who's next?
NoRights4You
08-08-2005, 01:45
Ok. Politics aside, The War on Terror/Struggle Against Global Extremism (you decide which one!) is not ending any time soon. The Bush administration has clearly signaled that they have every intention to continue fighting terrorism by using preemptive strikes. The Bush administration has said that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to prevent another attack on American soil. There has been talk of other countries receiving the same fate. So I ask you: What country is next? If you choose "Other," please say what country you picked and why.
Neo Rogolia
08-08-2005, 01:49
An invasion of Iran or NK would pose serious problems right now...it's already too late to prevent NK from acquiring nukes, and we're too thinned-out to attack Iran. I'd say Syria, it's the origin of many Iraq insurgent fighters and its only real threat is chemical weapons.
Eutrusca
08-08-2005, 01:51
"who's next?"
Yo momma. :D
Corneliu
08-08-2005, 01:53
An invasion of Iran or NK would pose serious problems right now...it's already too late to prevent NK from acquiring nukes, and we're too thinned-out to attack Iran. I'd say Syria, it's the origin of many Iraq insurgent fighters and its only real threat is chemical weapons.
But alot of the bombs are coming in from Iran so Iran could technically be the next target.
As to whose next. No one right now and no one in the near future.
I'd say Syria, it's the origin of many Iraq insurgent fighters and its only real threat is chemical weapons.
Lets us not forget here that according to the figures provided by the American military of those insurgents captured in Iraq over 99.8% are actually Iraqi, so claiming that Syria is the origin of 'many' insurgents may not be quite as certain as some figures in the media spotlight would like to have us believe.
who's next?
Russia. Why? Shame to let all those decades of planning and careful build up go to waste, and they certainly don't seem to be expecting it.
NoRights4You
08-08-2005, 02:01
As to whose next. No one right now and no one in the near future.
Yes, that's true. We don't have enough manpower. But I am curious as to who is on the list following Iraq.
Neo Rogolia
08-08-2005, 02:04
Yes, that's true. We don't have enough manpower. But I am curious as to who is on the list following Iraq.
France, hopefully :p
NoRights4You
08-08-2005, 02:08
France, hopefully :p
And what is your beef with the Frogophiles? :p
Celtlund
08-08-2005, 02:09
The US will not invade anyone unless provoked.
The US will not invade anyone unless provoked.
When did they adopt this policy?
Neo Rogolia
08-08-2005, 02:12
And what is your beef with the Frogophiles?
The poodle. Seriously, poodles are beautiful dogs without those savage butchers they dare call "groomers" ruining them. I love French bread, but that doesn't make up for the poor poodle.
Anyone who turns this:
http://www.e-michael.jp/gallery/toy.poodle-1.jpg
Into this:
http://www.kennel.com/poodle/images/poodle.jpg
Must be destroyed!
Celtlund
08-08-2005, 02:13
Lets us not forget here that according to the figures provided by the American military of those insurgents captured in Iraq over 99.8% are actually Iraqi, so claiming that Syria is the origin of 'many' insurgents may not be quite as certain as some figures in the media spotlight would like to have us believe.
That is not a true statement. Most of the insurgents are from Saudi Arabia.
Celtlund
08-08-2005, 02:14
When did they adopt this policy?
1776
NoRights4You
08-08-2005, 02:15
The poodle. Seriously, poodles are beautiful dogs without those savage butchers they dare call "groomers" ruining them. I love French bread, but that doesn't make up for the poor poodle.
Anyone who turns this:
http://www.e-michael.jp/gallery/toy.poodle-1.jpg
Into this:
http://www.kennel.com/poodle/images/poodle.jpg
Must be destroyed!
i assume you get angry when you see "best of show."
Corneliu
08-08-2005, 02:16
Yes, that's true. We don't have enough manpower. But I am curious as to who is on the list following Iraq.
Not me. For some reason I have a feeling we aren't going to be invading another country unless someone decides to pick a fight with the US!
Corneliu
08-08-2005, 02:17
The US will not invade anyone unless provoked.
Agreed 100%
Celtlund
08-08-2005, 02:17
...I love French bread, but that doesn't make up for the poor poodle.
Try Spanish pan (bread). It is much better than French bread.
That is not a true statement. Most of the insurgents are from Saudi Arabia.
Why then of the thousand insurgents captured in Fallujah were only 15-24 of them non-Iraqis according to General George Casey? It is possible that foreign insurgents are much more skilled at evading capture than their Iraqi brethern, but the figures certainly seem to argue that foreign insurgents are a much smaller factor than some would have us believe.
I chose Other, as I don't believe the United States will invade another country anytime soon. Soon being during Bush's and the next president's term.
Celtlund
08-08-2005, 02:30
Why then of the thousand insurgents captured in Fallujah were only 15-24 of them non-Iraqis according to General George Casey? It is possible that foreign insurgents are much more skilled at evading capture than their Iraqi brethern, but the figures certainly seem to argue that foreign insurgents are a much smaller factor than some would have us believe.
Read the latest news. News three to nine months old is no longer applicabe to the situation.
