Korea in open arms is not the end goal. The end goal is to be incharge of the geopolitical situation. If North Korea and Japan end up being the poorest nations on the earth for a few decades after that its a small price to pay and not even one they have to - if they end up on top.

If it lands somewhere inbetween however and a perpetual standoff insues on the waters and over Asia - then youll have a technological driven cold war that will make the last one look like childs play.

And itll all be repeated in a hundred years when the African Union makes its bid for geopolitcal control - but this century may belong to Asia.

Rockalota: Look, you're delusional. Iran and North Korea's militaries are large, but completely worthless. The US military has the most skill, and the best technology. With a draft, and Chinese cooperation, we could handle them. And the Chinese will go along, as we're far mor profitable for them than the Koreans ever will be.

Are you some kind of warmonger? You want to fight two difficult major wars at once, that will cause a draft, I dont want to be drafted, I am prime age for that. now I am 23 male. Perfect health. I dont want to fight for Bush. However if my country needs me I will fight. BUT, not for an unjust cause, I will not fight for Iraq, I just will not.

They dont need to care for North Korea in as much as theyd like to see the US economically on its knees and on a level playing field with them - the US is the worlds threat to them - so as long as theres a military power capable of defeating them and not allowing them to pursue their goals in the region theyll use any other country around them to bring the west into the begars circle.

Envepoling North Korea in open arms is not the end goal. The end goal is to be incharge of the geopolitical situation. If North Korea and Japan end up being the poorest nations on the earth for a few decades after that its a small price to pay and not even one they have to.
But the Chinese need us. The US, Europe, and Japan are needed to consume their products. Otherwise, Chinese production is completely worthless.

Are you some kind of warmonger? You want to fight two difficult major wars at once, that will cause a draft, I dont want to be drafted, I am prime age for that. now I am 23 male. Perfect health. I dont want to fight for Bush. However if my country needs me I will fight. BUT, not for an unjust cause, I will not fight for Iraq, I just will not.
First off, they go from youngest to oldest, and take who they need. There are a few million men from 18-22, and yoou probably won't be needed. I'm more likely to be drafted than you are. And secondly, they are not gonna be "major wars". A major war is like the US vs. China, or the UK.

The Chinese need us now only becuas ethe American dolar says "Im god", "Im the Law" When this situation changes as it eventually must, the Chinese will create thier own needs and the world will revolve around them as it has around the US for the past 100 years.

A draft would only accelerate this eventuality - our economy is bearly keeping up with inflation.

That's a ridiculous assumption. No, inflation is slight, and China needs everyone else because it is a manufacturing power. It needs to sell it's goods. It has nothing to do with the American dollar going "I am God".

The Chinese need us now only becuas ethe American dolar says "Im god", "Im the Law" When this situation changes as it eventually must, the Chinese will create thier own needs and the world will revolve around them as it has around the US for the past 100 years.

A draft would only accelerate this eventuality - our economy is bearly keeping up with inflation.
Most of what China produces are things that most Chinese can't afford without a significant rise in income. That will come, but not for a while. Even after that, China will still need very large buyers to sell to.

First off, they go from youngest to oldest, and take who they need. There are a few million men from 18-22, and yoou probably won't be needed. I'm more likely to be drafted than you are. And secondly, they are not gonna be "major wars". A major war is like the US vs. China, or the UK.

A major war is precisely what China will force the US into when we allow them the oppurtunity for it to cost us the most - your shipping a million men over to fight this doomed war is exactly what theyre waiting for. And youll denny it until dead start comming back by the thousands huh?

They can do it - its precisely what theyre waiting for - theyll end up on top - so no the US wont move on South Korea. China and Russia wont allow us in Asia - and the US current leadership understand not to arive uninvited.

A major war is precisely what China will force the US into when we allow them the oppurtunity for it to cost us the most - your shipping a million men over to fight this doomed war is exactly what theyre waiting for. And youll denny it until dead start comming back by the thousands huh?

They can do it - its precisely what theyre waiting for - theyll end up on top - so no the US wont move on South Korea. China and Russia wont allow us in Asia - and the US current leadership understand not to arive uninvited.
Do I have schizophrenia? I don't believe that your post was ever written.

Are you some kind of warmonger? You want to fight two difficult major wars at once, that will cause a draft, I dont want to be drafted, I am prime age for that. now I am 23 male. Perfect health. I dont want to fight for Bush. However if my country needs me I will fight. BUT, not for an unjust cause, I will not fight for Iraq, I just will not.

