NationStates Jolt Archive

They were always strategic allies, but they now are in a formal alliance.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iran%20Syria
Wonder where this could lead.

We attack Iran and let Israel rip through Syria.

Cool! Now we don't have to choose whether to attack Iran or Syria, we attack both. Let's hope they hook up with N. Korea soon. Then we kill three birds with one stone.

Cool! Now we don't have to choose whether to attack Iran or Syria, we attack both. Let's hope they hook up with N. Korea soon. Then we kill three birds with one stone.
By god, then we'll see if that missle net actually works or not.

Cool! Now we don't have to choose whether to attack Iran or Syria, we attack both. Let's hope they hook up with N. Korea soon. Then we kill three birds with one stone.
I expect them to first hook up with A.Q. Khan and company. His network probably still is running, and with his personal fortune, lots can happen. They'd probably get to al-Qaeda, but their only real strata of organization is in Iraq, and while it is deadly efficient, it is not really big.

And who can blame them...?

Didn't Egypt and Syria try something like this before, only more extreme? And didn't it fall apart very quickly?

Honestly if we were to attack one, the other would sit by idley. Syria use to be the biggest millitary power in the region, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they've fallen into decline. I say this guester is more symbolic then anything else.

We're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq as it is, there's no way we could handle 3 countries at once :sniper:

We're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq as it is, there's no way we could handle 3 countries at once

Getting our asses handed to us? Right...

We're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq as it is, there's no way we could handle 3 countries at once :sniper:

That's why we defeated the 6th largest military in the world in a few weeks and created a new regime right?

If Iran and Syria want to ally, let them. I don't really see why this was even important enough to put in the news.

world war here we come

We're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq as it is, there's no way we could handle 3 countries at once :sniper:
Getting our asses handed to us? What war are you watching? Coalition casualties are ridiculously low considering we're occupying a nation in an unfriedly corner of the world. The elections went off without a hitch, and now shia and even a few sunni Iraqis have begun to tip coalition troops off when they get word of terrorism in the works.

Honestly, I can't say that I blame them. I'm surprised that the middle eastern countries haven't made official alliances before now. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The way Bush is going around saying stupid crap like "spreading democracy" kind of like if you want it or not. Always reminded me of that obnoxious drunk in the bar who decided they were going to be your friend whether you liked it or not. Of course those ones' usually got kicked out of the bar.

I always knew WWIII was possible one day, I just never thought that the United States would start it. Certainly as a youth, I kind of always thought us in the west were the good guys, just goes to show how much things can change in a couple a decades. In this case, in one administration.

Honestly, I can't say that I blame them. I'm surprised that the middle eastern countries haven't made official alliances before now. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The way Bush is going around saying stupid crap like "spreading democracy" kind of like if you want it or not. Always reminded me of that obnoxious drunk in the bar who decided they were going to be your friend whether you liked it or not. Of course those ones' usually got kicked out of the bar.

I always knew WWIII was possible one day, I just never thought that the United States would start it. Certainly as a youth, I kind of always thought us in the west were the good guys, just goes to show how much things can change in a couple a decades. In this case, in one administration.

Yup, Syria and Iran certainly have the power to initiate WWIII... :rolleyes:

Yup, Syria and Iran certainly have the power to initiate WWIII... :rolleyes:
if bush starts treatening random countries with democracy the middle east will ALL band together against us and north vietnam may jsut go ahead and take a cue then china and maybe russia for the hell of it, putin is a little off

if bush starts treatening random countries with democracy the middle east will ALL band together against us and north vietnam may jsut go ahead and take a cue then china and maybe russia for the hell of it, putin is a little off
North Vietnam?

Yup, Syria and Iran certainly have the power to initiate WWIII... :rolleyes:

I personally believe that Iran already has nukes.. so, umm yeah. They do! They wouldn't be so in the world's face about it if they didn't. Just a personal opinion of course. But it reaches further than Iran and Syria. I think the world is getting just a little sick and tired of the Bush administration. This isn't exactly a secret.

Yup, Syria and Iran certainly have the power to initiate WWIII... :rolleyes:
Aha, because anyone who doesnt think it will stop there is just being silly, after all it was only going to be Iraq, and definately not Iran, and now it's only probably Syria and Iran (according to posters in this thread), oh and maybe North Korea too. And it's not like Pakistan is somewhat unstable with the current government's kow towing to the US making it unpopular domestically...it's not like the whole region in the Middle East is very unstable, and certainly no one else will take the chance to push whatever their agenda is to the detriment of others who might feel the need to push back. Of course the US can carry on picking off nations one by one and no nation will ever have the brains to join with other nations into any real kind of defensive network, nor if the US carries on pushing it's weight around will any nuclear nation take fright and become equally aggressive...especially as resources become more scare and climate change worsens...for sure the US is a stabilising influence in the world rather than being a setter of dangerous 'pre-emptive strike now, find out the reason for the strike was false latter' precedent, and general all round mud raker...because we all know that little 'ol Germany wasnt going to start WWII just by knocking off a couple of inconsequential countries...it's not like any huge war ever started small and snow balled....no way huh ah, not ever... :rolleyes:

Honestly, I can't say that I blame them. I'm surprised that the middle eastern countries haven't made official alliances before now.

Not before now? Well sure if you discount all the times the Arabs attacked Israel then they've never gotten along together.Arab unity went out of the window when Saddat said the Egyptains were tired of fighting the Israelis and the rest of the middle east scoffed at the measure and went their own seperate ways.

I personally believe that Iran already has nukes.. so, umm yeah. They do! They wouldn't be so in the world's face about it if they didn't. Just a personal opinion of course. But it reaches further than Iran and Syria. I think the world is getting just a little sick and tired of the Bush administration. This isn't exactly a secret.

The world can get sick and tired of the Bush administration. What are they gonna do? Sink the US economy? And drag themselves down? Or how about attack the US? You wanna know who's sick and tired of the Bush administration? People. People who seem to forget that after four years it'll be a different administration. Every government in the world(except those in the crosshairs) dont give a rats ass about Bush because when he's gone there will always be someone new.

Honestly, I can't say that I blame them. I'm surprised that the middle eastern countries haven't made official alliances before now. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The way Bush is going around saying stupid crap like "spreading democracy" kind of like if you want it or not. Always reminded me of that obnoxious drunk in the bar who decided they were going to be your friend whether you liked it or not. Of course those ones' usually got kicked out of the bar.

I always knew WWIII was possible one day, I just never thought that the United States would start it. Certainly as a youth, I kind of always thought us in the west were the good guys, just goes to show how much things can change in a couple a decades. In this case, in one administration.
Check your recent past history. The US didnt start this third world war. The radical muslims did. But as normal we are going to finish it. Iran/Syria pact. Thank you Allah. Now we dont have to start two wars.

Didn't Egypt and Syria try something like this before, only more extreme? And didn't it fall apart very quickly?

Yes, they attacked israel and were defeated

if bush starts treatening random countries with democracy the middle east will ALL band together against us and north vietnam may jsut go ahead and take a cue then china and maybe russia for the hell of it, putin is a little off
Russia did recently anounce the sale of shoulder launched surface to air missiles over Israeli and American Protests. With its current weakness Russia's only way of countering American power is to arm America's enemies to the teeth with weapons. The credibility of this little Iran/Syria coalition pretty much depends on Iran getting nuclear weapons... With them American won't be able to do shit against Syria. Without them this coalition is a joke.

There will be no third world war from this part of the world, hell there probably never be a third world war in our lifetime. Global economies are tied together far too much for a third world war to be fought.
Swatting a gnat in the middle east is not going to touch off anything major.

North Vietnam?
excuse me, north korea.

What a fun year this could turn into XD

*Iran/Syria alliance
*North Korea has nukes
*Bushy babes is mouthing off at the aforementioned Iran and Syria
*Guagalhoi? (Random much o.O)

And its only February \o/ This will be a good year for the pessimistic MAD theorist me thinks ^.^ actually... this'd make a fun game... *runs off to play global power*

Didn't Egypt and Syria try something like this before, only more extreme? And didn't it fall apart very quickly?
They tried a United Arab Republic. That wasn't an alliance, but a total political and economic union. Iran and Syria have done nothing of the type, but just formed an alliance.

Honestly, I can't say that I blame them. I'm surprised that the middle eastern countries haven't made official alliances before now. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The way Bush is going around saying stupid crap like "spreading democracy" kind of like if you want it or not. Always reminded me of that obnoxious drunk in the bar who decided they were going to be your friend whether you liked it or not. Of course those ones' usually got kicked out of the bar.

I always knew WWIII was possible one day, I just never thought that the United States would start it. Certainly as a youth, I kind of always thought us in the west were the good guys, just goes to show how much things can change in a couple a decades. In this case, in one administration.
a.) Call this what you want, but this is very far from a world war. It is neither the same size, magnitude, or scale. In both world wars, Europe, Africa, and East Asia were all boiling battlelfields, and it was a total war. This time around, life is normal for 99% of the world, and apart from terrorist attacks, not much fighting is outside Iraq, India, or Central Asia.
b.) Most of the Arab states know that they have little to fear from the US. Iran and Syria, however, are threats. Iran is a terrorist state that is developing nuclear weapons, while Syria occupies Lebanon, threatens Israel, and supports terrorism. They have plenty to fear, and not just from the US. Israel may get angry at either state.

They have plenty to fear, and not just from the US. Israel may get angry at either state.

Yep. When Israel gets pissed, Arab countries get, how shall I say, "smacked down." Yes. That's it. :p

Hmm... both countries seem to think this alliance is nessisary, but syria is vehmently denying that the alliance is anti-US.

The US has withdrawn it's ambassador from Damascus to express it's "profound outrage" at the assasination of Lebanon's former prime minister, but has hasn't directly accused Syria. I find that VERY odd.

Iranian state TV reported an explosion and blamed it on an unidentified aircraft firing a missle. The news whisked round the world and oil prices jumped and the US dollor hit a new low against the Euro. Yet the explosion was 100 miles away from an Iranian nuclear reactor, and the cause of the explosion later proved to be unsubstantiated. A stark warning on the effects of a war with Iran.

