Will america go to war with china or iran

There has been speculation that america will wage war with iran for a while but i only relised a while ago that china are the next up and coming super power of the world .China apparently will be richer and more powerful that america within 2 to 3 years if they keep making money like they are.So will america try and attack china to stop them being more powerful than themselves because everybody knows how much of any idiot george bush is .So Do you think that america will wage war on iran or even china because it seems that george bush will do anything to stop anyone being more powerful or threating the U.S.

In a word: no.

Unless they are prepared to be villified by the rest of the world for the rest of eternity (or close) for that, I doubt it.

Let's face it: against China the only thing that would work would be a nuclear strike. Sure the quality of Chinese forces isn't yet up to American, but the quantity is greater, as is the will to loose lives, and the supply lines are massive for America and almost none for China.

So, unless a strike purely of missiles is planned that wouldn't win against a country the size of China (unless nuclear) it would have to be conventional as well. Which would probably require many ships... Going close to massed batteries of ground to ground missiles as well as the world's largest Airforce. Not the best, but numbers would take their toll.

Then there's the economic fall out. Suddenly the Dollar isn't stable. The Far east either dumps it out of fear or protest, causing a run on the dollar.
The massive trade America receives from China dissappears. Who replaces it? Japan or South Korea? When China is fighting the USA? Hardly.

America is finding fighting in Iraq and afghanistan difficult. Would the population accept a far more massive war (bigger than any since WW2) because of a potential economic threat??? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

China, no. The oil wouldn't pay back the costs of the war ;).

Iran: PLEASE NO! Gasoline is expensive enough as it is...

besides that I'm against war.

Well i dno just what people have been hinting about i know that it is unluckly but to be honest i wouldnt put anything past bush .Does everyone else think the same or different.Also i think that iran may be chance they go to war with them because they already have threatened them and george bush has said that they will if they dont back down on there nuclear enrichment

Actually, if you watch the news, the Administration is going to try to pass the Bill on another massive expansion on the military budget with a clear, written purpose of "containing Iran." Clearly it is preparing for the declaration of war. This has been a main issue since the new Iranian President has been elected.

It is actually easy to notice the pattern of encirclement that the USA has been establishing with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: all other countries surrounding Iran are US allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunobelinus

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that america within 2 to 3 years if they keep making money like they are.

---

eh, no.

With China,i dont think there is imminent danger of War.Against Iran,If US is capable of building a strong alliance otherwise it will take long time to deploy enough troops to area. My personal opinion at the moment is that its highly unlikely that there will be a War.But im known to be wrong sometimes so its still a possibility.~;)

Vs. China they will not be able to pull it off, not military, since China has enough nukes to bomb every single planet in the galaxy to bits, and not economicly, since they're too dependent upon one another.

Iran as new Lebensraum for Bush..hopefuly not.

China – No, any action against China from the US (or vice versa) would be economic. A fist fight with them would really be stupid, plus (regrettably), we are co-dependant on each other right now. And any fighting would be very damaging to both of us. Politically on a global scale, The US is greatly disliked for our policy of butting in but China IMO, is disliked because everyone fears that given the oppertunitythey would devour them like a bowl of chow mein!

Iran – Yes, we are already next door and they seem to pose a threat, chances are we will keep “policing” the neighborhood. I don’t think it will be as ground troop intensive as Iraq has been thou, it would probably be more of a bomb the heck out of them and only touch foot to dirt in key areas. That way we can still spend tons of money on bombs and missiles (keeps the government contracts happy) without endangering lots of soldiers (keeps the public happy).


Where did you pull this notion from?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that America within 2 to 3 years

---

I don't see why we have to choose -- we can go to war with both! And then we can "stay the course." That works every time ...

So china is a no war people think and iran is a possbility as they seem to be thinking about getting ready to go to war after the iraq war has finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunobelinus

...after the iraq war has finished.

---

The Iraq war is gunna finish? :wink:

I've read some things recently that suggest China may want a small regional conflict to show the U.S. who's boss.

I have no idea if that's rubbish or not though, maybe some Chinese politician/high ranking soldiers/civil servants on the board could let us know...

Invading Iran will be sheer lunacy. 4 times bigger than Iraq and with more than twice the population. USA has lost most of its credibilty because of the invasion of Iraq so not much chance of allies helping out. A US president that isnt the most popular among his own people because of Iraq and a US military already stretched pretty thin.