On the plus side Canada will be letting draft dodgers take refuge. I hear BC's nice.

Most of what China produces are things that most Chinese can't afford without a significant rise in income. That will come, but not for a while. Even after that, China will still need very large buyers to sell to.

The worlds economic needs will realign itself in the absence of the US.

Its all relative - it would take a decade - but it will happend if it naturally needed to happend.

Do I have schizophrenia? I don't believe that your post was ever written.


Its a tragic possibility unlikely to be as drastic - but I still felt inclined to write it.

Send Millions - theyll kill them by the hundreds.

And theyll have the solvereign right to do so as we did not have justification to enter NK.

Its a tragic possibility unlikely to be as drastic - but I still felt inclined to write it.

Send Millions - theyll kill them by the hundreds.

And theyll have the solvereign right to do so as we did not have justification to enter NK.
China needs us! We need China! We all need eachother in this damn global economy! It'd be suicide for China to even contemplate an attack on the US or ROK, especially over a pathetic little pile of dirt like North Korea, ruled by a madman whose ego is surpassed only by his exceptionally bad hair.

Dude if there are McDonald's and martini bars in Hanoi we really didn't loose. ;)


Every war is lost the moment it begins by those who fight it.

Die in one and you'll understand.

China needs us! We need China! We all need eachother in this damn global economy! It'd be suicide for China to even contemplate an attack on the US or ROK, especially over a pathetic little pile of dirt like North Korea, ruled by a madman whose ego is surpassed only by his exceptionally bad hair.

You still have understood nothing of the real goals or problems being worked out by Chinese planners.

China does not like the idea that they need us. They are building thier own world that would function in our absence. Review the progress being made by Asian trade organizations and agreements and compare it with Americas. They can make it work - even if we couldnt. Like I already said - it maybe thier turn - and they may do a better job at running the show than we did - its too bad we'd never except it.

finally another person who actually knows what their talking about. i agree that syria is next. i was just talking about iran cause thats what the thread had started out talking about. syria would be a piece of cake.

Syria would be a peice of cake - what would happend elsewhere in the world after that would not at all be. And its precisely what you get when you travel the paved road and avoid the difficult path. Eventually the difficult path is all that remains and you're too worn down for the rest of the journey.

You still have understood nothing of the real goals or problems being worked out by Chinese planners.

China does not like the idea that they need us. They are building thier own world that would function in our absence. Review the progress being made by Asian trade organizations and agreements and compare it with Americas. They can make it work - even if we couldnt. Like I already said - it maybe thier turn - and they may do a better job at running the show than we did - its too bad we'd never except it.
Well, they'll be gone in a little bit. It is inevitable, as the waiting generation of Chinese leaders are mostly American educated. But turnovers won't happen in time for the global grand strategy to work.
In any case, the Chinese need to realize that resistence is futile. They are on the cusp of an internal revolt in the Communist Party, and they must change accordingly.

:headbang: your not very inteligent are you? we took a country with a fairly large population (iraq) with only 130000 soldiers. we conquered iraq the first time in 3 days. Oxi, you are as intelligent as the Chimp-President :D

Well, they'll be gone in a little bit. It is inevitable, as the waiting generation of Chinese leaders are mostly American educated. But turnovers won't happen in time for the global grand strategy to work.
In any case, the Chinese need to realize that resistence is futile. They are on the cusp of an internal revolt in the Communist Party, and they must change accordingly.

I certainly hope the situation is not as unstable as you claim - we may not like what replaces the current Communist party.

I certainly hope the situation is not as unstable as you claim - we may not like what replaces the current Communist party.
Well do you thinik that they would want to return to the days of Mao?
Oh, btw, if you lived in the 1950s, you might have been part of the "yellow plague" crowd. China can do what it wants in Asia, but it can never contain anything to just Asia. The outside would be needed to help.

Well do you thinik that they would want to return to the days of Mao?
Oh, btw, if you lived in the 1950s, you might have been part of the "yellow plague" crowd. China can do what it wants in Asia, but it can never contain anything to just Asia. The outside would be needed to help.

I doubt it matters much what 'they' want but what the currently american educated planners have in mind - how they intend to spin and sell it to the popular masses can be concedered independantly of the real goals in my opinion and I think you are changing the topic.

