War?
Monday, January 27, 2003 by joetheblow | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Ok. I hope this doesn't become a "lets blow them up" or a "give peace a chance" thread but I was wondering something stratigic (spell?)
What if the US attacks Iraq and since Iran is also part of the "axil of evil", maybe it too will feel threatened and attack the US troops as well. I actually think they will attack them and that is what Hussien means by "many body bags".
Does anyone think the US has thought of this?
What if the US attacks Iraq and since Iran is also part of the "axil of evil", maybe it too will feel threatened and attack the US troops as well. I actually think they will attack them and that is what Hussien means by "many body bags".
Does anyone think the US has thought of this?
 |
|
Page 3 of 8 | |
|
|---|
joetheblow
Reply #43 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:26 PM
OK, when it comes to the Bible and other highly loved (or hated) spiritual text they all seem to be misused or misunderstood. Keep in mind that America (home of the free) had slaves at one time and there was realigist poeple in goverment and in churchs who used the Bible to say that those who are slaves should remain slaves and it was perfectly OK
I doubt those who say that God says this is a chosen land for chosen people. This is the main reason why so much violence is in the Middle East. Both sides feel they were promised the land (and apparently killing others to get it or keep it is OK too)
And as for Iran, I agree with most who say that Iran probably does not want to get involved.
But this scenerio keeps crossing my mind:
War with Iraq starts. Iran shoots down 6 planes and attacks a troop unit saying America will attack them next North Korea will launch a missle that will overshoot Japan (but the missle has a malfunction and hits the mainland)
Reply #43 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:26 PM
OK, when it comes to the Bible and other highly loved (or hated) spiritual text they all seem to be misused or misunderstood. Keep in mind that America (home of the free) had slaves at one time and there was realigist poeple in goverment and in churchs who used the Bible to say that those who are slaves should remain slaves and it was perfectly OK
I doubt those who say that God says this is a chosen land for chosen people. This is the main reason why so much violence is in the Middle East. Both sides feel they were promised the land (and apparently killing others to get it or keep it is OK too)
And as for Iran, I agree with most who say that Iran probably does not want to get involved.
But this scenerio keeps crossing my mind:
War with Iraq starts. Iran shoots down 6 planes and attacks a troop unit saying America will attack them next North Korea will launch a missle that will overshoot Japan (but the missle has a malfunction and hits the mainland)
Larry Kuperman
Reply #44 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:37 PM
Reply #44 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:37 PM
What if....? If we are going to have an open mind about this, lets consider all scenarios- even the most probable ones.
What if there is a war in Iraq and the Allies win? A repeat of Desert Storm with victorious UN-sanctioned armed forces sweeping into Baghdad? Complete air superiority prevents the Iraqis from using chemical or biological weapons. Saddam flees or is killed or becomes irrelevant? Based on history, this is the most likely outcome.
Just as in Afganistan a make-shift democratic government is cobbled together. At first it is doubtful that such disparate groups can work together, but surprisingly the regime holds. The Iraqi people get a taste of freedom and democracy. The embargo is lifted and Iraq begins to regain its wealth. It becomes a model citizen of the world.
Sounds overly optimistic? Impossible? To me, it is more likely than a Biblical Armeggedon. IMHO, it is a feasible goal.
Just my opinion.
What if there is a war in Iraq and the Allies win? A repeat of Desert Storm with victorious UN-sanctioned armed forces sweeping into Baghdad? Complete air superiority prevents the Iraqis from using chemical or biological weapons. Saddam flees or is killed or becomes irrelevant? Based on history, this is the most likely outcome.
Just as in Afganistan a make-shift democratic government is cobbled together. At first it is doubtful that such disparate groups can work together, but surprisingly the regime holds. The Iraqi people get a taste of freedom and democracy. The embargo is lifted and Iraq begins to regain its wealth. It becomes a model citizen of the world.
Sounds overly optimistic? Impossible? To me, it is more likely than a Biblical Armeggedon. IMHO, it is a feasible goal.
Just my opinion.
Adam White
Reply #45 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:51 PM
Reply #45 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:51 PM
this moderate democrat supports bush on the war on terrorism. that is as far as i can go with bush. the economy?- well mr. bush- IT SUCKS!!!! people are out of work.
sig101
Reply #46 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:13 PM
Reply #46 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:13 PM
Joe: Although life is far from logical, where is the logic and motivation for the scenario you propose? Especially given the likely consequences for anyone pursuing your imagined course of action?