Even a limited military action like bombing isnt gonna be the greatest thing to do. There are 100k+ US troops in Iraq that can expect even more insurgent attacks, as Iran most likely will do whatever it can to hurt US interests as revenge.

IIRC China will reach USA in something like 30-35 years if their current rate can be sustained. Right now the only likely scenario for a war between USA and China would be over Taiwan, and its not likely for some time as China simply doesnt have the navy or airforce to succeed in invading Taiwan. That might take one or two decades before China will reach that level.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Actually, if you watch the news, the Administration is going to try to pass the Bill on another massive expansion on the military budget with a clear, written purpose of "containing Iran." Clearly it is preparing for the declaration of war. This has been a main issue since the new Iranian President has been elected.

It is actually easy to notice the pattern of encirclement that the USA has been establishing with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: all other countries surrounding Iran are US allies.

---

The goal of the United States since the 1979 invasion of the embassy has been to contain Iran - so don't read to much into the words "containing Iran."


http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=120427

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

WASHINGTON - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that the United States must persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain "the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."
Rumsfeld linked the costly and unpopular US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan to US concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its regional might, in an interview with the Pentagon's in-house television channel.

He said those who believe that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly or are taking too long need to understand that "success in Afghanistan and success in Iraq is critical to containing the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

His comments came amid a sharpening diplomatic confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier refused calls for a halt to its uranium enrichment program and warned Iran could withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States, meanwhile, said the UN Security Council would consider a draft resolution that would oblige Iran to comply or face possible military action.

Rumsfeld did not allude to military options in the interview, instead portraying US efforts in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan as a bulwark against Iranian extremism.

"The last thing Iran wants is to have successful regimes, representative systems, free people in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said. "It is harmful to their view of the world, to their extreme view of the world."

"So most people who suggest that the cost is too great or it's taking too long, and we should not stay the course, it seems to me you have to think what it would mean to Iran and how it would advance their cause, and their cause is a cause that is dangerous to the world."

Rumsfeld hailed the end of a four month political impasse over who should be Iraq's next prime minister as "a thrilling accomplishment."

At the same time, he said it was reasonable to expect that insurgents would try to sabotage the seating of a new government under Shiite leader Jawad al-Maliki, who has 30 days to form a cabinet.

"The new ministries named, and then approved by the parliament, will have to begin that difficult task of governing," he said. "It's a difficult assignment and it won't be easy for them."

If Iraq's interior and defense ministers are competent and govern from the center, Rumsfeld said, Iraqi forces will continue to take over responsibility for security.

"As we are able to pass over more responsibility, one would think we would be able to continue reducing down our forces," he said.

Containing Iran does not necessarily equate to invading Iran.


The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

---

But Redleg, we're already deep in two countries that border on Iran ... I don't know, maybe we should invade Iran too, just for neatness' sake. You know, have one unified swath of regime-change ...

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

Like CBR said, there's not enough support fo it anyway, unless ofcourse Bush succeeds in another "Osama is there!...oh wait...You're producing WMD's,let us send in observers....oh,we can send in observers?...it takes too long, we need to take action now or they'll bomb us!"

Besides the above, even if the Us would go in on it's own, they still have troops in Iraq&afghanistan, to send in another time that number would thus double the costs, good luck on the fundings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

But Redleg, we're already deep in two countries that border on Iran ... I don't know, maybe we should invade Iran too, just for neatness' sake. You know, have one unified swath of regime-change ...

---

Are you ready to institute the draft to raise the necessary forces to accomplish such a thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

---

Try reviewing the history of the last 20 odd years - it will give you a clue. Here let me list a few for you.

Bosnia
Kosovo
Somilia
Kuwait

I could list some others - but should provide you a clue. And before you attempt to retort - what nation lead others to do the right thing in Bosnia and Kosovo?

Quote:

---

Like CBR said, there's not enough support fo it anyway, unless ofcourse Bush succeeds in another "Osama is there!...oh wait...You're producing WMD's,let us send in observers....oh,we can send in observers?...it takes too long, we need to take action now or they'll bomb us!"

---

So lets see Iran refuses to allow observers in? And that is the United States fault. Nice spin...not.

Quote:

---

Besides the above, even if the Us would go in on it's own, they still have troops in Iraq&afghanistan, to send in another time that number would thus double the costs, good luck on the fundings.

---

Funding is not the issue - troops would be the major problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Are you ready to institute the draft to raise the necessary forces to accomplish such a thing?

---

Anything for neatness. You know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Anything for neatness. You know that.