Who do you think would end up on top in China if a revolt occured. Pro-americans or more hardliners ready and willing to crack down on the seperatist that faccilitated the revolt?

Why is war with Iran easier than with North Korea? Iran is far larger, the terrain is more mountainous, and Iran has a far greater poplation (i.e. potential guerilla resistance) than North Korea.

and already they really really don't like us. What I don't get is how the Shi'a in Iraq are the good guys when right next door in Iran they are the bad guys. wierd

and already they really really don't like us.That can be said about several Peoples.

and already they really really don't like us. What I don't get is how the Shi'a in Iraq are the good guys when right next door in Iran they are the bad guys. wierd

Majority rules - welcome to the democratic imperium of the west.
If you win the election you decide whos the good guys or bad guys and then you get to decide on what to do about it even if its a stupid decision. Its worked so far for America!

Im getting tired... peace out before I say something offensive. ;)

Majority rules - welcome to the democratic imperium of the west.
If you win the election you decide whos the good guys or bad guys.Zapatero Decided we are the Bad guys.

and when De-Villerpin made the Statement at the highest international podium...almost all the Worlds Democracies gave an standing ovation.

Zapatero Decided we are the Bad guys.

and when De-Villerpin made the Statement at the highest international podium...almost all the Worlds Democracies gave an standing ovation.


Sorry never heard of him - this is not the world I know.

Rarely have many nations of this world been in agreement about anything - borders would be useless if this was not the case.


The LORD Bump was here. :D

And the UK have told Bush they would not ever attack North Korea or Iran, so no human shields there then :rolleyes:


I take it that was sarcasm. Because if it wasn't, I hate you.

You still have understood nothing of the real goals or problems being worked out by Chinese planners.

China does not like the idea that they need us. They are building thier own world that would function in our absence. Review the progress being made by Asian trade organizations and agreements and compare it with Americas. They can make it work - even if we couldnt. Like I already said - it maybe thier turn - and they may do a better job at running the show than we did - its too bad we'd never except it.

I agree with some of what you said. It seems likely, however, that in the forseeable future there will be three major economic/military players: the USA; China; and the EU.

The EU is dying because of its social policies but I have no doubt that these will be reformed in the next 10-15 years. The USA will remain strong but the relative strength of China will increase dramatically. Other countries, such as India, will also begin to have more say on the world stage.

It will be a long time before we can see China as the dominant player...nothing can change that. But already, China's activities dictate the global markets as the main importer of steel//cement... But also in hi-tech sectors: signing contracts with Airbus, for example. There is always the risk that China will cave in due to internal factors...but only the future can tell.

I doubt it matters much what 'they' want but what the currently american educated planners have in mind - how they intend to spin and sell it to the popular masses can be concedered independantly of the real goals in my opinion and I think you are changing the topic.
You did it first. We went to talking about China's great plans, and that's how we got sidetracked.
Who do you think would end up on top in China if a revolt occured. Pro-americans or more hardliners ready and willing to crack down on the seperatist that faccilitated the revolt?
It depends who can navigate the system more clearly. Being a Chinese politician must require the intellect of a physicist, yet the skill of a politician.

America could easilly take on Iran and North Korea but we would have to go full time :sniper:
:sniper: If we went "oh we have to give all the people food and shelter and a cable channel so we can be humane!" we would lose horribly. This is :mp5: not :fluffle: . You can't say we want to take your country over but we won't do anything to get it except be nice and sell you stuff.

China however we would have to handle by itself. China's fighting force is huge and they have more than 20 nuclear warheads aimed at california! I am talking like world war III. It wouldn't end the world(all the militaries in the world don't have that kind of power) but we would not be able to back out of it.

America could easilly take on Iran and North Korea but we would have to go full time :sniper:
:sniper: If we went "oh we have to give all the people food and shelter and a cable channel so we can be humane!" we would lose horribly. This is :mp5: not :fluffle: . You can't say we want to take your country over but we won't do anything to get it except be nice and sell you stuff.

China however we would have to handle by itself. China's fighting force is huge and they have more than 20 nuclear warheads aimed at california! I am talking like world war III. It wouldn't end the world(all the militaries in the world don't have that kind of power) but we would not be able to back out of it.
My child, there are at least a half dozen militariies that can equal or surpass that of China's.

bump