Israel today also stated that it believed Iran would have the knowledge to create nuclear weapons in 6 months. Without this, all the other points aren't all that important. Iran being able to produce nuclear weapons puts a huge strain on regional politics. Will Israel strike at Iran's nuclear reactor before hand, like in 1981 with Iraq? What will that cause? Will Iran develop a nuclear weapons? Who will they target them at, Jerusalem?

Things could get very ugly if it's poorly managed. And the US's current policy of isolating and pushing these two countries into a corner is not a very clever option at this moment in time. It forces their hand into a certain defense strategies. An oppenent who is givem a clear escape route is much more predictable and containable.

malkyer post your intro in the meeting thing......

Didn't Egypt and Syria try something like this before, only more extreme? And didn't it fall apart very quickly?

One time, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Iran, but Im not sure, all attacked Israel, and they were slaughtered.

There was a joke, thousands of arabs gathered at a battlefield, at the other end there was one Israeli, the Arabs all attacked, wave after wave, they were all killed, there were two left alive, dying however so one crawled over to the other and said "It was a trap... there were two."

Sort of humurous, but it helps get what happened, sort of.

Israel today also stated that it believed Iran would have the knowledge to create nuclear weapons in 6 months. Without this, all the other points aren't all that important. Iran being able to produce nuclear weapons puts a huge strain on regional politics. Will Israel strike at Iran's nuclear reactor before hand, like in 1981 with Iraq? What will that cause? Will Iran develop a nuclear weapons? Who will they target them at, Jerusalem?

Things could get very ugly if it's poorly managed. And the US's current policy of isolating and pushing these two countries into a corner is not a very clever option at this moment in time. It forces their hand into a certain defense strategies. An oppenent who is givem a clear escape route is much more predictable and containable.
Iran's facilities are scattered across the country and some of them are underground. If israel even tried anything, they are still getting to get hit with barrages of conventional missiles. If anybody does anything it is going to be America, but they are tapped out, and even if they did wage war on Iran it would quickly turn the new Iraqi shi'ite gov't against them.

The US is just trying to scare Iran with spy drones and hints about an imminent Israeli attack but nothing is going to happen for a while.

Things could get very ugly if it's poorly managed. And the US's current policy of isolating and pushing these two countries into a corner is not a very clever option at this moment in time. It forces their hand into a certain defense strategies. An oppenent who is givem a clear escape route is much more predictable and containable.
It is all very strange. However, I do not think that the US is running a bad strategy. They both support terrorism abroad, and Iran has been known to have contacts with Osama bin Ladin himself. However, with sanctions, it means that a.) Iran can't import nuclear materials easily, and b.) neither country will find it easy to support terrorism abroad. There is one spoiler: Iran's border in the Caucausus and in Central Asia. The bordering states are not really developed, so they will need to be monitored in order to make sure no one gets out. That's another thing needed in those countries: a travel ban.

Iran's facilities are scattered across the country and some of them are underground. If israel even tried anything, they are still getting to get hit with barrages of conventional missiles. If anybody does anything it is going to be America, but they are tapped out, and even if they did wage war on Iran it would quickly turn the new Iraqi shi'ite gov't against them.

The US is just trying to scare Iran with spy drones and hints about an imminent Israeli attack but nothing is going to happen for a while.
I'm no military expert, but isn't it possible that more enlistees might volunteer, especially if more salaried positiions are opened? It has happened in the past, like in the first Gulf War.

We attack Iran and let Israel rip through Syria.

And thus began World War III

But this could get ugly, Im guessing Lebanon will revolt and declare war on Syria for the assassination and bombing of their country and the murder of their Prime Minister. Although its not proven, it also wasnt proven that Bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11, on 9/11 but everybody figured thats who it was. And than it turned out they were correct. So yeah, my guess is its Syria! The world is fucked! If Lebanon goes into war, Bush will want in on the action and here will be the perfect scenario to get involved. France will get pissed with Algeria for the plots to destroy the Eifel tower http://www.comcast.net/News/INTERNATIONAL//XML/1103_AP_Online_Regional___Europe/59134738-5e82-4903-866d-a69d38ae5171.html and maybe even, can I be right? The French might start a war!!!! Than we will help them. Not because we are allies but just for an excuse to attack more muslims.

And thus began World War III
No. In order to be a world war, war would have to be fought all over Eurasia, Africa, and be a total war. That is unlikely to happen for at least fifty years.

It is all very strange. However, I do not think that the US is running a bad strategy. They both support terrorism abroad, and Iran has been known to have contacts with Osama bin Ladin himself. However, with sanctions, it means that a.) Iran can't import nuclear materials easily, and b.) neither country will find it easy to support terrorism abroad. There is one spoiler: Iran's border in the Caucausus and in Central Asia. The bordering states are not really developed, so they will need to be monitored in order to make sure no one gets out. That's another thing needed in those countries: a travel ban.
What do you mean by nuclear materials? Doesn't Iran already have working uranium mines with deposits in excess of 5,000 tons.

[QUOTE=Stephistan]
The way Bush is going around saying stupid crap like "spreading democracy" kind of like if you want it or not. [QUOTE]

Stupid crap like Spreading Democracy? :confused:
Please tell me you dont vote or else you might be a very big hipocrit.




A Middle East Alliance...I could of sworn that was OPEC :D . JP!

A Syrian - Iranian Alliance ha...
I fear that about as much as the last Arab Alliance. Heck I fear Electronic Arts Battle Field 2 fictional Arab Alliance.

Theres a off chance a Syrian - Iranian Alliance could be apart of the begining stages of WWIII. But History in about 30 years will tell us that. Not current politics and news.

These countrys have tried to wipe out the Jews and they have failed. Now they face one of the best trained Air Forces in the world and one of the most equiped Air Forces in the world. Before they finish getting what they want they will be crippled.

Yup, Syria and Iran certainly have the power to initiate WWIII... :rolleyes:
No. The US will. Steph didn´t say anything about Iran and Syria initiating WWIII.

Theres a off chance a Syrian - Iranian Alliance could be apart of the begining stages of WWIII. But History in about 30 years will tell us that. Not current politics and news.

Thanks to Bush the world in 30 years will await anxiously the outcome of the intertribal-conference on the banning of bow and arrow.

No. In order to be a world war, war would have to be fought all over Eurasia, Africa, and be a total war. That is unlikely to happen for at least fifty years.

I wonder if, at the moment that the other World Wars started, if they knew it was going to be on multiple fronts. WWI grew to the size that it did only because of the alliances the countries had with each other. Alliances had a similar role to play in WWII. I wonder what effect the strained relations between the US and its European allies will play in this little drama.

I also wonder if terrorist operations can count as military acts.

I wonder if those terrorists would be VERY active in Europe and other continents committing terrorist acts depending on where countries decided to place their loyalties.

To be honest I hope all of the US's allies keep out of this. I don't want the risk of WWIII breaking out.

No. The US will. Steph didn´t say anything about Iran and Syria initiating WWIII.
Not nearly enough. It takes two to tango, and not only is the US not strong enough to cause a world war, but no other nations are strong enough to harm it. In both world wars, both sides were very powerful, and were bent on total war. The US is incapable of that. It could have happened twenty years ago, when teh USSR existed. But it couldn't happen today.

Thanks to Bush the world in 30 years will await anxiously the outcome of the intertribal-conference on the banning of bow and arrow.


For trying to deny some nut cases nukes...oh yea...

Iran is a terrorist state that is developing nuclear weapons.
*laughs* So is the US.

For trying to deny some nut cases nukes...oh yea...
The US already has nukes.

I wonder if, at the moment that the other World Wars started, if they knew it was going to be on multiple fronts. WWI grew to the size that it did only because of the alliances the countries had with each other. Alliances had a similar role to play in WWII. I wonder what effect the strained relations between the US and its European allies will play in this little drama.

I also wonder if terrorist operations can count as military acts.

I wonder if those terrorists would be VERY active in Europe and other continents committing terrorist acts depending on where countries decided to place their loyalties.

To be honest I hope all of the US's allies keep out of this. I don't want the risk of WWIII breaking out.
But it'll never cause total war. In both world wars, all of a nation's energies were committed to winning the war. Today, in much of the world, life goes on. New cars are still made because their production lines don't need to be used for tanks. And every able bodied young man (and woman) does not have to go to the front, like in both world wars. And they never will. Not even close.

But this could get ugly, Im guessing Lebanon will revolt and declare war on Syria for the assassination and bombing of their country and the murder of their Prime Minister. Although its not proven, it also wasnt proven that Bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11, on 9/11 but everybody figured thats who it was. And than it turned out they were correct. So yeah, my guess is its Syria! The world is fucked! If Lebanon goes into war, Bush will want in on the action and here will be the perfect scenario to get involved. France will get pissed with Algeria for the plots to destroy the Eifel tower http://www.comcast.net/News/INTERNATIONAL//XML/1103_AP_Online_Regional___Europe/59134738-5e82-4903-866d-a69d38ae5171.html and maybe even, can I be right? The French might start a war!!!! Than we will help them. Not because we are allies but just for an excuse to attack more muslims.

Write this again...in point form...A MILLION TIMES!! BWAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!!

*laughs* So is the US.
Too bad you hate the US too much that you can't reason at all. I guess it has something to do living in Germany. Tell me, do you live near a military base there? Heidelberg, perhaps?

It's about time. THe Mid east is the only region on earth that doesn't have an integrated defence plan.

Too bad you hate the US too much that you can't reason at all. I guess it has something to do living in Germany.
No it doesn't. And I live in the Netherlands.
Tell me, do you live near a military base there? Heidelberg, perhaps?
No. Why?

No. Why?
Because I know you are a German, and probably have a German passport. I'm tryiong to find the reason for your disliking of the US, btw.

But it'll never cause total war. In both world wars, all of a nation's energies were committed to winning the war. Today, in much of the world, life goes on. New cars are still made because their production lines don't need to be used for tanks. And every able bodied young man (and woman) does not have to go to the front, like in both world wars. And they never will. Not even close.