---

President: Congress I want you to pass a measure to initiate a draft of all eligible young men so that I can go to war with Iran. I figure-out with Rumy that it will require about 20 divisions, and we all know how well he plans so this time lets just double it to 40 divisions.

Congress: Mr. President why do you want to invade Iran.

President: Well we have troops in Iraq and Afganstan - and this pesty nation is right in the middle - distrupting our logisticial chain. Oh and they keep wanting to build a nuclear weapon. So for neatness sake we should just go ahead and invade Iran also......:oops:

Works for me. Neatness counts!

Neatness is like cleanliness and like the old saying goes, cleanliness is next to godliness. Now see there, God just told us to invade Iran!

Now you Americans are playing Jean of Arc? :inquisitive:

Why would we do China,See Nothing Wrong with Them,yet.... Iran and North Korea are the Major Threats for now..

For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it and also if china becomes the richest in the world america are bound to jump to that and see them as a threat and they may end up joining with north korea if the americans start on the koreans.

Also iran is passing weapons over the border to help fight the americans so they are bound to be the next target in george bushes rain of evil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

.

---

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing. And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.




*put on flame suit*

Quote:

---

And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.

---

What, begging something like "please, Americans, stop funding the IRA to blow up British soldiers and civilians. Please proscribe NORAID"

"XXXX off limeys, hope you rot."

Contrast with: "Please UK, may we use bases in your country to launch a retaliatory F-111 strike against Libya even though other European states won't let the planes through their airspace and you have no way to know you will not be subject to retaliation as a result?"

"Why sure, anything for an ally"

We'll be quits when you let us bomb Boston, not before.

NB lest anyone forgets I hate America and love Satan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing.

---

Actually, you really had no choice ... Germany declared war on you, not the other way around.

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can have any

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

Actually, you really had no choice ... Germany declared war on you, not the other way around.

---

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing. And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.

---

Why should das dritte Reich be attacked by terrorists?:inquisitive:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

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)

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cunobelinus

For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it and ...

---

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 Shadow

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can have any

---

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:

---

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2!

---

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?

Somehow, I doubt that.

Quote:

---

For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it

---

Do you know anything about the Chinese government?

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

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.


~:smoking:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

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.

---

What you should doubt happening is the attack of Taiwan. We're not stupid, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can have any

---

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).

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:

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

---

Step down off your high horse and stop playing the victim.

how are us Americans being played as the Victim,Just??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Apparently we think North Korea can be,

---

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:

---

as can Israel, and Pakistan and India. Seems that "trustworthiness" is basically anyone who'se got them.

~:smoking:

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Apparently we think North Korea can be, as can Israel, and Pakistan and India.

~:smoking:

---

North Korea, no. Pakistan, no. Isreal, yes. India, most likely yes.

It was a mistake letting the first two ever get nukes.

Quote:

---

how are us Americans being played as the Victim,Just??

---

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.

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can [sic?]have any

---

I don't either (assuming you meant can't).

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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).

---

The USA being the only country in the world to have used Nukes gives me pause for thought on the trust issue.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

---

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.

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

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:

---

Yes some people did donate guns. I will try to find a link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

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..

---

They didn't 'get' the nukes. They made them.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

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?

---

Gee, that's logical. :dizzy2:

I'll won't even go into the rant about WWII,enough has been said to whipe that argument from the table.

Quote:

---

Bosnia
Kosovo
Somilia
Kuwait

---

United Nations.

Quote:

---

So lets see Iran refuses to allow observers in? And that is the United States fault. Nice spin...not.

---

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:

---

Funding is not the issue - troops would be the major problem.

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

who does the US think they are to tell a country to let observers in...It's not their job.

---

One of the countries most at risk from a nuclear Iran.

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

They didn't 'get' the nukes. They made them.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

One of the countries most at risk from a nuclear Iran.

The US governments “job” is to protect the US from this sort of thing. From my point of view, it is their "job".

---

How real is the threat Iran will nuke the US...0.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

I'll won't even go into the rant about WWII,enough has been said to whipe that argument from the table.

---

To bad then - especially since I have not mentioned WW2 as a factor. A rant directed at my question in that regards would of been misplaced.

Quote:

---

United Nations.

---

The United Nations assumed the mission in Kosovo after it was begun. Then you might want to check out the Camp David accords and the Washington Accords.

Quote:

---

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.