Iran is where shooting down 6 planes? Are the 6 planes overflying Iran? If so, why are they flying over Iran? (Even the US asks permission for overflights as it did of Iran during the Afghanistan war, although I think Iran said no.) Or is Iran in Iraq shooting down planes and attacking US troops? Does Iran invade Iraq just to mess with more trouble than it can possible afford? Does Iran have the military means (and any motivation) to do any of this and endure the likely consequences? Iran I suspect is in no shape to take on the US military or give the US an excuse for any sort of potential retaliation. And why would they? Rhetoric and politics aside, most regimes are not really suicidal. (Although Saddam makes one wonder...I figure if push comes to shove he won't go down with the ship but perhaps retire to a cosy life under an assumed name in some foreign clime...sort of a tyrant's protection plan.)
Also, in reference to Iran and other "terorist" states (like Syria, for example) do not underestimate the sub rosa dealmaking that has been going on since 911, public rhetoric notwithstanding. One never knows who the US has cut deals with.
As for North Korea, are you suggesting they just for the heck of it fire a missle at Japan and it accidently hits the US mainland?? That's quite a malfunction...good thing they gassed it up before it left home. Besides, why is NK attacking Japan? A missle attack on Japan achieves what? NK wants things from the rest of the world and is using the nuke card to try and get them. Blowing up the people it wants help from is kind of self defeating, although their rhetoric doesn't make much sense to me. As far as your scenario goes, NK seems just as likely as to declare war on Rhode Island.
Iran is where shooting down 6 planes? Are the 6 planes overflying Iran? If so, why are they flying over Iran? (Even the US asks permission for overflights as it did of Iran during the Afghanistan war, although I think Iran said no.) Or is Iran in Iraq shooting down planes and attacking US troops? Does Iran invade Iraq just to mess with more trouble than it can possible afford? Does Iran have the military means (and any motivation) to do any of this and endure the likely consequences? Iran I suspect is in no shape to take on the US military or give the US an excuse for any sort of potential retaliation. And why would they? Rhetoric and politics aside, most regimes are not really suicidal. (Although Saddam makes one wonder...I figure if push comes to shove he won't go down with the ship but perhaps retire to a cosy life under an assumed name in some foreign clime...sort of a tyrant's protection plan.)
Also, in reference to Iran and other "terorist" states (like Syria, for example) do not underestimate the sub rosa dealmaking that has been going on since 911, public rhetoric notwithstanding. One never knows who the US has cut deals with.
As for North Korea, are you suggesting they just for the heck of it fire a missle at Japan and it accidently hits the US mainland?? That's quite a malfunction...good thing they gassed it up before it left home. Besides, why is NK attacking Japan? A missle attack on Japan achieves what? NK wants things from the rest of the world and is using the nuke card to try and get them. Blowing up the people it wants help from is kind of self defeating, although their rhetoric doesn't make much sense to me. As far as your scenario goes, NK seems just as likely as to declare war on Rhode Island.
Jafo
Reply #47 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:19 PM
Reply #47 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:19 PM
sig101...I'm not entering into another one of these...but I think you'll find it was meant ...if N Korea fires a missile that is intended to miss Japan but actually hits the Japanese mainland.
That is entirely possible and ramifications would be 'dire' at best....
That is entirely possible and ramifications would be 'dire' at best....
paxx
Reply #48 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:26 PM
Reply #48 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:26 PM
If North Korea fires up, it will be Seoul (South Korea). But don't try to understand the thinking of a psycho (North Korean president Kim). North Korea already alleged that they could hit Hawaii or Alaska with their missiles, and in a couple of year, they are comfident they could hit California.
Frogboy
Reply #49 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:34 PM
Reply #49 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:34 PM
Doesn't Norway have the highest suicide rate in the world?
The problem with UN statistics is that they ignore the significant differences in cultures in the United States and Russia. The standard of living between a Moscowite and someone in Siberia is very different. Similarly, the standard of living of whites, hispanics, and african americans are very different.
The problem with UN statistics is that they ignore the significant differences in cultures in the United States and Russia. The standard of living between a Moscowite and someone in Siberia is very different. Similarly, the standard of living of whites, hispanics, and african americans are very different.
paxx
Reply #50 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:24 PM
Reply #50 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:24 PM
Larry, sorry, but your hypothesis forgets some important details.
1- All Iraqi hate the US. Even if the hate Saddam, they hate the US even more. I saw shows on TV (they probably don't show those shows in the US). They remember 1991, and nobody in Iraq sees 1991 as a liberation. They see it as somebody attacked them and killed their loved ones. (war is like that, you tend to see only one side, yours)
2- Even if Saddam was replaced. Who would replace him? Just another one like Saddam who hate Americans (see point 1).
3- If Saddam's regine is overthrown, Iraq will suffer civil wars for a few years. As evil as he is, Saddam hold the country together by force. As soon as his governement is gone, the Kurds WILL rebel and declare an independant state, and so will the Shia in the south. This is not the apocalypse, it WILL happen. The Kurds of Iraq will then be followed by the Kurds of other countries in the region.
