No on both of them. Attacking China would be rediculous for obvious reasons. Attacking Iran isn't feasible right now because we simply do not have a enough troops for the job. We would need a draft and that sure as hell is never going to fly.
Printable View
No on both of them. Attacking China would be rediculous for obvious reasons. Attacking Iran isn't feasible right now because we simply do not have a enough troops for the job. We would need a draft and that sure as hell is never going to fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
I know but it would not be feasible for any one to invade the US, to many personal fire arms. (don't turn this into a gun thread)
Why should das dritte Reich be attacked by terrorists?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Concerning China and Iran, I doubt that much will be done. War against China sounds like suicide and war against Iran would mean less troops have to deal with more insurgents per square kilometre/country/region.
Didn't need to invade ... the Me-263 (or something close to it) could cross the Atlantic and get back again. Americans are a bit skittish when it comes to your cities getting bomber to hell and back ... and the Luftwaffe knew how to drop bombs. By the end of the war, the Germans had fully finished schematics for an intercontinental bomber designed to drop a two-ton dirty bomb.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
EDIT: Hmm, I'll stop now or this will get sent to the Monastery ...
Caesar, the personal firearms that your country has is nothing compared to the arsenal of weaponry that most countries have. If any were likely to get invaded the locals would get armed as happened in WW2 in the UK.
Your belated help in WW2 was at least part merely the politicians ability to see into the future further that you appear to be able to see into the past. A Nazi Europe bristling with weapons isn't a good thing for America. And better get the Europeans to die on the wire than fight themselves.
And it's extremely complacent to imagine that a country that can invade the USA couldn't deal with some small arms. Such measures as shutting down the gun shops and requiring people to hand in guns would get the majority off the streets.
~:smoking:
No, to both.
China, for all the reasons stated. Iran, because the next administration will be too bothered getting out of Iraq. And if you get past your 'Bush is evil' rhetoric, you will notice that the President has made a big jump in relations with Iran by offering talks - an offer the Iranians appear to be engaging with (on their own terms, of course, but that would be true of any country). President Bush (and I am no fanboi) is demonstrating some real statesmanship at present regarding Iran, and deserves credit for trying another route from sabre-rattling.
Actually, the Chinese government is one of the most stable around. No pesky elections to concern themselves with every four years. :bounce:Quote:
Originally Posted by cunobelinus
Because if anyone tries to do anything to America's nukes, they'll regret it big-time. Everyone with nukes won't work either: would you seriously want another African government toppled, and a warlord be left with a whole load of nukes? Personally, I wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
So, you want the Germans to continue sinking merchant ships in the Atlantic (yes, even before war was declared), and you want a loon like Hitler as the European dictator, who also has significant portions of the British and French Empires?Quote:
Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2!
Somehow, I doubt that.
Do you know anything about the Chinese government?Quote:
For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it
america wil go to war with neither.
now, america may attack iran, but it won't be anything even closely resembling the iraq invasion.
as for china, the only possibility of any armed conflict is if china invades taiwan. but i seriously doubt even then that the u.s. would take any military action of any sort against china.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You know who loaned you many of those personal fire arms The USA! American citizens out of the goodness of their hearts loaned the UK guns. And what do you do after the war....you throw them all in the !@#$%#$ ocean:furious3:
This is getting OT if you wanna start a new thread about it I'll be there.
You do something with those guns when there is an invasion you use them! you don't hand them to the invaders.
What you should doubt happening is the attack of Taiwan. We're not stupid, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
Because Iran can not be trusted with them, and like it or not the US can. I don’t think that most countries have a problem with the arrangement. IMO the US has been a decent nuke babysitter (no one has used them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Caesar, you speak as though the guns were donated by individual people. That the USA made guns and sold them to the UK is known.
America leaves guns in warzones after they've finished.
Good speech. Nice emotion. Shame about the accuracy.
Iran can't be trusted with nukes. Any evidence for that?
Apparently we think North Korea can be, as can Israel, and Pakistan and India. Seems that "trustworthiness" is basically anyone who'se got them.
~:smoking:
Step down off your high horse and stop playing the victim.Quote:
You know who loaned you many of those personal fire arms The USA! American citizens out of the goodness of their hearts loaned the UK guns. And what do you do after the war....you throw them all in the !@#$%#$ ocean
how are us Americans being played as the Victim,Just??