Then the problem with 'winning the war' comes up. How do we win Iraq let alone Syria and Iran if they happen? To win Iraq we'd have to commit more troops or else, cut it loose. We can't do the former without a draft. The latter comes with a big question mark.

Heads are beings scratched and many-a-can of Red Bull is being drank over this one.

All the ingredients are there for Total War. We just need bigger alliances on both sides. It all depends on Iran at this point. They have the ability to form these alliances and if they are attacked all Hell would officially be set loose.

The US already has nukes.

We trust ourselfs more then we trust others for good reason.

Last Nuke we droped wasint a "Nuke". It was a atomic bomb. The United States has nuclear weapons, but they where where built up against the Soviet Union.

We havent threatend Nuclear War lately on anyone, we have no reasonable enemy to send it at.

Guess who does...

While Stephistan and I are miles apart ideologically, his statement and thus starts WWIII is not that unreasonable in light of history. WWI was started when Archduke Ferdinand in Serbia was assassinated. Anyone see any parallels? However, the alliance system is not nearly that developed at the current time, though things could become sticky if other countries start to align like Syria and Iran.

It's about time. THe Mid east is the only region on earth that doesn't have an integrated defence plan.
You're absolutely right. It was sorta assumed that the US would provide regional defense, and that was true especially after the Gulf War. But threats are popping up there faster than the US can handle them. A Middle East NATO needs to form, with the US, Britain, and a few other states joining from the outside. France shouldn't be allowed in just yet, because they have different ideaological interests, such as counteracting the US, and restoring French gloire. Besides, they have been after a slice of the energy market for years. I don't want this being hijacked.
Russia can't join, either. It is too close to Iran, and she may use it to further her interests in the Caucausus.

Because I know you are a German, and probably have a German passport.
I am and I do. I just don't live there.
I'm tryiong to find the reason for your disliking of the US, btw.
Them playing bad cop pretending to be a good cop has alot to do with it. So does PNAC and the Progressive Policy Center. New Anthrus and the likes of him. Bush, of course.
Kyoto to some extend. Them still occupying German soil without rent or anything. (No, I don't mean embassies Markreich) Bush applying pressure to have Turkey admitted to the EU. Let's not forget their puppets in our governments. And so on...

That's why we defeated the 6th largest military in the world in a few weeks and created a new regime right?

If Iran and Syria want to ally, let them. I don't really see why this was even important enough to put in the news.

6th largest millitary in the world? Iraq was a shitty little country that we wanted to bully.

And yes, we are losing men everyday, losing billions of dollars in funds, and we've united the Islamic world against a common enemy, so yes we are getting are asses kicked.

Too bad you hate the US too much that you can't reason at all. I guess it has something to do living in Germany. Tell me, do you live near a military base there? Heidelberg, perhaps?

One could easily, and more accuratly, say that your hatred of Germans causes you to lash out accussingly at them when they provide an even-tempered and elequently-delivered counter argument which hits you in a soft spot.

"You are totally wrong! BTW are you German?"
"Yes."
"You see!! Totally wrong!!"

Would this be the ad hominem logical fallacy?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Then the problem with 'winning the war' comes up. How do we win Iraq let alone Syria and Iran if they happen? To win Iraq we'd have to commit more troops or else, cut it loose. We can't do the former without a draft. The latter comes with a big question mark.

Heads are beings scratched and many-a-can of Red Bull is being drank over this one.

All the ingredients are there for Total War. We just need bigger alliances on both sides. It all depends on Iran at this point. They have the ability to form these alliances and if they are attacked all Hell would officially be set loose.
I disagree about that assesment. Not many more troops should be needed. At the very most, maybe 500,000 more will be needed in the active force, and considering how many young people are out there, it isn't really that hard. All the Pentagon needs to do is a better job at marketing, and offer more goodies, like a really big reenlistment bonus.

We trust ourselfs more then we trust others.
And your the only ones.


We havent threatend Nuclear War lately on anyone, we have no reasonable enemy to send it at.
Not against a specific enemy no. But the US still demands the right for a tactical nuclear pre-emptive strike. Thats enough of a threat.
Oh yeah. Let's not forget the tactical mini nukes Bush is dreaming of.
Guess who does...
The US.

One could easily, and more accuratly, say that your hatred of Germans causes you to lash out accussingly at them when they provide an even-tempered and elequently-delivered counter argument which hits you in a soft spot.

"You are totally wrong! BTW are you German?"
"Yes."
"You see!! Totally wrong!!"

Would this be the ad hominem logical fallacy?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I don't hate Germans.

Them playing bad cop pretending to be a good cop has alot to do with it. So does PNAC and the Progressive Policy Center. New Anthrus and the likes of him. Bush, of course.
Kyoto to some extend. Them still occupying German soil without rent or anything. (No, I don't mean embassies Markreich) Bush applying pressure to have Turkey admitted to the EU. Let's not forget their puppets in our governments. And so on...
Fine. That's all I wanted to know.

Check your recent past history. The US didnt start this third world war. The radical muslims did. But as normal we are going to finish it. Iran/Syria pact. Thank you Allah. Now we dont have to start two wars.

You seem to be forgetting that US funded lots of terrorist efforts, like Osama bin Laden's to pick at communists. Plus the Saudi resentment of the West only came after major American oil companies took over the Saudi market.

6th largest millitary in the world? Iraq was a shitty little country that we wanted to bully.

And yes, we are losing men everyday, losing billions of dollars in funds, and we've united the Islamic world against a common enemy, so yes we are getting are asses kicked.
You know. It's funny. This remark reminds me of an old Terence Hill movie. March or die. Which later was copied by Van Dammes who called it Legionair.

We trust ourselfs more then we trust others for good reason.

Last Nuke we droped wasint a "Nuke". It was a atomic bomb. The United States has nuclear weapons, but they where where built up against the Soviet Union.

We havent threatend Nuclear War lately on anyone, we have no reasonable enemy to send it at.

Guess who does...

Okay. Lets just call them "Really Big Mass Murdering Bombs". I dislike semantics as much as you.

BTW you don't really need to threaten nuclear war. Once you publically acknowledge that you have them the option, or perhaps 'near-certain eventuality', that they will be used is clearly evident.

I don't hate Germans.

Perhaps. But you sound like your going to use irrelvant facts about a person in order to bypass their arguments and dismiss the argument without confronting the things they said.

Perhaps. But you sound like your going to use irrelvant facts about a person in order to bypass their arguments and dismiss the argument without confronting the things they said.
No. I wanted to see why he hated the US, and suspected it had something to do with US bases there. My uncle was based in Kaiserslautern, and believe me, the locals were not happy with US troops there.
If you mean hating Germany because of WWII, then yes, I sorta do. It's because of the fascists, though, which are probably the worse threat to human civilization that ever existed. Japan and Italy were the same. All three deserved what they got, and IMO, they needed more. But I digress.

No. I wanted to see why he hated the US, and suspected it had something to do with US bases there. My uncle was based in Kaiserslautern, and believe me, the locals were not happy with US troops there.
If you mean hating Germany because of WWII, then yes, I sorta do. It's because of the fascists, though, which are probably the worse threat to human civilization that ever existed. Japan and Italy were the same. All three deserved what they got, and IMO, they needed more. But I digress.
Nah. Thats the US. And they deserved 911 and then some.

Nah. Thats the US. And they deserved 911 and then some.
No. And guess my parent nation.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEH412A.html

I disagree about that assesment. Not many more troops should be needed. At the very most, maybe 500,000 more will be needed in the active force, and considering how many young people are out there, it isn't really that hard. All the Pentagon needs to do is a better job at marketing, and offer more goodies, like a really big reenlistment bonus.

500,000 isn't exactly a small increase.

Lots of young people were around during Vietnam and the draft had to be enacted anyway. We all know how well that went over. No one will sign up freely if the war is portrayed badly, which of course IT IS simply because it is a rotten war.

The Pentagon needs no help at marketting. They are wizards at it. Offering bonuses requires money. Money that is in increasingly short supply. And like I said above, no one wants to sign up for a pointless war.

No. And guess my parent nation.
No what? Uuumm America?

500,000 isn't exactly a small increase.

Lots of young people were around during Vietnam and the draft had to be enacted anyway. We all know how well that went over. No one will sign up freely if the war is portrayed badly, which of course IT IS simply because it is a rotten war.

The Pentagon needs no help at marketting. They are wizards at it. Offering bonuses requires money. Money that is in increasingly short supply. And like I said above, no one wants to sign up for a pointless war.
That depends not what you or I percieve as pointless, but what they percieve as pointless.

No what? Uuumm America?
New Anthrus. Want me to go to Hell now or later?

New Anthrus. Want me to go to Hell now or later?
Oh. That kind of parent nation. You can go to hell now. Or later. As long as you go.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEH412A.html

I am reminded of Ghost in the Shell where such military power has fallen out of style (thanks to WWIII and WWIV) and terrorism is more abundant.

'The End of War' seems to be leading to 'The Rise of Terrorism'.

EDIT

To be honest they did a similar thing in India to boot the Brits out. However, it was peaceful protest that one the day and not terrorism.

Ending terrorism will have to be the next step, and it just can't be done with force as Iraq is showing us.

Oh. That kind of parent nation. You can go to hell now. Or later. As long as you go.
Fine. I might as well stick around and torture the heck outta ya. And you can tell me that I, with much of America, are greedy, fascist, imperialist pigs in sight of the slaughterhouse. We'll be even :fluffle: .

Fine. I might as well stick around and torture the heck outta ya. And you can tell me that I, with much of America, are greedy, fascist, imperialist pigs in sight of the slaughterhouse.
You and your entire country, with some exceptions, can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. As a matter of fact I really hope you'll invade Syria and Iran.
Oh. And your not torturing the heck out of me. Your a constant reminder of why America is our enemy.

You and your entire country, with some exceptions, can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. As a matter of fact I really hope you'll invade Syria and Iran.
We won't. So, comrade, all I have to say is this: tough toenails, bubba.