I am not making this up, just last week, there was a sommit of all the Middle-East countries and the matter was discussed, and basically, what came out is that all the countries in the region are very very nervous about a possibility of War on Iraq, for the reasons I stated above.
4- Iran is Shia, and WILL support the Shia of south Iraq. If not actually control them.
(Note for those who don't know, the Islamic religion is divided in two religious groups: the Shia and the Sunni, and they've been at war for many centuries (a little like the Christian's Catholic/Protestant thing). Iran will NEVER help Iraq, even against the USA.
5- My allusion to North Korea joining Iraq is just hypothetical. Not too probable, but a definate possibility nevertheless. Concerning the bombing of Seoul, I'm not the one saying it. Every journalist on TV say it. You guys don't have the same news as we do apparently.
1- All Iraqi hate the US. Even if the hate Saddam, they hate the US even more. I saw shows on TV (they probably don't show those shows in the US). They remember 1991, and nobody in Iraq sees 1991 as a liberation. They see it as somebody attacked them and killed their loved ones. (war is like that, you tend to see only one side, yours)
2- Even if Saddam was replaced. Who would replace him? Just another one like Saddam who hate Americans (see point 1).
3- If Saddam's regine is overthrown, Iraq will suffer civil wars for a few years. As evil as he is, Saddam hold the country together by force. As soon as his governement is gone, the Kurds WILL rebel and declare an independant state, and so will the Shia in the south. This is not the apocalypse, it WILL happen. The Kurds of Iraq will then be followed by the Kurds of other countries in the region.
I am not making this up, just last week, there was a sommit of all the Middle-East countries and the matter was discussed, and basically, what came out is that all the countries in the region are very very nervous about a possibility of War on Iraq, for the reasons I stated above.
4- Iran is Shia, and WILL support the Shia of south Iraq. If not actually control them.
(Note for those who don't know, the Islamic religion is divided in two religious groups: the Shia and the Sunni, and they've been at war for many centuries (a little like the Christian's Catholic/Protestant thing). Iran will NEVER help Iraq, even against the USA.
5- My allusion to North Korea joining Iraq is just hypothetical. Not too probable, but a definate possibility nevertheless. Concerning the bombing of Seoul, I'm not the one saying it. Every journalist on TV say it. You guys don't have the same news as we do apparently.
paxx
Reply #51 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:29 PM
Reply #51 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:29 PM
Brad: what, a white guy needs $100,000 to live while a black guy is content with $500? Not too sure I get your point.
Everybody needs to eat, get shelter, get health care, etc.
Can't say I know for sure, but I think one of the reasons you are 6th is your commercial health system. I believe that the health system is 100% free in all the the other top 5 countries.
Everybody needs to eat, get shelter, get health care, etc.
Can't say I know for sure, but I think one of the reasons you are 6th is your commercial health system. I believe that the health system is 100% free in all the the other top 5 countries.
Weaksid
Reply #52 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:37 PM
Reply #52 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:37 PM
To go to those population stats. It's because China doesn't seem to know what protection is 
For those stats, they don't even have the space to hold them.
Sorry, had to say something.
For those stats, they don't even have the space to hold them.
Sorry, had to say something.
Frogboy
Reply #53 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:40 PM
Reply #53 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:40 PM
Paxx: First off, you have no idea whether "all Iraqi's hate the US". You're passing wild speculations off as fact.
Second, regrettably there are significant standard of living differences between racial groups in the United States. The per capita income of Americans is higher than any other country btw (in 2002).
But the UN statistics take things into account such as likelyhood of being affected by crime for instance. But in the US, over half of violent crime is committed by a relatively specific group that makes up only 12% of the population. Other countries with very distinct cultural and ethnic groups have the same kinds of issues. Even Canada, where you live, has such issues. Countries like Norway, by contrast, do not have these issues because their countries are so homogenous.
The UN stats are so Euro-centric in their way of viewing things. They just close their eyes to reality and do a big old average of all the stats. And that's not realistic.
Now, someone can argue "Hey, that's the way it comes out with averages" but it kills the argument that country X is better than country Y. The fact is, from an economic, environmental, healthcare, and public safety point of view, being a European American (or Canadian) gives you a higher standard of living than someone living in Europe.
But even if that does't convince you, the UN "Stats" are just total conjecture. They're based on all sorts of nebulous things that aren't really measurable. It's politically motivated.
What do real people care about? They care about ability to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their families. They care about the likelyhood of dealing with crime. They care about being able to find a job they enjoy, that pays the bills.
Norway has a 3.9% unemployment rate. Which is good. But they also get paid considerably less for the same kind of work as Americans.
So which is better? Depends on your point of view. That's the whole thing, such arbitrary rankings are based on someone somewhere choosing that one is more important than the other.
