Forum Discussion

I though we should only attack countries regarding which we have no proof they have WMDs :)

"Iran�s nuclear program is that it should be stopped by force. "

That's a tall order for now. But we're working on it, and I'm hoping we'll jump to support Israel if they decide to make the move. The problem with Iran is, not only were they able to get a hold of Iraq's WMDs produced during Clinton's throne years, it's full of a bunch of "politically correct" extrememists, of the Hillary version. They're not too smart and prone to "blowing up" over some such thing or another.

Heya, Good Will, are you gonna to spout more "vilification"?? That's a fun word if you say it a lot, but after a while it just becomes static noise, don'cha think?

>The problem with Iran is, not only were they able to get a hold of Iraq's WMDs produced during Clinton's throne years,

HHAHAHAHAHA.
You never read the news right? Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies and fought a bloody war. Noone there shared weapons.

And wait you forgot North Korea, The have WMDs, you should join te army and help go fight them. Or are you too busy slinging insults over the web?

"Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies and fought a bloody war."
Yeah there were a couple of tribal skirmishes...until the evil satan empire of American kept demanding Iraq show the UN their, then they got to be good buddies. (See Example, real recorder conversation <wink>)

Pst! Abdul, mind keeping these things in a truck for me? Syria and Jordan can't handle them all.

Sure Saddam, but remember once the evil satan is demolarized by their own dumbass liberals, all bets are off!

That sounds fair, Abdul. You're on!


"Or are you too busy slinging insults over the web?"

WAAHHH!!! Some conservatives are being mean to "good" will. Deal with it dumbass!! You just continually show your dumbass, and I don't mind verbally kicking it for you. I learned to do that really well in my 7+ years of military service, you snotty little hippy, punk.

Actually, Patricia, Good Will is right. That's not to say that some *other* Middle Eastern country might not have gotten WMDs from Iraq (if Iraq had them, which is neither proven *nor disproven*), but it wouldn't have been Iran.

Stopping Iran before they get a working copy of the bomb though... that sounds prudent to me. We can't go after North Korea because of China, by the way. They're the reason we only "half-won" the Korean war, instead of unifying Korea under the South. They are the only power on the globe who *could* pose a threat to us in conventional war, and they get touchy about anyone going into Korea without their permission.

>They are the only power on the globe who *could* >pose a threat to us in conventional war, and they get >touchy about anyone going into Korea without their >permission.

We're in Korea aren't we? You said that China is the only world power that could pose a threat to us in conventional war? How about unconventional war? One that is laid out more like a long term game of chess? They control the Panama Canal, thanks to the good intentioned peanut farmer, who like the former president and his V.P. (vice perpetrator), never missed an opportunity to jump on a plane and go on a �yeah I know, America is to blame tour�. Not to mention the debt we�ve incurred due to their �generous faith in our economy�. I don�t know, maybe I�m just overly suspicious but I am nervous given their position that seems to get better and better, while we entertain the idea that our ports can be run by an Arab company and the solution to our labor woe�s are illegal immigrants. I know, the ad hominem thing, I�m still workin� on it.
Just one more thing, if we are engaged in a kind of war with China, does Taiwan still function as a �canary� in the mine?

>I though we should only attack countries regarding >which we have no proof they have WMDs :)

We can't get WWIII started fast enough for G.W. I guess! Mabye he thinks it'll speed up the transformation of our economic system from a free enterprise system to a //THE GOVERNMENT OWNS EVERYTHING type!!

Yes, technically we are in Korea... I should have been more specific. The Chinese would tend to get pissed if we took military action against North Korea without consulting them. Also, of course they could also pose a threat in unconventional war. I just wanted to point out that unlike other countries, China wouldn't *need* nukes or terrorists to give us an even fight, simply because of the sheer *numbers* of their military.

As for Taiwan... believe me, I'd love to send in peacekeeping troops to ensure Taiwan's safety while they take all the steps necessary to secure independence and democracy... but again, there's the "we can't fight with China" thing.

I worked for a company that was taken over by a Taiwan company and after working for them for a while I realized that we are really wasting our time and resources trying to defend Taiwan. The Taiwan people are Chinese in family and culture and eventually they will be merged in to one official country (that being China).
I do agree with you, Anthony, China must be a major consideration in relation to action and diplomacy with North Korea but I really hope we put our focus (and weaponry) on Iran very soon and not get distracted with N. Korea.

I agree with your second point, but I think your first is made on false premises. I know that Taiwan is almost identical in *culture* to China, but we were almost identical, culturally, to Britain. The issue is independence and democracy. If Taiwan is absorbed into China, they can't have that.

>Yes, technically we are in Korea...

I know what you meant, I'm sorry. I guess what I really was trying to hint at was that the situation in the Korean peninsula is somehow related to the Iranian problem. They both are tied in with what I was saying about China. Iran is China's favorite gas station aren't they? China is just as "addicted to oil" as we are, how are they going to react to our moving against Iran? We're setting up a favorable government in Iraq, and now feeling out world sentiment as to how the folks out there are going to take it when we, or Israel, attacks Iran. Probably if history is any indicator, bucking the U.N.! I've got to admit, I have always suspected that we were securing the oil that our main competitor's in this world were stealing using the oil for food program for cover. Now we're talking about possible military action against Iran, which is the tap for the regions oil flow, we are in a pretty good situation with Saudi Arabia..... I wonder how all these things are going to affect each other. Another interesting piece in the puzzle is the U.A.E. company that bought the Brit outfit that runs our ports. My knee jerk reaction was one of disbelief, you know, like the Harriet Myers thing?????? Now that I�ve had time to think about it and have heard the President�s strong message to Congress I don�t know if it�s some kind of bargain he made to get something we want over there or what. I bet it doesn�t make it through Congress anyway, he basically told them it�s none of their business cause his boy�s checked it out and it�s perfectly safe. Democrats finally got their �we are strong on defense too� issue and the Republicans are running scared that Bush is going to take the party down in one business deal!
About Taiwan, I don�t think we should abandon them to appease China, but I wonder how important they still are in the big picture.

Maybe its just me. But personally I think we should keep the port management in our hands. I know there is capitalism and all. But ports are too vital for security bothe economic and physical.
Just my two bits.