Neo Rogolia
08-08-2005, 02:31
Why then of the thousand insurgents captured in Fallujah were only 15-24 of them non-Iraqis according to General George Casey? It is possible that foreign insurgents are much more skilled at evading capture than their Iraqi brethern, but the figures certainly seem to argue that foreign insurgents are a much smaller factor than some would have us believe.
That's still more than .2% :p
Celtlund
08-08-2005, 02:32
Why then of the thousand insurgents captured in Fallujah were only 15-24 of them non-Iraqis according to General George Casey? It is possible that foreign insurgents are much more skilled at evading capture than their Iraqi brethern, but the figures certainly seem to argue that foreign insurgents are a much smaller factor than some would have us believe.
P.S. Do you have a source for "thousands of insurgents captured inFallujah"? How many were captured?
The WYN starcluster
08-08-2005, 02:33
1776
Really?
I kinda thought they started that policy around about 1812 or so.
:headbang:
Corneliu
08-08-2005, 02:33
Really?
I kinda thought they started that policy around about 1812 or so.
:headbang:
Funny, I thought we were provoked in 1812.
NoRights4You
08-08-2005, 02:36
I chose Other, as I don't believe the United States will invade another country anytime soon. Soon being during Bush's and the next president's term.
why so? do you think we will invade another country after we leave iraq? do you think the public cannot/will not support another invasion?
The WYN starcluster
08-08-2005, 02:37
Oh, & I vote fer Aruba.
Funny, I thought we were provoked in 1812.
Wasn't that the "54.50 or fight" thingie?
Corneliu
08-08-2005, 02:38
Oh, & I vote fer Aruba.
Wasn't that the "54.50 or fight" thingie?
I don't think that was part of it. I was talking about the British provoking us by impressing our people into their navy in complete violation of International Law.
The WYN starcluster
08-08-2005, 02:44
I don't think that was part of it. I was talking about the British provoking us by impressing our people into their navy in complete violation of International Law.
Nah. They were volunters. I mean why wouldn't you want to be in the Royal Navy? Good food, mild disipline, open bar ( or something ) ...
Maybe it was the Barbary coast thing. Custems around the med. are such a bitch.
:gundge:
P.S. Do you have a source for "thousands of insurgents captured inFallujah"? How many were captured?
I believe it was the Los Angeles Times that reported this initially..."Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the last week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said Monday."
That's still more than .2%
You are indeed correct. Brainfart on my part there I don't know what happened to my fingers - would you settle for more than 98.5% on the basis of those figures?
Leonstein
08-08-2005, 02:48
I'm not sure "invading" is the right word, cuz I think the US Military is already rather stretched in Iraq, and attacking any of those other nations with actual troops on the ground would probably be to much.
But my bet goes to Iran, who are now going to have to be put before the UNSC.
Read the latest news. News three to nine months old is no longer applicabe to the situation.
As best as I can make out from more current news it seems like what is being reported is that there may be roughly 1,000 foreign insurgents and maybe 20,000 Iraqi insurgents: which still seems somewhat out of proportion with what some figures have been saying throughout the conflict.
My reason for useing figures from November? They were the most solid ones I could grab as an example.
why so? do you think we will invade another country after we leave iraq? do you think the public cannot/will not support another invasion?
why so? do you think we will invade another country after we leave iraq? do you think the public cannot/will not support another invasion?
Eventually, I do believe the United States will invade another country. Certainly not before we leave Iraq. Reason being, our military is already stretched to the limit, recruitment has taken a nosedive in recent years, and a great number of American citizens are fed up with war in general. Our economy is already in a fragile state, our deficit is enormous. This can all improve over time, but I believe another war would simply be too strenuous for our country to effectively handle within this decade and most likely the next.
As for the public, I'd expect violent riots in the streets if war is declared on any other country while we are still dealing with Iraq. 'Nam on steroids, anyone?
Corneliu
08-08-2005, 03:06
Our economy is already in a fragile state
I suggest you go back and take a look at our economy. Our economy dude is NOT, repeat NOT, in a fragil state. Just the opposite in fact.
our deficit is enormous.
And shrinking.
Neo Rogolia
08-08-2005, 03:06
Eventually, I do believe the United States will invade another country. Certainly not before we leave Iraq. Reason being, our military is already stretched to the limit, recruitment has taken a nosedive in recent years, and a great number of American citizens are fed up with war in general. Our economy is already in a fragile state, our deficit is enormous. This can all improve over time, but I believe another war would simply be too strenuous for our country to effectively handle within this decade and most likely the next.
As for the public, I'd expect violent riots in the streets if war is declared on any other country while we are still dealing with Iraq. 'Nam on steroids, anyone?
I'm sure we could pull off another aerial-war like Kosovo, but that's the extent of it methinks.
How about the Pitcairn Islands?
Total popualtion: 47.
Provocation: take a look at the rape trials from 2004. Any country that has over 10% of its male population found guilty of serious sexual assaults is in need of a guiding hand.
Corneliu
08-08-2005, 03:17
How about the Pitcairn Islands?
Total popualtion: 47.
Provocation: take a look at the rape trials from 2004. Any country that has over 10% of its male population found guilty of serious sexual assaults is in need of a guiding hand.
The bolded is a pun right?
The bolded is a pun right?
'fraid not.