Second, regrettably there are significant standard of living differences between racial groups in the United States. The per capita income of Americans is higher than any other country btw (in 2002).
But the UN statistics take things into account such as likelyhood of being affected by crime for instance. But in the US, over half of violent crime is committed by a relatively specific group that makes up only 12% of the population. Other countries with very distinct cultural and ethnic groups have the same kinds of issues. Even Canada, where you live, has such issues. Countries like Norway, by contrast, do not have these issues because their countries are so homogenous.
The UN stats are so Euro-centric in their way of viewing things. They just close their eyes to reality and do a big old average of all the stats. And that's not realistic.
Now, someone can argue "Hey, that's the way it comes out with averages" but it kills the argument that country X is better than country Y. The fact is, from an economic, environmental, healthcare, and public safety point of view, being a European American (or Canadian) gives you a higher standard of living than someone living in Europe.
But even if that does't convince you, the UN "Stats" are just total conjecture. They're based on all sorts of nebulous things that aren't really measurable. It's politically motivated.
What do real people care about? They care about ability to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their families. They care about the likelyhood of dealing with crime. They care about being able to find a job they enjoy, that pays the bills.
Norway has a 3.9% unemployment rate. Which is good. But they also get paid considerably less for the same kind of work as Americans.
So which is better? Depends on your point of view. That's the whole thing, such arbitrary rankings are based on someone somewhere choosing that one is more important than the other.
kthxbye
Reply #54 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:50 PM
Reply #54 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:50 PM
Uh....
" regrettably there are significant standard of living differences between racial groups in the United States"
There's a significant standard of living difference in the Unite States /period/.
" regrettably there are significant standard of living differences between racial groups in the United States"
There's a significant standard of living difference in the Unite States /period/.
kthxbye
Reply #55 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:53 PM
Reply #55 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:53 PM
Unite States?
*sighs* United States. One of these days, I'm going to learn to type on this stupid notebook.
*sighs* United States. One of these days, I'm going to learn to type on this stupid notebook.
paxx
Reply #56 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:18 AM
Reply #56 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:18 AM
You're right, I shouldn't say "All Iraki hate the US". Let just say it's like what Americans felt about Russia in the 50's. Sure, not every Americans hated the Russians, but...
War does that to you: it simplifies your thinking. Rare are people who can feel no hatred towards a country you're at war against, even more so if the said country defeated you.
As for the UN, I think you just don't like the UN. You'd probably prefer the US to rule the World?
Duh, what am I saying? They already do...
War does that to you: it simplifies your thinking. Rare are people who can feel no hatred towards a country you're at war against, even more so if the said country defeated you.
As for the UN, I think you just don't like the UN. You'd probably prefer the US to rule the World?
Duh, what am I saying? They already do...
paxx
Reply #57 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:31 AM
Reply #57 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1:31 AM
But having said that, I agree that those ranking aren,t really relevant. Read a few posts earlier. They were made for poor contries, not the rich ones.
So why am I arguing then if we agree?
Because it seems to me that some of you can't accept that the US isn't #1 all the friggen time. You're personnaly offended that sometimes some people can be better than you. That's what troubles me.
The US is member of the United Nations, BTW. And guess where the head office is? New York city.
So why am I arguing then if we agree?
Because it seems to me that some of you can't accept that the US isn't #1 all the friggen time. You're personnaly offended that sometimes some people can be better than you. That's what troubles me.
The US is member of the United Nations, BTW. And guess where the head office is? New York city.
IPlural
Reply #58 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:11 AM
Reply #58 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:11 AM
*BOOOOOOM-a-RAT TAT TAT TAT - eeeeeeRRRRRRRR CRUMP BOOM - bump*
Peace 101 : The Evolution of Peace by the act of making War or better know as
I kill you to lead you to freedom.
Tune in next month when we dissect the Spanish Inquisition and the polarizing affects of torture driven confesions.
Old man, sigh Ze paper.
I can't i can't you've broken all my fingers.
ld man, sigh Ze paper NOW, Siiiiiiiizzzle, Aieee My EYE my eye, old man sign ze paper and you go free.
Peace 101 : The Evolution of Peace by the act of making War or better know as
I kill you to lead you to freedom.
Tune in next month when we dissect the Spanish Inquisition and the polarizing affects of torture driven confesions.
Old man, sigh Ze paper.
I can't i can't you've broken all my fingers.
ld man, sigh Ze paper NOW, Siiiiiiiizzzle, Aieee My EYE my eye, old man sign ze paper and you go free.
Angel_Wings
Reply #60 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:23 AM
Reply #60 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:23 AM
Angel_Wings has YET to see one person ACTUALLY sway another on the topic of religion or politics on a forum or any other public discussion group so it seems to Shmoopy that all this huffing and self-bloated puffing is all for nothing.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 8 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:17 PM