Actually we don't. Kind of a distortion of the truth in this particlur area. North Korea is not trusted, there are continuing talks and posturing by multiple parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You should of just stuck with these countries. Should we mention France, England, Russia, and China. And I am sure I am leaving one or two out.Quote:
as can Israel, and Pakistan and India. Seems that "trustworthiness" is basically anyone who'se got them.
~:smoking:
North Korea, no. Pakistan, no. Isreal, yes. India, most likely yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It was a mistake letting the first two ever get nukes.
That's how. I wasn't addressing all Americans, I was addressing Ceasar010. Someone says something that suggests the US government has cocked up and such lines as; "The World hates us, but we don't care. They're all jackasses anyway. They don't deserve our help!" come rolling out in their droves. It's BS.Quote:
how are us Americans being played as the Victim,Just??
Yea. North Korea and Pakistan should never got Nukes in the First Place.you can't trust those nations in the first place,and trust them when they have nukes??meh..
I don't either (assuming you meant can't).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Will the US fight a war with China? The US has got to end somehow, someday; that's as good a way as any to commit suicide.
The US will be villified? Since when has that stopped them?
The USA being the only country in the world to have used Nukes gives me pause for thought on the trust issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
At any rate the USA is currently enjoying the freedom to "upgrade" its nukes to a higher yield while still staying within its treaty restrictions to not make any more missiles. So in that respect them lecturing Iran on acceptable practice is a little funny in my eyes...
But then I'd rather that Nukes would be the first thing in the world to be dis-invented.
As for the original question to war being likely, the answer is no. The US (and Uk as well) are already fully deployed in the world, any further action to topple a regime will only lead to more land needing to be occupied by yet more troops... The only viable way that would work is a draft which would be elective suicide.
Another war might well lose the position of the USA in the world today.
North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India have also been good at babysitting their nukes, as have China and Russia. Why? Because they have an appreciation for human life and can be trusted to adhere to the idea of mutual destruction being a deterrent to using them or giving them to terrorists to use. IMO Iran is not currently able to respect life enough to appreciate the idea of the mutual destruction deterrent and would be a wildcard whose trustworthiness would be too questionable. The only evidence I have is a vision of the future where New York City has a mushroom cloud over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Iran is welcome to ask our permission to join the nuclear club again after they have gone a few days without publicly saying they want to kill everyone, and allowing UN nuke inspectors complete access to their facilities. Until then, perhaps they would like to enjoy this gift basket of cruise missiles as a parting gift. :2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes some people did donate guns. I will try to find a link.
They didn't 'get' the nukes. They made them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCWarman88
Anyhow, Pakistan has shown that it's trustworthy to date, and North Korea might not even have nukes. N Korea is also a country, not a nation. Korea as a whole are a single people, so Korea is a nation.
Gee, that's logical. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
I'll won't even go into the rant about WWII,enough has been said to whipe that argument from the table.
United Nations.Quote:
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somilia
Kuwait
That's not what I said.See my first statement, who does the US think they are to tell a country to let observers in...It's not their job. That's why they gave life to the Security council.Quote:
So lets see Iran refuses to allow observers in? And that is the United States fault. Nice spin...not.
Both will be an issue I think. If Bush has lost his popularity quite a bit ( as I understood from the news lately), it will be harder for him to accomlpish things, like getting another few billion for another war.Quote:
Funding is not the issue - troops would be the major problem.
And as for another thing mentioned : Why shouldn't other countries be allowed to have nukes. Ofcourse I understand the cons, and ofcourse to some degree I agree, however saying "rogue states" shouldn't have them leaves me with a question :
How much of a rogue state is the US, it doesn't abide international law, wether it is environmental, economical or even the most important, in human lives (guantanamo bay anyone?) It starts wars without the consent of the security council and all just to make sure it keeps save itself, suppose the earlier mentioned China did the same...
One of the countries most at risk from a nuclear Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
The US governments “job” is to protect the US from this sort of thing. From my point of view, it is their "job".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
North Korea is a Nation State just like South Korea - which is the same as a country. Nation often refers to several different ideas depending upon how one choses to view the term nation. If you don't believe me look it up in any encloypia or dictionary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state
The Korean People is a Nationality - the Nation of Korea no longer exists - it is two seperate nations - North and South.
How real is the threat Iran will nuke the US...0.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Why are they most at threat? Because the US is the biggest threat to Iran with their interference.
There is also a thing like other countries, respecting them and the people who live in them. It's not only about the US you know...
With your arguments the US would've been bombed by China, Russia and a few other countries if they all behaved like the US.