looks like its on with iraq
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,134
Likes: 0
From: Baltimore
Originally posted by 1a-race
speaking on behalf of the entire Marine Corps we would rather fight Iraq. North Korea scares me.
speaking on behalf of the entire Marine Corps we would rather fight Iraq. North Korea scares me.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0
From: Philly
Originally posted by mingster
oh yeah? i've heard of the fanaticism NK troops have, but word has it SK troops are pretty tough too, should be good allies for the US if you-know-what hits the fan.
oh yeah? i've heard of the fanaticism NK troops have, but word has it SK troops are pretty tough too, should be good allies for the US if you-know-what hits the fan.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,772
Likes: 0
From: Signal Hill, SoCal
Originally posted by Wolfpacker
I was listening to a local radio show the other day, and a caller drew a parallel between Saddam and Hitler. I think he was right on target! It was the pacifistic attitude in Europe in the thirties (anything to avoid another World War) that allowed Hitler to build up his military unchecked, and Europe got exactly what it wanted to avoid. Can there be any doubt that Saddam's goal is to control the Middle East militarily, and with the oil reserves, the world? Given his past aggressions and atrocities is there any doubt that if he had nukes he would use them? Imagine the results of a mushroom cloud over Israel-instant WWIII! Wickerbill is exactly right, we have to take care of Iraq before it turns into another N. Korea, only one controlled by a psychopath!
I was listening to a local radio show the other day, and a caller drew a parallel between Saddam and Hitler. I think he was right on target! It was the pacifistic attitude in Europe in the thirties (anything to avoid another World War) that allowed Hitler to build up his military unchecked, and Europe got exactly what it wanted to avoid. Can there be any doubt that Saddam's goal is to control the Middle East militarily, and with the oil reserves, the world? Given his past aggressions and atrocities is there any doubt that if he had nukes he would use them? Imagine the results of a mushroom cloud over Israel-instant WWIII! Wickerbill is exactly right, we have to take care of Iraq before it turns into another N. Korea, only one controlled by a psychopath!
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
From: Rome, GA
Originally posted by Mark Turner
Why? If I was cynical, I'd say it's something of a vendetta - George W Bush is trying to finish what his father left undone in 1991.
Oh, and there's the small matter of Iraq having the world's second largest oil reserves, and the average American car having a tendency to do about 50 yards to the gallon........
And, as 1a-race says, taking on North Korea, which has the world's fourth largest army and whom even the US would be hard pushed to defeat on home turf (and even then only with monumentally high casualty figures), is something of a non-starter, so it's easier to target a state which can be "defeated" after a short, comparatively low risk poll-increasing campaign.
(Oh, just in case anyone's inclined to think I'm engaging in America-bashing, I'm really not - I'm a great fan of the US and most things American, but I just can't help but think that GWB has made his mind up what he's going to do and is now just looking for a pretext. To be honest, I'm not so sure that he won't just go ahead and send the troops, even if a pretext doesn't turn up.)
Why? If I was cynical, I'd say it's something of a vendetta - George W Bush is trying to finish what his father left undone in 1991.
Oh, and there's the small matter of Iraq having the world's second largest oil reserves, and the average American car having a tendency to do about 50 yards to the gallon........
And, as 1a-race says, taking on North Korea, which has the world's fourth largest army and whom even the US would be hard pushed to defeat on home turf (and even then only with monumentally high casualty figures), is something of a non-starter, so it's easier to target a state which can be "defeated" after a short, comparatively low risk poll-increasing campaign.
(Oh, just in case anyone's inclined to think I'm engaging in America-bashing, I'm really not - I'm a great fan of the US and most things American, but I just can't help but think that GWB has made his mind up what he's going to do and is now just looking for a pretext. To be honest, I'm not so sure that he won't just go ahead and send the troops, even if a pretext doesn't turn up.)
to just strike a deal with Sadam to just buy his oil? The expense and pain-in-the-assness of conquering and nation building a
a post Sadam Iraq would greatly exceed the expense of just lining up tankers at his ports.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,274
Likes: 0
From: Madison, AL
The only thing that is holding North Korea in check right now is China and Russia. They are both worried about Nukes going off in their backyard. Never thought I'd see the day when China wants the same thing the US wants. I agree though, North Korea really scares me!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
From: Orlando
There is a similarity between Saddam and Hitler. But I also see a similarity between Hitler and Bush. Let me explain. Historically, when the politicians don't have a solution to problems at home (like shi*ty economy, poverty, and others), they try to mobilize the mass into "outer" problems, in this case war with foreign country. Toyotomi Hideyoshi did it when he invaded Korea after he came to power in Japan, which was in chaos. Same story with Hitler invading Poland. Oldest trick in the book in my opinion...all you need is some weakling to pick on. Incidentaly, I've also noticed Bush's approval rationg steadily drop leading into this talk about "War with Iraq?" Hmmm...makes one wonder. I think Bush shouldn't start anything unless he is going to replace Saddam with pro-US government and make sure they stay pro-US/democratic...a very costly and long process for US. Better yet, we should ask ourselves, are we willing to pay both $$$ and lives for extended period of time so that some middle east country can be a pro-US/democratic country?