We won't. So, comrade, all I have to say is this: tough toenails, bubba.
Not invade Iran or Syria?

Not invade Iran or Syria?
Yep. Although I actually think that there is a big chance that it won't happen. The Iranians may revolt against the mullahs beforehand. I give it five years, ten at the very most.

Yep. Although I actually think that there is a big chance that it won't happen. The Iranians may revolt against the mullahs beforehand. I give it five years, ten at the very most.
Yes of course.

Yes of course.
No, really.

That depends not what you or I percieve as pointless, but what they percieve as pointless.

Precisely :)

So far the opinions of the Iraq War II are not favourable.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-poll-iraq,1,3541538.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

The poll, conducted Saturday through Monday, found that the percentage of Americans who believed the situation in Iraq was "worth going to war over" had sunk to a new low of 39%. When the same question was asked in a similar poll in October, 44% said it had been worth going to war.

if bush starts treatening random countries with democracy the middle east will ALL band together against us and north vietnam may jsut go ahead and take a cue then china and maybe russia for the hell of it, putin is a little off

just thought id point out there are only 3 countries in the middle east with democracies right now... palestine, Israel, and Iraq.. there are no other democracies in the middle east >.> (by all meaningful aspects of the term democracy)

Precisely :)

So far the opinions of the Iraq War II are not favourable.
That may change. But I have a feeling that, in order to debate you on this, I have to get into a heavily ideaological debate, which I find pointless.

Yep. Although I actually think that there is a big chance that it won't happen. The Iranians may revolt against the mullahs beforehand. I give it five years, ten at the very most.

To be prefectly honest, even if they do revolt it may not actually help things, if it is possible.

Increasing the turmoil in the region is unlikly to produce positive results, even if the turmoil is created by the people themselves.

6th largest millitary in the world? Iraq was a shitty little country that we wanted to bully.

And yes, we are losing men everyday, losing billions of dollars in funds, and we've united the Islamic world against a common enemy, so yes we are getting are asses kicked.

Have we united the Islamic world against a common enemy.. how many countries come to the aid of Iraq... how many now support its new democracy ? How many are defending Iran in its current crisis.. ? How many actually practice the same version of Islam... United the Islamic world against us ? ... no... we united the terrorists.. who were already there to begin with. By putting the terrorists in Iraq and killing them there.. we got them out of Palestine and now the middle east has a chance for peace. so far we've lost what 1400 troops ? how many insurgents have been killed ? 6000 ? 10,000 ?

That United Islamic world siad they would wash the streets of IRaq in the blood of anyone who voted and supported America... yet the election happend! .. getting our asses kicked.. Hardly.. more like kicking ass

Precisely :)

So far the opinions of the Iraq War II are not favourable.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-poll-iraq,1,3541538.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Isn't this a matter of timing.. now we are at a critical point.. deaths are still occuring, and we just finished a hard election filled by propaganda on both sides.. You can't gage things like was the war worth it in terms of months.. or years.. but decades.. In 10 years, we will see what Iraq is like, and KNOW weather it was worth it or not... If IRaq is a democracy, ruling itself.. it is clear it was worth it... If its still in chaos, or a dictatorship again.. we will know it was a waste.

As we all know, public opinion polls are deceptive tools.. after all, Kerry thought he was going to win. Yet lost in somethign resembling a land slide

http://www.turkishpress.com/w.asp?s=u&i=050208144332.oi9vchci
Either someone's polling is wrong, or it is too hard to guage. CNN/Gallup finds its approval to be the highest since Hussein's capture, the last high point. Those numbers may be sustained if it is relatively calm in Iraq for a while.

http://www.turkishpress.com/w.asp?s=u&i=050208144332.oi9vchci
Either someone's polling is wrong, or it is too hard to guage. CNN/Gallup finds its approval to be the highest since Hussein's capture, the last high point. Those numbers may be sustained if it is relatively calm in Iraq for a while.
No such luck:


2/7-10/05 (approve, disapprove, N/A)
49 48 3 1,008

just thought id point out there are only 3 countries in the middle east with democracies right now... palestine, Israel, and Iraq.. )you are forgetting Iran...

Who is the elected President of Iraq?

Yup, Syria and Iran certainly have the power to initiate WWIII... :rolleyes:
Look what initiated WW1!! Anything is possible, especially in the most volatile region in the world.

That may change. But I have a feeling that, in order to debate you on this, I have to get into a heavily ideaological debate, which I find pointless.

Well in order for such disapproval to change there would have to be a string of really positive events happening, or something so foul will happen that they must join the military as a matter of survival. Those are the only ways I see the approval increasing so more volunteers will join the military in the record numbers we need them to come in.

I really want to know why you think the disapproval 'may change' to approval.

http://www.turkishpress.com/w.asp?s=u&i=050208144332.oi9vchci
Either someone's polling is wrong, or it is too hard to guage. CNN/Gallup finds its approval to be the highest since Hussein's capture, the last high point. Those numbers may be sustained if it is relatively calm in Iraq for a while.

That was a short-term boost brought about by the constant media blitz over the elections. It won't last. Reality will set back in over the next few months.

Thanks to Bush the world in 30 years will await anxiously the outcome of the intertribal-conference on the banning of bow and arrow.
But..but..but..they will need the bow and arrow to hunt the two headed buffaloes?

But..but..but..they will need the bow and arrow to hunt the two headed buffaloes?
Yeah. That could become a problem.

I wonder if those terrorists would be VERY active in Europe and other continents committing terrorist acts depending on where countries decided to place their loyalties.
Here is a thought.....with most Americans suiting up and shipping out to the Middle East, what is to prevent a US internal uprising?? Especially since the US has very lax gun control laws. The 2nd Ammendment could come back to haunt them?

Here is a thought.....with most Americans suiting up and shipping out to the Middle East, what is to prevent a US internal uprising?? Especially since the US has very lax gun control laws. The 2nd Ammendment could come back to haunt them?
Would be interesting. They should make a game about that.

Would be interesting. They should make a game about that.

Go buy the Operational Art of War:Century of Warfare. There are about 2-3 scenarios of a second US civil war.

Here is a thought.....with most Americans suiting up and shipping out to the Middle East, what is to prevent a US internal uprising?? Especially since the US has very lax gun control laws. The 2nd Ammendment could come back to haunt them?

You obviously know little about the US and its people. That would never happen... not at the current time, at least.

Isn't this a matter of timing.. now we are at a critical point.. deaths are still occuring, and we just finished a hard election filled by propaganda on both sides.. You can't gage things like was the war worth it in terms of months.. or years.. but decades.. In 10 years, we will see what Iraq is like, and KNOW weather it was worth it or not... If IRaq is a democracy, ruling itself.. it is clear it was worth it... If its still in chaos, or a dictatorship again.. we will know it was a waste.

A few things pop into my head:

1) The ends don't justify the means.
2) The things we do today cannot be justified by saying that they could be justified by the future we cannot predict.

1 is a violation of ethics. 2 is a logical fallacy and just plain boggling.

EDIT

I think it's the "Wishful Thinking"/"Appeal to Consequences of a Belief" fallacy. The outcome is unfavourable so you think that it will be justified in the future.

/EDIT


As we all know, public opinion polls are deceptive tools.. after all, Kerry thought he was going to win. Yet lost in somethign resembling a land slide

Well if done fairly and without bias they are not deceptive.

Kerry's win would have counted on the 'undecideds' and its difficult to figure out who they would have voted before, given their fence-sitting position. Anyway, I knew Kerry'd lose. Lousy campaign and lack of charisma will work wonders for you.

Here is a thought.....with most Americans suiting up and shipping out to the Middle East, what is to prevent a US internal uprising?? Especially since the US has very lax gun control laws. The 2nd Ammendment could come back to haunt them?

Not going to happen. And most Americans arent suiting up and shipping out. Most of the military is..but out of a country of some 300 million..thats only 1 mil..

France will get pissed with Algeria for the plots to destroy the Eifel tower http://www.comcast.net/News/INTERNATIONAL//XML/1103_AP_Online_Regional___Europe/59134738-5e82-4903-866d-a69d38ae5171.html and maybe even, can I be right? The French might start a war!!!! Than we will help them. Not because we are allies but just for an excuse to attack more muslims.
Not really, we would join them because if we didn't algeria would win, which would be a bad thing. Of course, if they had german military advisors they'd probably do fine.

I don't see the fuss. This is just a sign that the world is coming back into balance.

Wow. Some of you guys are crazy. Let's start with a little history, shall we?

After the "holocaust", Jews were given their own nation. Before then, the middle east/near east wasn't a good place to live, but it was better than now. Is it right, based on the past, that a nation be created out of pity? My opinion is no. However, I do realize that most of you would disagree. If you think about it, nations became nations through military force or a very long time of a group staying in one place. This is how Israel originally came into being.

I realize that what I'm about to say will bother most Christians, so if you don't want to question/doubt your faith, I'd recommend that you quit reading. In the Old Testament, in Joshua, there is this big epic story of how the Jews conquered the Canaanites. This simply isn't true. Most scholars now say that instead of conquest, as stated in the Bible, Jews more or less settled in a place, populated the area, and eventually became the dominant ethnic group.
Another theory is that there was a big political uprising amongst the Jews and eventually, they rallied around the idea of "Yaweh" and built up their religiously controlled government. This is the least popular of the two.

According to scientific dating methods, the time in which Joshua was written has been shown to be a very very long time after Israel was in existence. Also, by dating methods, scientists have found that there in no way could have been the giant war that is depicted in the Tanakh(Jewish OT), as Jericho's walls were gone about 300 years before the events in the Bible could have taken place. Most Jews will agree that this story is merely an epic, rather than a historically accurate tale.

What's the point in this?

Simply that Israel was never a nation obtained legitimately. No war. Just the ability to keep culture strong and outpopulate others in the region.

Israel should not have been created, as Israel was never legitimate in the first place. That is all that was about. Also, look at Biblical history, now. Where were the Jews most of the time? In captivity in a foreign land. Babylon, Egypt, etc. Only for a few hundred years was it ever a unified state.