---

The United States is a permant member of the Security Council and it is doing the action in conjuction with other Members of the Security Council. If your going to claim that is not what you stated - then maybe you should be more accurate with your claims, it seems your forgetting that as a perment member of the Security Council the United States is well within is purview to request that the nation of Iran allow the inspectors in as required alreadly by the Security Council.

Quote:

---

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.

---

If you don't have the troops you can't go to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

---

The area occupied by the people who classify themselves as being of the nationality Korean is North Korea and South Korea as a whole. Just because they are not a part of the same country doesn't make them of a different nationality. I'm talking in racial terms: the conquest of Egypt by Britain, for example, doesn't make all Egyptians into British, it just makes them part of the state. Their nationality remains Egyptian. Same as Scotland, Wales and the Northern Irish. They call themselves such, it's less common for a Brit to define themselves as 'British' if asked what nationality they are.

But let's not turn this into an argument about a single word and part disagreed, shall we?


By the way, Redleg: In my knowledge, the Iraq war wasn't ratified by the UN, but then again I don't know much, being a teen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

To bad then - especially since I have not mentioned WW2 as a factor. A rant directed at my question in that regards would of been misplaced.

---

Have I stepped on your toes? It was clearly not directed at you, but at ceasar010 ,who made this post :https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=27

thought it was pretty clear, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

The United Nations assumed the mission in Kosovo after it was begun. Then you might want to check out the Camp David accords and the Washington Accords.

The United States is a permant member of the Security Council and it is doing the action in conjuction with other Members of the Security Council. If your going to claim that is not what you stated - then maybe you should be more accurate with your claims, it seems your forgetting that as a perment member of the Security Council the United States is well within is purview to request that the nation of Iran allow the inspectors in as required alreadly by the Security Council.

---

Yes, indeed they are a member, but that does not give the US the right to act on it's on when it comes to war.

Quote:

---

If you don't have the troops you can't go to war.

---

That's also what I agreed to, so good that we understand one another.

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

How real is the threat Iran will nuke the US...0.

---

Funny, that’s the same thing everyone would have said a few years ago about the possibility of an attack like the ones that happened on 911. Iran poses a threat if left to their own devices, why should we wait when they can be stopped now, peacefully, if Iran would agree to some reasonable requests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

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...

---

How hypocritical is this.:dizzy2: Iran is not big on respecting other countries or the people that live in them, but the US are the bad guys for wanting to reduce the threat they pose. You are right thou, it is not only about the US it is also about any country that Iran decides they want to wipe off the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Funny, that’s the same thing everyone would have said a few years ago about the possibility of an attack like the ones that happened on 911. Iran poses a threat if left to their own devices, why should we wait when they can be stopped now, peacefully, if Iran would agree to some reasonable requests.

---

That's a silly comparison,that's like saying that a 100 years back people wouldn't have thought it possible to land on the moon.

The attack was carried out by a small group of people,
not by a governement responsible for it's people which would have to face other countries afterward as well.Also Iran are not fnudamentalists willing to sacrifice their own lives for a spiritual cause.

Quote:

---

How hypocritical is this.:dizzy2: Iran is not big on respecting other countries or the people that live in them, but the US are the bad guys for wanting to reduce the threat they pose. You are right thou, it is not only about the US it is also about any country that Iran decides they want to wipe off the map.

---

It would be hypocrital if I was to say the US was wrong, while I did it myself. I did not justify any action from Iran. Please re-read my post if that's not clear.

edit:spelling

:idea2: We can always nuke the two, fill the crater with water, and call it Lake Freedom.

Seriously though...
If Iran were to suddenly stop being diplomatic and revert to their threats earlier this year (like threatening the west with 50,000 suicide bombers :dizzy2: ) then we probably go to war. However, this would lead to a draft, because our "peace time" forces are thin enough as it is. Of our 500,000 current servicemen, about 400,000 of those are overseas right now. I have no doubt that the US would win that war.
China, however, is a different story. In North Korea, the Chineese fought the US to a standstill and forced a peace agreement out of it when McArthur was fired for wanting to use Nukes. A concentrated war effort against China would be costly (especially in the very marshy, Vietname-esque terrain). But it can still be done, even without the use of nuclear weapons. But once China has its back against the wall, it would probably use them and that would be the end of the world.
Why would we go to war with China? Because we're tied to Taiwan. It's the next powderkeg. If China wants to invade it, we will invade them back. All that requires is for China to invade, and we have an instant WWIII. But I doubt that the Chineese want that to happen.

So we should attack merely when a leader says something which is frankly stupid.

