aguywhoplaysthief on 26/2/2007 at 02:59
Quote Posted by Kolya
Could the US even afford a new war financially? And politically?
I'm not sure how one calls a one-day strike a "war".
Gestalt on 26/2/2007 at 03:24
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
I'm not sure how one calls a one-day strike a "war".
Bombing people's countries tends to get them pretty pissed at you. Like sometimes if you invade a sovereign nation's airspace and proceed to blow up that country's citizens and infrastructure, it gets interpreted as an act of war!
Turtle on 26/2/2007 at 05:54
I'm moving to Australia at the first opportunity.
I'll take my chances with venomous mammals over the yahoos here any day.
Kolya on 26/2/2007 at 07:21
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
I'm not sure how one calls a one-day strike a "war".
I won't get into semantics here but you might remember the war in Iraq was originally planned to last no more than a few weeks.
Thanks for the link Kaleid, I'll read it later today, just judging from the date when it was posted it's likely that article.
Kaleid on 26/2/2007 at 10:12
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
I'm not sure how one calls a one-day strike a "war".
They retaliate and thus war expands. Voila.
Chimpy Chompy on 26/2/2007 at 10:23
Not if you bomb them hard enough. Might makes right!
Kaleid on 26/2/2007 at 10:25
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Not if you bomb them hard enough. Might makes right!
Hardly possible to take out that quickly. Besides, it would only be useful for the neocons and those who want war that Iran retaliates. A retaliation is in their best interest, very good PR.
Chimpy Chompy on 26/2/2007 at 11:13
I was just joking about the kind of sentiment aguy might express.
Do the neocons actually want full-on war with Iran though? How does further destabalisation in the middle east help their agenda?
Kaleid on 26/2/2007 at 14:01
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I was just joking about the kind of sentiment aguy might express.
Do the neocons actually want full-on war with Iran though? How does further destabalisation in the middle east help their agenda?
“Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/2002] Michael Ledeen (AEI)
They want permanent boots on the entire middle-east. This way it's easier to control to whom the oil goes to.
BEAR on 26/2/2007 at 17:46
There is a big diffrence between a ground invasion and airstrikes.
I dare say we have enough bombs and cruise missles to destroy the entire country if we so chose to do so. Should the wmd's (lol) be clearly visible (such as say, a firetruck), Im sure we could bomb it.
Of course, its a terrible idea but I have no doubt we have the capability. Putting troops on the ground? Hell no we dont.
As far as 2008 goes, I (as a democrat), would say the republicans have a 60% chance of winning, as all the democratic canidates are going to be a hard push, sure they will get all the democrats but thats it. No self respecting republican will vote for Hillary, and she seems likely to get the nomination, and even if Obama gets it Im not sure he's anymore likely.
Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.