So, I hope this establishes at least a seed of thought so that you can check it out for yourself.

So, Israel doesn't belong in the Middle East, according to me.

Here's the thing. I am not alone. The majority of the Arab world hates Israel.

Why?

Most people do not understand what has been going on in the area. Our media is very very biased. When, before the last, I don't know, say, seven years or so have you heard the news report anything positive about Palestine? It didn't. It hasn't. Until recently, I would have said that the media wouldn't ever do it.

When Israel was created after WWII, Palestine agreed to allow Jews to take what they needed. I do not really know why, other than the political pressures and that most people would say that the Jews belonged there because it is their homeland. In any case, the Jews settled in.

What happened when they got there? Instead of just being happy with what they were given, as they did not earn it nor fight for it, they began to take over parts of Palestine. Palestine was fairly well established. It had been there for a while, you know. The thing is, instead of fighting a war against the Palestinian Army, Israel would go in and take citizens out o their homes by military force.

This is more or less what started it. After a while, wouldn't you get tired of a nation that you gave part of your land to stealing what part of it you didn't give them? I would. How,then, if your nation's military won't or can't do anything, do you 1) get your land back and 2) prevent further occupation? The answer is one that so many desperate Palestinians have realized as their only way to combat the situation: terror.

I will continue this... Don't want it to be too big to post.

Seems to me that Iran/Syria will end being the counter to US power, that the Europeans and Russians could only wish they themselves were.
I see that we have entered a new cold war pitting democracy against Islamic Fundamentalism. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if North Korea joined in, since North Korea is already allied with Iran.

I disagree about that assesment. Not many more troops should be needed. At the very most, maybe 500,000 more will be needed in the active force, and considering how many young people are out there, it isn't really that hard. All the Pentagon needs to do is a better job at marketing, and offer more goodies, like a really big reenlistment bonus.
What if the "poor boy" enlistment well is empty? Where are you going to find another 500,000 troops without initiating a draft?

What if the "poor boy" enlistment well is empty? Where are you going to find another 500,000 troops without initiating a draft?
speaking from professional experience, we don't need another 500,000 troops. What we really need are people who sign up because they are dedicated to the cause of freedom, and not just because they want free college or free work due to the private sector not wanting to hire them.
There needs to be a much greater emphasis on team cohesion and each unit should be required to go to the feild at least once a month while at home in the states.
Right now, as it is, there seems to be "every man for himself" kind of mentality. This is especially so among reservists. And you wonder why casualties are so high over there. Of course you're going to get killed if the guys on your left or right decide to do their own thing instead providing cover for you.

I'm glad to hear the news. God bless Iran and Syria. Good for them. I know Syria isn't that strong but trust me Iran has some pretty crazy shit. Just look...

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/04_002.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/06_001.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/05_002.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/03_002.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/09_002.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/c12-5805-7.jpg
Funny enough, their planes are made by Boeing. I wonder if they were rigged or something?? :confused:

modernArabian, nice pics, but the ethiquete around here is
1 pic and links after....like this:


http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/04_002.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/06_001.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/05_002.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/03_002.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/09_002.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/c12-5805-7.jpg

basically you show your Favorite...and links for the others...
some of us have slow dial-up 56k etc.

for me they are all displayinh as links

speaking from professional experience, we don't need another 500,000 troops. What we really need are people who sign up because they are dedicated to the cause of freedom, and not just because they want free college or free work due to the private sector not wanting to hire them.
There needs to be a much greater emphasis on team cohesion and each unit should be required to go to the feild at least once a month while at home in the states.
Right now, as it is, there seems to be "every man for himself" kind of mentality. This is especially so among reservists. And you wonder why casualties are so high over there. Of course you're going to get killed if the guys on your left or right decide to do their own thing instead providing cover for you.
What exactly are you trying to say here? You have stated the needs....sorta, emphasized the need for "cohesion", pointed out the selfishness, and described a less than integrated fighting force that is getting killed.

So how will the US prepare for an ever enlarging battlefield?

Ok. We continue.

I'm not really sure when this started happening, but I know it did happen and continued, at least until this last month. Sometimes when Israeli military men would recognize that some guy parking his car was Palestinian, you know what they would do? Make sure no one was watching, drag him out of his car, shoot him in the head, and place something in his hand so that it looked incriminating. The Israeli government has surveillance tapes of this. They did not stop it or ask that it be stopped.

It's things like this, and other smaller little things (like making a man sing and dance in order to cross the Israel/Palestine border so that he could worship) that make the Arab world hate Israel.

If you haven't heard about all this before, why haven't you? Our media. I've said it before. I'll say it again. BIASED. Why? There are two reasons. 1) The Zionist lobbyists in America are very very powerful. That's how Israel gets so much aid. 2) And probably the more likely answer, is that most, in fact, next to all, major tv networks/stations are controlled by Jews. Why not give your own ethnic group the good light? Everyone watches tv! No one tries to think for themselves anymore, so why not put out the side of the story they want people to hear while neglecting the other? Everyone will believe it for sure!

I would do it. I won't lie. Going back to the statement I made earlier about networks being owned/controlled by Jews. If you don't believe me about this list, check it out yourself.

Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Caravan Pictures, Miramax Films, Buena Vista Television, The Disney Channel, ABC, ESPN, Lifetime, A&E, Hollywood Records, CNN, Time Magazine, AOL, Warner Brothers, Warner Brothers Music, TBS, HBO, Castle Rock Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Sports Illustrated, People Magazine, Fortune Magazine, Paramount Pictures, CBS, CMT, Blockbuster Video, Showtime, Nickelodeon, MTV, Interscope Records, Polygram Records, MCA Pictures, Universal Studios, etc.

Do you think that if this much media is controlled by Jews that it might just maybe have a Jewish slant? I do. Maybe it's just me.

Anyhow, so, Zionists are powerful in American lobbying and Jews control a lot of media. Did you know that Israel gets so much aid that if we didn't give it to them, every American would have $5,500 more in his/her pocket ANNUALLY? Yes. It's true. Do the math, if you don't believe me. Aid to Israel (find it on gov. websites, I'm sure) and divide that amount by the number of US citizens.
It works out.

This is the strong tie between America and Israel. I'd love to say that it was just our corrupt government system that stands so strongly behind Israel, but I know that isn't the case. America is full of Christians. Most Christians I know believe that if we do not support Israel, God is going to abandon us. This is where religious supperstition gets to be dangerous--when it starts wars and when it causes a state to put the interests of other nations above its own. In fact, out of everyone I have asked about their support for Israel, only 2 or 3 people have been opposed to them. It's not just their taking over land in the Middle East that bothers me. It's the control they have in America and it's government.

So what does this have to do with Syria and Iran? Everything. They wouldn't hate America as much if at all if America didn't support Israel so much. Why were we attacked on 9/11? In a video Osama bin Laden sent, he said he did it b/c of our relations with Israel. Bet you didn't hear about that did you? Why not? How could you have? TV or Radio. Who controls TV and Radio? I'll let you answer that one.

So now we're hated b/c of our relations with Israel. I mean HATED for this. To go and make it worse, our president started war with Iraq. I'm sure he had his reasons. I personally think...1)He needed to clean up daddy's mess. 2)He honestly felt like Iraq had WMD. 3)He knew that if Iraq did have WMD, Israel would be first to go. 4) In order to appease the lobbyists and most of the world,now, we must protect Israel. I do not think oil was the issue, or else our gas prices would not be as much as they are now. Before the war, gas here was around $1.50 a gallon, and we all thought that was a lot. Lately, it's been hovering b/t $1.80--$2.00.

Ok. So now we have established that the Arab world hates Israel, and thus the U.S. The president now wants to "spread democracy" and fight people who are in his "axis of evil", which causes even more hatred. Read the third installment here in just a minute. I will explain why all of this does and doesn't matter.

http://www.turkishpress.com/w.asp?s=u&i=050208144332.oi9vchci
Either someone's polling is wrong, or it is too hard to guage. CNN/Gallup finds its approval to be the highest since Hussein's capture, the last high point. Those numbers may be sustained if it is relatively calm in Iraq for a while.
So which paper is more credible? The Chicgo Tribune or the Turkish Press based in Michigan?

Surveillance will be key. Iran (and any allies it has) must be able to find and hit targets with equal efficiency as the US.

With any luck there won't be many Iranian victories to galvanize the other side. However, if they do make some good strikes, especially in the first few days of any war that might erupt, the US would be in for a lot of trouble against an enemy with a steeled resolve.

You obviously know little about the US and its people. That would never happen... not at the current time, at least.
Yeah and no one expected the Okalahoma bombing either?

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEH412A.html
I found this a very interesting read, and I suggest that pro war Americans take the time to read it through.

Propaganda doesn't win wars......it is the little battles that happen in the field that determine who will win the war.

Everyone thinks that Iran wants nuclear weapons. I disagree. The only reason being, HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR MILITARY VEHICLES? They have a hard time getting a chopper up and running, much less a complex and EXPENSIVE nuclear weapons program. They are poor. No. They aren't poor, they're PORE! I mean broke as a joke. This is why they want Uranium.

If nuclear power was the only way, or even just the best way, that you could get your struggling country back on its feet, would you listen to all the other nations who are telling you that you can't have nuclear power because you might develop bombs with it? I wouldn't. I mean, electricity is good for a lot of things that we now depend on. Would you listen to another country that told you that you couldn't have electricity because the ARE SCARED that you will use it to kill people? No. That'd be silly.

Not only that, but I have to agree with the German earlier. America is a nation of terror. The only reason we won the revolutionary war was because we took the first step into terrorism in our minutemen.

Someone earlier posted that it isn't right for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Let's just pretend that they DID create WMDs. So what? That is absolutely no different from America having ours. What's the difference? We're Western and have common sense and won't use them, and they're crazy Islamic Jihad farming terrorist theocracies? Give me a break. We're both nations. If one nation can have a toy, all of them should have permission to have the toy.