If China invades Taiwan they're crossing a very thin waterway. To flippantly state we'd "invade back" there would need to be a concentration of troops to achieve this. Where would they gather, and where would they attack?

I personally doubt that America would attack China for Taiwan. There is much to loose and little to gain.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Have I stepped on your toes? It was clearly not directed at you, but at ceasar010 ,who made this post :https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=27

thought it was pretty clear, sorry for the misunderstanding.

---

No misunderstanding at all - a rant would of been misplaced which is what I stated.

Quote:

---

Yes, indeed they are a member, but that does not give the US the right to act on it's on when it comes to war.

---

I was not speaking of war - I was speaking of the fact that as a member of the security council it is within the purview of the United States to request and yes even demand that Iran answers to the security council about its violation of its Nuclear non-prolifration (SP) treaty that Iran signed. As a member of the security council and the world body of the United Nations the United States has a right to demand action by the world body to prevent futher violations of international treaties by Iran, and yes even to punish Iran as a part of the world community. If your attempting to state that the United States does not have that right within the United Nations Charter then your sadly mistaken.

When it comes to war the United States does have the right to act on its own - the United States has never ceded its right to self-determination to any international organization. War does not require the sanction of the world community - as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq.

Ask yourself this - is the United Nations a governing body?

Is it better to act within the confines of the world body yes - but don't confuse that with a right. Nation-states serve their own interests. Just like Iran is serving its own interest in pursueing nuclear tech. It seems you agree with that part of the national equation but have a problem with the natural consequences will a nation thumps it nose at the rest of the world.

If the world community will not stand up and be counted to inform Iran that it is violating its own agreed upon conditions - then shame on the world community. Trying to paint the United States as the bad guy in Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons tech - shows a misunderstanding of the international treaties that Iran signed in order to get international help in developing the tech in the first place.

Quote:

---

That's also what I agreed to, so good that we understand one another.

:2thumbsup:

---

:2thumbsup:

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

---

Not a fair generalization - most times the United Nations troops are not authorized to engage unless their is a direct threat to them.

Plus the Canadians do a lot more peacekeeping missions then the United States - and from what I know of their missions - they don't run away. They attempt to depart the area without causalities and minimize the loss of property to the innocent civilians.

There is only one instance of a group of peacekeepers that failed in protecting and responding to a direct threat - and most of that blame can be leveled back on the United Nations command authority for that mission and the national authority for those troops.

Careful on generalizations such as this - it leaves a bad taste toward the men and women who do put themselves in harm way to protect others regardless of thier nationality.

Also I do believe we have a mix of ex-peacekeepers, UN and aid agency workers... so it is an unfair swipe at members of the Org.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The goal of the United States since the 1979 invasion of the embassy has been to contain Iran - so don't read to much into the words "containing Iran."

Containing Iran does not necessarily equate to invading Iran.

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

---

Actually, that was my sarcasm. Apparently I was far too subtle for my own good. :bow:

Yes, I am aware of the United State's long-term policy on that particular "Islamic Revolution." It's only natural after all the histories together, and none of them roses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

---

Futhermore after more thought and getting more angry at the type of comment this is. I must ask these questions of you from solely a United States forces prospective - and I know other nations have just a great or greater loss from performing their peacekeeping missions - but unfortunately I don't know all of them.


So the Marines that died in Beriut in the 1980's ran away.

Or how about the Rangers, Green Berets, and soldiers from the 10th Mountain that died in Somilia - did they run away?

Such statements like this demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about world events. I would rather see no comment that degrades the fallen members of peacekeeping forces in such a matter - stick with criticising the United Nations as a political body.

I dislike the United Nations because of its incompentency and its political infighting between nations. Its a beuracratic's wet dream of an organization - but to degrade the men and women who perform the dangerous and thankless duty as peacekeepers because of the failure of the political appartus of the United Nations political body - does not set well with me.

To many brave men and women have died to fulfil the obligations of peacekeeping in war torn lands for such a generalization to hold any ground with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

There is only one instance of a group of peacekeepers that failed in protecting and responding to a direct threat - and most of that blame can be leveled back on the United Nations command authority for that mission and the national authority for those troops.

---

Just out of interest, what case are you thinking of here? Srebrenica or something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Just out of interest, what case are you thinking of here? Srebrenica or something else?