I personally think that the new alliance b/t Iran and Syria is good. It will help stave off another war for us. That's virtue enough, right there. It will help to build both nations up economically and socially. Most importantly, I think, is that it is a move toward a unified middle east. So what if they are unified against America? If we lose our interventionist policies, then there is no trouble for us there. It will also help the region advance technologically. I hope they don't become like us and lose their culture and become fat, weak, brainwashed, and bullied by it, though.

Lastly, I'd like to encourage you to look this stuff up. Don't just take my word for it. Find out for yourself. Consider the sources and reliability of them. Try to find the biases of every person whose stuff you read. I am obviously biased toward the Iran/Syria side of things. A lot of people are just the other way. Make sure you look at your own biases that you bring into whatever you're reading. Be careful. Seek really hard. Trust your instincts.

I apologize if I have offended anyone. I just wanted to provide some information and then give you all my opinion about it. If the information is flawed (I'm pretty sure it's not), you have my deepest and sincerest apologies. If you want to email me, you can do it at kjarrell@huntingdon.edu.

Thanks a lot for reading this and being patient with it.

I have only read the first page of the thread so far, but everyone should read the entire article.
Tehran and Damascus have been strategic allies for years. Syria was the only Arab country that continued its warm relations with Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

This alliance is neither new nor suppriseing.

Someone mentioned the Gallup polls... you really really want to be careful about those. They're fricking biased as hell.

Check your recent past history. The US didnt start this third world war. The radical muslims did. But as normal we are going to finish it. Iran/Syria pact. Thank you Allah. Now we dont have to start two wars.

First, another world war is simply speculation at this point. No such event has happened.

Ok, just checked my recent past history. The USA did start it. You see America was attacked by Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, not by any nation. Sure I supported going after Afghanistan as it tied directly to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. That's where it should of stopped. The world would of been fine with it. But no, Bush wasn't happy with just going after the people that attacked America, he seen it as a chance to pick a fight with every one he happened to disagree with. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, how many different experts and agencies need to tell people this before they finally get it? Syria has done nothing to the US, Iran has done nothing to the US. So if a war gets started it will be by the Americans, thus yes, they most certainly did start this by going after Iraq in the first place. No one was against them going after Afghanistan, because it was justified. That is where it should of ended. Americans have been spoon fed so much propaganda it really doesn't surprise me that some do think the way they do though.

By god, then we'll see if that missle net actually works or not.

Nope, the last test failed because the missile didn't leave the silo.

Everyone thinks that Iran wants nuclear weapons. I disagree. The only reason being, HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR MILITARY VEHICLES? They have a hard time getting a chopper up and running, much less a complex and EXPENSIVE nuclear weapons program. They are poor. No. They aren't poor, they're PORE! I mean broke as a joke. This is why they want Uranium.

If nuclear power was the only way, or even just the best way, that you could get your struggling country back on its feet, would you listen to all the other nations who are telling you that you can't have nuclear power because you might develop bombs with it? I wouldn't. I mean, electricity is good for a lot of things that we now depend on. Would you listen to another country that told you that you couldn't have electricity because the ARE SCARED that you will use it to kill people? No. That'd be silly.

Not only that, but I have to agree with the German earlier. America is a nation of terror. The only reason we won the revolutionary war was because we took the first step into terrorism in our minutemen.

Someone earlier posted that it isn't right for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Let's just pretend that they DID create WMDs. So what? That is absolutely no different from America having ours. What's the difference? We're Western and have common sense and won't use them, and they're crazy Islamic Jihad farming terrorist theocracies? Give me a break. We're both nations. If one nation can have a toy, all of them should have permission to have the toy.

I personally think that the new alliance b/t Iran and Syria is good. It will help stave off another war for us. That's virtue enough, right there. It will help to build both nations up economically and socially. Most importantly, I think, is that it is a move toward a unified middle east. So what if they are unified against America? If we lose our interventionist policies, then there is no trouble for us there. It will also help the region advance technologically. I hope they don't become like us and lose their culture and become fat, weak, brainwashed, and bullied by it, though.

Lastly, I'd like to encourage you to look this stuff up. Don't just take my word for it. Find out for yourself. Consider the sources and reliability of them. Try to find the biases of every person whose stuff you read. I am obviously biased toward the Iran/Syria side of things. A lot of people are just the other way. Make sure you look at your own biases that you bring into whatever you're reading. Be careful. Seek really hard. Trust your instincts.

I apologize if I have offended anyone. I just wanted to provide some information and then give you all my opinion about it. If the information is flawed (I'm pretty sure it's not), you have my deepest and sincerest apologies. If you want to email me, you can do it at kjarrell@huntingdon.edu.

Thanks a lot for reading this and being patient with it.
Iran is in the middle of a region that is and itself is rich in cheaper energy resources than nuclear energy. Your second point about the US being a nation of terror is quasi-true viewed through the eyes of someone with your political position. But, the Revolution was not an act of terror. Your seeming belief that nuclear proliforation is a good thing or just because nuclear weapons already exist in the hands of some nations, not olny the US but at leaste 10 likely as many as 12 nations that's a point that I've read any makewhen they use the 'well, you have them' arguement, is childish and dangerous. There is no new alliance between Iran and Syria They have long been united by hatred and fear of not only the US but Israel and much of the West. This united middle east that you mention is extremely unlikely particularly when one takes into consideration the views that most Arabs have of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian government. I hope the middle eastern aliance you seem to want doesn't become as powerful as the US either, if they did jihad could well become less acts of terror and more subjegation of everyone near enough for them to reach.

Iran is in the middle of a region that is and itself is rich in cheaper energy resources than nuclear energy. Your second point about the US being a nation of terror is quasi-true viewed through the eyes of someone with your political position. But, the Revolution was not an act of terror. Your seeming belief that nuclear proliforation is a good thing or just because nuclear weapons already exist in the hands of some nations, not olny the US but at leaste 10 likely as many as 12 nations that's a point that I've read any makewhen they use the 'well, you have them' arguement, is childish and dangerous.

America is rich in cheap energy, but we know someday we might run out. So we keep it in reserves.
The same is aid for Iran. They fear one day running out.


There is no new alliance between Iran and Syria They have long been united by hatred and fear of not only the US but Israel and much of the West. This united middle east that you mention is extremely unlikely particularly when one takes into consideration the views that most Arabs have of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian government. I hope the middle eastern aliance you seem to want doesn't become as powerful as the US either, if they did jihad could well become less acts of terror and more subjegation of everyone near enough for them to reach.

Yes, united into a Alliance!
You are funny when you distort things.

America is rich in cheap energy, but we know someday we might run out. So we keep it in reserves.
The same is aid for Iran. They fear one day running out.



Yes, united into a Alliance!
You are funny when you distort things.
My point is that if Iran wanted nuclear technology because it couldn't afford to provide electricity as was claimed in the post I quoted they have access to much cheaper means. United middle east was a direct quote from the post above, as well.

I found this a very interesting read, and I suggest that pro war Americans take the time to read it through.

Propaganda doesn't win wars......it is the little battles that happen in the field that determine who will win the war.
There are more ways to "win" or "lose" an armed conflict than through force of arms or, I think it was, "heroic defiance". There is also perhaps a desire to end or lessen the civilian casualties inflicted while trying to defeat an enemy who hides amoung civilians. There could also be a desire not to endanger other areas that are relatively secure by moving the forces securing them to an area that has been more more difficult to control. Also containing a threat can be just as usefl as destroying it. I think the author of the article assumes a great deal they they nor I can know. It was interesting though.

There are more ways to "win" or "lose" an armed conflict than through force of arms or, I think it was, "heroic defiance". There is also perhaps a desire to end or lessen the civilian casualties inflicted while trying to defeat an enemy who hides amoung civilians. There could also be a desire not to endanger other areas that are relatively secure by moving the forces securing them to an area that has been more more difficult to control. Also containing a threat can be just as usefl as destroying it. I think the author of the article assumes a great deal they they nor I can know. It was interesting though.
Well of course the US could have bombed Fallujah back to the Stone Age (they just about did the same using tanks), but how does that reflect on the world view of America's self imposed role as "liberators"?

Is it not this type of warfare, and the associasted horrors, that would cause neighbours in the area to seek out protective alliances and to exchange vital information that could help disrupt the advancement of the enemy?

Well of course the US could have bombed Fallujah back to the Stone Age (they just about did the same using tanks), but how does that reflect on the world view of America's self imposed role as "liberators"?

Is it not this type of warfare, and the associasted horrors, that would cause neighbours in the area to seek out protective alliances and to exchange vital information that could help disrupt the advancement of the enemy?

The problem is that resistance is futile. And no, I'm not making a sick joke.

If the US can engage (and literally cripple) an insurgency inside of two years to the point where the insurgents kill far more of their own countrymen than anyone else, and can only kidnap a GI Joe doll and put it on a website and issue demands, and..

if the US can engage any conventional military force and crush it inside of a few weeks...

then you don't want to attract attention. Because even if Syria and Iran are allied, it was a predictable move.

Someone is playing chess up at the White House. And it looks like Condi.

I find it remarkable that somehow, the Palestinian-Israeli thing is still working. If that ends up going to a permanent solution, how will that affect the Middle Eastern dynamic?

It looks like Syria is less popular in Lebanon than they imagine. How would Lebanon view liberation? Or the downfall of Syria?

I believe that the whole reason for the invasion of Iraq was a ruse. That somehow, there was some plan (neocon or not) to stabilize the entire region - by subterfuge, by peace plans, and where necessary, by direct action and elimination of certain governments.

I'm not saying it's going to work, but you have to admit that Bush has changed the whole setpoint for dealing with instability in the Middle East.

Now, instead of having disingenuous peace plan signings in the White House Rose Garden, we have actual change. It may not work in the long run, but it answers the questions of those who have been wringing their hands for the past 50 years (and who have done absolutely nothing) and have asked the US to "get involved".

Well, STFU, because now we're involved. Don't cry now, because you asked for us to get involved.

Everyone thinks that Iran wants nuclear weapons. I disagree.
<snip>
Lastly, I'd like to encourage you to look this stuff up. Don't just take my word for it. Find out for yourself. Consider the sources and reliability of them. Try to find the biases of every person whose stuff you read. I am obviously biased toward the Iran/Syria side of things. A lot of people are just the other way. Make sure you look at your own biases that you bring into whatever you're reading. Be careful. Seek really hard. Trust your instincts.

Thanks a lot for reading this and being patient with it.

Yes, I trust my instincts. And I look things up.

Why, one might ask, would Iran develop the Shahab-4, -5, and -6?

What else does one put on top of intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Why else would the Iranians say in public broadcasts that these missiles are expressly for attacking Israel and any US forces that attempt to stop them?

Hmm. Yes, there's only a few things you would put on an intercontinental ballistic missile aimed at Israel or the US. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or chemical weapons.

I don't think that they would be sending flowers, do you?

Well of course the US could have bombed Fallujah back to the Stone Age (they just about did the same using tanks), but how does that reflect on the world view of America's self imposed role as "liberators"?

Is it not this type of warfare, and the associasted horrors, that would cause neighbours in the area to seek out protective alliances and to exchange vital information that could help disrupt the advancement of the enemy?
Which type of warfare isn't horrible? Has there ever been an occupation that didn't meet resistance? It doesn't appear that those making the decisions are very concerned with the world view of the US, at leaste at the highest levels, nor do I think that should play a large role in thier decision making.

America can't even expect support from Britain this time round. Everyone's still pretty mad at Blair, and those in line to succeed him, Brown, Milburn, Howard or even Kennedy wouldn't want to risk their own progress by supporting the USA again.

I know the typical American response: we don't need anyone else, we'll kick everyone's asses by ourselves.

But I hope you don't.

An oppenent who is givem a clear escape route is much more predictable and containable.

Thats certainly true. Any ideas on how to do it?

If so please write to president@whitehouse.gov

Plus the Saudi resentment of the West only came after major American oil companies took over the Saudi market.

<Scratches head - say what?>

They were always strategic allies, but they now are in a formal alliance.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iran%20Syria
Wonder where this could lead.
( shrug ) And the significance of this is???

...
Well, STFU, because now we're involved. Don't cry now, because you asked for us to get involved.
Who the Fuck asked you to get involved?

BTW you don't really need to threaten nuclear war. Once you publically acknowledge that you have them the option, or perhaps 'near-certain eventuality', that they will be used is clearly evident.

I will always watch out for those police officers now - I've seen those guns they carry, and the 'near certain eventuality' that they will be used is clearly evident.

America had the moral authority on 9/12/01 to nuke an enemy if they were so disposed. They did not. Israel has endured several invasions while in possession of nuclear weapons without using them.

Some nations can possess WMD without feeling the need to use them, other nations can't be trusted with a Toyota with a full tank of gas.

Who the Fuck asked you to get involved?

I've heard enough European handwringing over the past few decades about "how America should get involved and bring peace to the Middle East".

Now that we're there, and intervening (not always with armed forces - you'll notice that we've been round the block again and again with the Palestinian and Israeli peace plan musical chairs game), people are upset.

Maybe - just maybe - it's because we're not asking for French permission to redraw the map.

And before you get all up about "what right do the Americans have to overthrow governments and redraw the map?", we can talk about how the European colonial powers screwed the whole world by doing just that.

Nah. Thats the US. And they deserved 911 and then some.

Wow. Bet you get a real giggle in the rape ward when you tell the victim how her behaviour brought about the attack.

Nope, the last test failed because the missile didn't leave the silo.

Technically, the missile works. Right now, they are testing the integration of the entire system - there are definite bugs there.

BUT...

for all those ignorant pundits who said that a "bullet cannot hit a bullet," they can stuff that up their ass, because the missile itself, and its underlying technological concepts WORK.

Right now, it's only a matter of getting the whole integrated system to work together. That will entail SOME failures. But it's now an engineering problem - it's only a matter of time.

Offering bonuses requires money. Money that is in increasingly short supply. And like I said above, no one wants to sign up for a pointless war.

America, for some bizarre reason, is the only nation in the world that fights with you, and then pays to clean up afterwards.

Most countries would let the vanquished pay for the war.

I wonder if America occupied the middle east and KEPT it whether there would be a cash problem?

Ending terrorism will have to be the next step, and it just can't be done with force as Iraq is showing us.

I think Machiavelli would tell you it can't be done with inadequate force...

Precisely :)

So far the opinions of the Iraq War II are not favourable.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-poll-iraq,1,3541538.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

How do those numbers compare to Vietnam?

39% of America is still a 120MM population pool.

What if the "poor boy" enlistment well is empty? Where are you going to find another 500,000 troops without initiating a draft?

Well, it might be a good idea to wait, and let Iran give a nuke to some itinerant terrorists who will detonate it on US soil (or ship it themselves via frieghter).

If one, just one, nuclear weapon detonates in the US, no matter who sent it (North Korea or Iran - or some terrorist group), you can count on the following:

1. An immediate roundup of all Muslims in the United States, and their indefinite internment - as in "forever".
2. Lines of people trying to sign up for the military.
3. A nuclear attack on Iran and North Korea.
4. Invasion of Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and North Korea - we won't need that many troops, because a lot of the people in those countries will be dead.

So, I'm all for the "wait and see" approach that Europeans would like us to follow. It's the one most likely to result in a final solution imposed by the US.

I found this a very interesting read, and I suggest that pro war Americans take the time to read it through.

Propaganda doesn't win wars......it is the little battles that happen in the field that determine who will win the war.
Says someone who completely ignores the realities of the Vietnam war.

Seems to me that Iran/Syria will end being the counter to US power, that the Europeans and Russians could only wish they themselves were.
I see that we have entered a new cold war pitting democracy against Islamic Fundamentalism. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if North Korea joined in, since North Korea is already allied with Iran.

If the United States wanted to destroy the militaries and the industrial infrastructure and the nuclear power plants of Syria and Iran and North Korea, and were NOT interested in occupying the countries, do you honestly think that their armed forces could realistically do ANYTHING to stop it?

First ask yourself the question assuming that the US will only use conventional weapons.

Then ask yourself the question assuming that the US will use nuclear weapons.

In either case, the result would be nearly the same - the only difference would be comparing a month or two of bombardment to 30 minutes of nuclear hell.

And none of those nations, allied or not, could do anything to stop an American air attack. Nothing.

Ending terrorism will have to be the next step, and it just can't be done with force as Iraq is showing us.
Um, how long have we been in Iraq? Considering the lefty's predictions before we went in and before we attacked Fallujah etc.. etc.. I'd say we're doing pretty damn well. All things take time.

just thought id point out there are only 3 countries in the middle east with democracies right now... palestine, Israel, and Iraq.. there are no other democracies in the middle east >.> (by all meaningful aspects of the term democracy)
The palestinians don't have a country, and their leader has little to no control over what happens in his area of purview if the continued attacks on Israel and the release of Hamas funding are any indication.

I've heard enough European handwringing over the past few decades about "how America should ..My dad 've heard enough European handwringing over the past few decades about "how MU was the best ever"...

and My uncle 've heard enough European handwringing over the past few decades about "how Ajax was the best ever"...

Next time you hear Europeans handwringing over...anything...do not take it as an excuse to kill people.

BTW ...decades? you must be pretty old.

My dad 've heard enough European handwringing over the past few decades about "how MU was the best ever"...

and My uncle 've heard enough European handwringing over the past few decades about "how Ajax was the best ever"...

Next time you hear Europeans handwringing over...anything...do not take it as an excuse to kill people.

BTW ...decades? you must be pretty old.

44. I've been hearing European complaints such as "why doesn't the US do something about the unrest and conflict in the Middle East?" since I was in short pants.

44. I've been hearing European complaints such as "why doesn't the US do something about the unrest and conflict in the Middle East?" since I was in short pants.
Well I am a bit older than you and I think those people that made that comment were looking towards the US to broker a peace agreement involving Israel and the Arabs.

I don't think they meant that the US should go around shooting up the Middle East, and invading countries. :eek:

The problem is that resistance is futile. And no, I'm not making a sick joke.
It appears that resistance has actually been very strong. Not only have traditional allies decided to sit this one out, but the insurgents have done a surprisingly good job "resisting" their invaders.

If the US can engage (and literally cripple) an insurgency inside of two years to the point where the insurgents kill far more of their own countrymen than anyone else, and can only kidnap a GI Joe doll and put it on a website and issue demands, and..
You are talking about a country with 1/12th the population of that of the US, whose air force was non existent, whose anti-aircraft positions have been bombed for the past 10 years, and whose army was poorly equipped to compete against cruise missles, daisy cutter bombs, and stealth fighter jets.

That fact that it has taken this long (2 years) suggests that the Iraqi insurgents were tougher than was thought possible?

if the US can engage any conventional military force and crush it inside of a few weeks...
Iraqi's army was anything BUT conventional as compared to the US army?

then you don't want to attract attention. Because even if Syria and Iran are allied, it was a predictable move.
Predictable because there is strength in numbers?

Someone is playing chess up at the White House. And it looks like Condi.
Yes someone is playing chess and it looks like Condi is one of the pawns.

I find it remarkable that somehow, the Palestinian-Israeli thing is still working. If that ends up going to a permanent solution, how will that affect the Middle Eastern dynamic?
A quickie visit by Condi and it is all hugs and kisses in Jerusalem? Dreamer.
It looks like Syria is less popular in Lebanon than they imagine. How would Lebanon view liberation? Or the downfall of Syria?

Good question.

I believe that the whole reason for the invasion of Iraq was a ruse. That somehow, there was some plan (neocon or not) to stabilize the entire region - by subterfuge, by peace plans, and where necessary, by direct action and elimination of certain governments.
It was a ruse alright. No WMD, no terrorists connected to 9/11, but lots of oil. Which has resulted in the destabilization of the entire region. Yeah this policy would fit right in with the Project for a New American Century.