---

Yep - as this little bit of information from Wikipedia clearly shows why I take that postion. I don't blame the Dutch troops themselves they were thrown to the wolves along with the civilian population in the enclave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The UN did nothing to protect the Bosniak civilians in Srebrenica. One hundred lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers were denied repeated requests for reinforcements and consequently sidelined to witness what was to follow. Faced with the reality that Srebrenica had fallen under the control of Bosnian Serb forces, thousands of Bosniak residents from Srebrenica fled to the nearby hamlet of Potočari seeking protection within the UN compound. By the evening of July 11, 1995, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 Bosniak refugees were gathered in Potočari. Several thousand had pressed inside the UN compound itself, while the rest were spread throughout the neighboring factories and fields. Though the vast majority were women, children, elderly or disabled, 63 witnesses estimated that there were at least 300 men inside the perimeter of the UN compound and between 600 and 900 men in the crowd outside.

---

What is terribily wrong is that the Dutch peacekeepers informed the higher authority in both the United Nations about the situation and I am assuming their own command authority (because that is what protocals that I am fimiliar with concerning United States forces on peacekeeping duty) and absolutely nothing was done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

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.

---

No, I wouldn't like it too.

But what rights does US have that allows it to have a military spending both far more proportionately and aggregately then other countries but forid other countries from doing the same (china)

And don't tell me because the US would never use its vast military might with out clearly defined international sanction to do so because we have Iraq

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not? But remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(not aiming at you Tiberius)

All this make me doubt whether US military doctrine is as defensive and pacific as it claim and is China and some other present and would be nuclear powers unlike it?

Btw China did have a nuclear-weapons policy that prohibits nuclear use unless in retailiation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not?

---

Look at the way most African countries fight. Look at most Africian countries. You won't have to look deep to find your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

---

That's a very harsh comment from a kid whose combat experience amounts to playing a couple of computer games.

:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow

But what rights does US have that allows it to have a military spending both far more proportionately and aggregately then other countries but forid other countries from doing the same (china)

---

The right of an international treaty that Iran signed that stated it would not pursue nuclear weapons technology.

Quote:

---

And don't tell me because the US would never use its vast military might with out clearly defined international sanction to do so because we have Iraq

---

And because the United States does not require by its consitution international sanction - only the permission of Congress. Something that Congress seems to have forgetten.

Quote:

---

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not? But remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(not aiming at you Tiberius)

---

You have answered your own question. When was the last time a nuclear weapon was used in anger?

Quote:

---

All this make me doubt whether US military doctrine is as defensive and pacific as it claim and is China and some other present and would be nuclear powers unlike it?

---

The doctrine is based upon securing the interests of the United States.

Quote:

---

Btw China did have a nuclear-weapons policy that prohibits nuclear use unless in retailiation

---

Link - because last I heard they have adopted the same nuclear weapons policy as the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

But Then Again,the United Nations are Wussies Anyhow and the U.N Forces always run away when they get shot at..

---

Unless I'm mistaken, much of the UN forces are Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow

No, I wouldn't like it too.

But what rights does US have that allows it to have a military spending both far more proportionately and aggregately then other countries but forid other countries from doing the same (china)

---

They have the military might to back it up, and they'll never play fair. Why do you think they'd risk their position as the sole superpower in the world just to appease the rest of the world?

Quote:

---

And don't tell me because the US would never use its vast military might with out clearly defined international sanction to do so because we have Iraq

---

Didn't I say that Iraq wasn't ratified by the UN on this topic? If I hadn't I'll say it now. And, of course, the fact that the UN is stationed in the USA, most of the UN troops are from America and most of the funds come from America does allow the Americans to do pretty much what they please, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

---

And also what makes people think that an African warlord will have a higher chance of using nukes while US will not? But remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(not aiming at you Tiberius)

---

So, using a nuke is bad but the Japanese practically committing genocide in China and perhaps even killing more than the nukes is alright? Also, in these cases, the Japanese leaders wanted the people to fight to the last. That would lead to far more deaths than the nukes.

And about Africa, they've committed genocide there, and are always fighting. The UN doesn't care about what happened, as they showed in Rwanda, so they'd practically be free to use nukes.

Quote:

---

All this make me doubt whether US military doctrine is as defensive and pacific as it claim and is China and some other present and would be nuclear powers unlike it?

---

It is kind of defensive if you look at it this way: they're defending their position as the sole superpower, and follow the Roman motto of 'attack is the best defence'

Quote:

---

Btw China did have a nuclear-weapons policy that prohibits nuclear use unless in retailiation

---

Did I state otherwise?