I'm not saying it's going to work, but you have to admit that Bush has changed the whole setpoint for dealing with instability in the Middle East.
Well I don't think it will work, and yeah Bush has changed the setpoint by destablizing the Middle East, creating increased terrorism, and more hatred towards the US.

Now, instead of having disingenuous peace plan signings in the White House Rose Garden, we have actual change. It may not work in the long run, but it answers the questions of those who have been wringing their hands for the past 50 years (and who have done absolutely nothing) and have asked the US to "get involved".
Those wringing their hands over the past 50 years had more to do with the Cold War period where the threat of nuclear was a clear and present danger.

The world was nicely moving towards de-armament through the SALT treaties and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Bush has since distanced himself from these noble goals and by his invasion of Iraq, has created a mad rush towards nuclear armaments for the countries on Bushs' hit list WTG Georgie boy!!

Well, STFU, because now we're involved. Don't cry now, because you asked for us to get involved.
No one asked you to get involved in Iraq. In fact the UN Security Council said NO to Georgie boy. But like a spoiled kid, he went and did what he wanted to do. Now the world awaits his next blunder.

Yar, lets get the nuclear cannonballs ready in me nuclear pirate ship

Babylon is boiling over. I think the world is going to be remarkably different in five years.

Babylon is boiling over. I think the world is going to be remarkably different in five years.
I do believe that this is the real concern in the world today!! :(

If the United States wanted to destroy the militaries and the industrial infrastructure and the nuclear power plants of Syria and Iran and North Korea, and were NOT interested in occupying the countries, do you honestly think that their armed forces could realistically do ANYTHING to stop it?

First ask yourself the question assuming that the US will only use conventional weapons.

Then ask yourself the question assuming that the US will use nuclear weapons.

In either case, the result would be nearly the same - the only difference would be comparing a month or two of bombardment to 30 minutes of nuclear hell.

And none of those nations, allied or not, could do anything to stop an American air attack. Nothing.

You seem to have forgotten how quickly this would escalate into the world war. You see, Syria and Iran are allied.
Suppose the US invades Syria, for the cause of "liberating" Lebanon. Now because of the defense alliance, Iran declares war on the US. Then because they are allied with the US, Israel and Saudi declare war on both Syria and Iran. Now lets take North Korea, which is allied with Iran. North Korea decides to get in and declares war on the US and attacks both Japan and South Korea. But we have sufficient troops and equipment to counter a north korean attack and we invade North Korea as well as Iran and Syria.
So now South Korea and Japan, are caught up in a war that started in the mid east. Now you have to remember that North Korea is allied heavily with the China. So because we've invaded North korea, China has no choice but to declare war on the US, South Korea, Japan and the nationalists on Taiwan, and the next thing you know, Taiwan is under direct military, and US troops numbering 30,000 in Korea now face a billion man army coming down out of China. And because China is allied with Russia, with whome US relations have been souring lately, Russia under Putin may decide to abide by its treaty obligations with China, and send troops to both Iran and Korea to combat the American "aggression".
Meantime, the Europeans are so turned off, or at least they are saying they are, that they decide to sit this one out. It's not their fight, is what they will say. But because of the proximity of American troops in Eastern Europe to Russia, you could expect a Russian invasion of east Europe. So Western Europe might get dragged in whether they want to or not.
Australia might be dragged in depending on whether China decides they want to attempt an attack on the Phillipines. But most likely they would the choice, more than any other nation, as to whether to sit this conflict out. Meantime, you have Europeans deciding that its time to set up an independent republic of Chechnya, just to punish Russia for attacking East Europe.
Now you can say, We'll just nuke them if they get involved or if we get huge casualties. True, we could, but then you would have nuclear retaliation not only from North Korea and possibly Iran that would hit allied nations and US troops on the ground, but you would also have Chinese and Russian nukes flying in and vaporizing US cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, New Orleans, Palmbeach, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Kansas City, Seattle, Anchorage, Honolulu, Washington DC, etc.
And guess what, if your small town has auto factory or a plane factory or any kind of manufacturing plant, chances are, your small town could be targeted by the Russians or the Chinese as well.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, and while all this is going on, we will have Fidel Castro down in Cuba cheering on Russia.

Think about it.

What exactly are you trying to say here? You have stated the needs....sorta, emphasized the need for "cohesion", pointed out the selfishness, and described a less than integrated fighting force that is getting killed.

So how will the US prepare for an ever enlarging battlefield?
We need to be united. We are not united. A nation that is divided is doomed to fall.
The answer is containment, we need to contain Iran and Syria, not attack them out right, for the reasons I posted earlier.

You seem to have forgotten how quickly this would escalate into the world war. You see, Syria and Iran are allied.
Suppose the US invades Syria, for the cause of "liberating" Lebanon. Now because of the defense alliance, Iran declares war on the US. Then because they are allied with the US, Israel and Saudi declare war on both Syria and Iran. Now lets take North Korea, which is allied with Iran. North Korea decides to get in and declares war on the US and attacks both Japan and South Korea. But we have sufficient troops and equipment to counter a north korean attack and we invade North Korea as well as Iran and Syria.
So now South Korea and Japan, are caught up in a war that started in the mid east. Now you have to remember that North Korea is allied heavily with the China. So because we've invaded North korea, China has no choice but to declare war on the US, South Korea, Japan and the nationalists on Taiwan, and the next thing you know, Taiwan is under direct military, and US troops numbering 30,000 in Korea now face a billion man army coming down out of China. And because China is allied with Russia, with whome US relations have been souring lately, Russia under Putin may decide to abide by its treaty obligations with China, and send troops to both Iran and Korea to combat the American "aggression".
Meantime, the Europeans are so turned off, or at least they are saying they are, that they decide to sit this one out. It's not their fight, is what they will say. But because of the proximity of American troops in Eastern Europe to Russia, you could expect a Russian invasion of east Europe. So Western Europe might get dragged in whether they want to or not.
Australia might be dragged in depending on whether China decides they want to attempt an attack on the Phillipines. But most likely they would the choice, more than any other nation, as to whether to sit this conflict out. Meantime, you have Europeans deciding that its time to set up an independent republic of Chechnya, just to punish Russia for attacking East Europe.
Now you can say, We'll just nuke them if they get involved or if we get huge casualties. True, we could, but then you would have nuclear retaliation not only from North Korea and possibly Iran that would hit allied nations and US troops on the ground, but you would also have Chinese and Russian nukes flying in and vaporizing US cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, New Orleans, Palmbeach, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Kansas City, Seattle, Anchorage, Honolulu, Washington DC, etc.
And guess what, if your small town has auto factory or a plane factory or any kind of manufacturing plant, chances are, your small town could be targeted by the Russians or the Chinese as well.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, and while all this is going on, we will have Fidel Castro down in Cuba cheering on Russia.

Think about it.


Neither the Russians, nor the Chinese, would be involved.

The Chinese would not move to defend North Korea.
The Russian military cannot credibly project power, even within its own borders.
Europe isn't going to go anywhere and help the Chechens - Europeans can't credibly project power, either.

Europe, China, and Russia like economic stability, which they have as long as they don't go to war, which is why their defense budgets are miniscule and their militaries small.

The average European would rather get social services from his government, a pension, and better working conditions, than pay for the military.

Iran and Syria, even if both worked together, would not last (in terms of conventional fighting forces) longer than a couple of weeks. Any massed forces on their part would be massacred from the air.

May I remind you that this time around (showing horrific improvement over the first Gulf War), it only took 3 B-52s on a single pass with the latest smart weapons (cluster bombs with smart bomblets) to kill two divisions of Iraqi's finest armored forces. In 30 seconds, without warning, 32,000 men died and 2000 vehicles of all types were destroyed.

Want to place money on how many could die in Iran and Syria if they call the bluff?

Neither the Russians, nor the Chinese, would be involved.

The Chinese would not move to defend North Korea.
The Russian military cannot credibly project power, even within its own borders.
Europe isn't going to go anywhere and help the Chechens - Europeans can't credibly project power, either.

Europe, China, and Russia like economic stability, which they have as long as they don't go to war, which is why their defense budgets are miniscule and their militaries small.

The average European would rather get social services from his government, a pension, and better working conditions, than pay for the military.

Iran and Syria, even if both worked together, would not last (in terms of conventional fighting forces) longer than a couple of weeks. Any massed forces on their part would be massacred from the air.

May I remind you that this time around (showing horrific improvement over the first Gulf War), it only took 3 B-52s on a single pass with the latest smart weapons (cluster bombs with smart bomblets) to kill two divisions of Iraqi's finest armored forces. In 30 seconds, without warning, 32,000 men died and 2000 vehicles of all types were destroyed.

Want to place money on how many could die in Iran and Syria if they call the bluff?

Russia would not lift a finger for its allies you say. Kind of arrogant thinking on your part don't you think? That's what the democrats said about Russia during Kosovo. Russia won't do a thing. Then we got pissed off when they showed up at Pristina Airport. And our general (Wesley Clark) ordered NATO to attack Russia because of it. And he got even more pissed when the British commander refused to do so.
Do not be decieved, Putin is no Yeltsin. Unlike Yeltsin, Putin has already proven his willingness to use force when he thinks its in Russia's interest. Witness the fact that instead dismantling weapons or downsizing his military, (Russia does not have a small military), he is upgrading his nuclear arsenal and is on a recruitment spree.
Same with China.
Now you are right about Europe. The only thing they care about is getting free bread that someone else is forced to pay for. As I said, in "the small chance" that they did, it would be to try to Europeanize Chechnya by stealing it from Russia. Russia is very much capable of force projection.
And I would remind you that Russia has everything that the United States has, stealth bombers, nukes, sattelite recon, special forces, mobile communications, joint strike fighters. In fact the US and Russia have been stealing from each for decades. They got their nukes from and we stole one of their JSF designs. (I can't tell you which one.)
In fact, its just the type of thinking that you exhibiting that got the US into the mess its in now, with souring relations with the world community. Not many people trust us anymore, cause they feel we've stabbed them in the back.

What's this increase size and decrease size stuff at the left bottom of this post window? How interesting its only visible when you move your mouse curser over it.