No more wars till 2005. The Shrubbery Klan know that they have to look like their full attention is on the economy over the next 18 months otherwise they are likely to get bitchslapped butterfly ballot style. I'm sure they'd love to toss the Syrians though or the Iranians for that matter.
I don't htink they have any interest in attacking North Korea. Body count would be too high on both sides and then there is that whole problem that they may well already have a nuke.
No more wars till 2005. The Shrubbery Klan know that they have to look like their full attention is on the economy over the next 18 months otherwise they are likely to get bitchslapped butterfly ballot style. I'm sure they'd love to toss the Syrians though or the Iranians for that matter.
I don't htink they have any interest in attacking North Korea. Body count would be too high on both sides and then there is that whole problem that they may well already have a nuke.
Yep and they have 3 millions soldiers, ten times the Saddam army.
The number of soldiers is part of it. But they also have missile technology, they have a decent air force, and they lack the topography of Iraq. Whereas Iraq mostly has a desert buffer between it and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria with few civilians about and hte oppurtunity for open tank combat, both Koreas have high population densities in sometimes hilly country all very close to their borders. So their respective cities are also within range of the artillery and missiles of the other. Then there is that whole China complication. And they'd probably nuke Seoul and Honululu. Maybe Tokyo, LA, San Fran and Seattle too. And of course we would respond in kind and that would be brutal. Would be a mess. Personally I'd have no problem morally attacking them if would could produce the type of 4 digit civilian body counts and 5 digit military body counts for them and 3 digit for us but we are talking 7 digits for civilians and maybe for soldiers as well. Too cost heavy.
There's 250000 troops, all the planes, aircraft carriers etc etc to attack Syria (or Iran, Lebanon etc) already in place next door in Iraq. At some point in the near future, enough civil order will have returned to Iraq in order to free the troops to start the next war on the PNAC list. Syria is a far easier nut to crack than Iran....and its right next door to Iraq, in closer range to the aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean. It is more than likely here will be a strike on Syria if the hawks get their way, no matter what Powell has said right now.
When Israel puts in the request, look out Syria.
Ooops, I really shouldn't say such stuff with Scott around...naughty naughty Sammi...slap wrist...
....but there is an Israeli factor in all this mess. Sharon can do what he likes, when he likes, and still get full US support. Even US citizens can get murdered by the IDF and the Bush Administration won't even say anything.
Personally I'd have no problem morally attacking them if would could produce the type of 4 digit civilian body counts and 5 digit military body counts for them and 3 digit for us but we are talking 7 digits for civilians and maybe for soldiers as well. Too cost heavy.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Bush and Blair already said what's next. Syria wasn't it.
they did? what is next?
Originally posted by New
they did? what is next?
This is so disappointing. Don't you even know what's going on in the world?
Originally posted by Scott
This is so disappointing. Don't you even know what's going on in the world?
World, where is that?
They have said a lot of things. be spesific, please.
Originally posted by Scott
This is so disappointing. Don't you even know what's going on in the world?
Obviously, you didn't sleep too good. Still, I too am puzzled as to what Bush and Blair have come up with to bomb next.
Originally posted by New
they did? what is next?
Spill the beans.
Originally posted by Scott
This is so disappointing. Don't you even know what's going on in the world?
oh scottie, your so worldly.
please feel free to impart your wisdom upon us.
Originally posted by BRussell
"Pyongyang" - the sound of being jerked back to reality by a rubber band.
Not too bad of an idea, actually, if I'm allowed to be the first one to jump on the bandwagon.
I don't htink they have any interest in attacking North Korea. Body count would be too high on both sides and then there is that whole problem that they may well already have a nuke.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
No more wars till 2005. The Shrubbery Klan know that they have to look like their full attention is on the economy over the next 18 months otherwise they are likely to get bitchslapped butterfly ballot style. I'm sure they'd love to toss the Syrians though or the Iranians for that matter.
I don't htink they have any interest in attacking North Korea. Body count would be too high on both sides and then there is that whole problem that they may well already have a nuke.
Yep and they have 3 millions soldiers, ten times the Saddam army.
When Israel puts in the request, look out Syria.
Ooops, I really shouldn't say such stuff with Scott around...naughty naughty Sammi...slap wrist...
....but there is an Israeli factor in all this mess. Sharon can do what he likes, when he likes, and still get full US support. Even US citizens can get murdered by the IDF and the Bush Administration won't even say anything.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/stor...933645,00.html
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/com...182235,00.html
Saudi too?
http://headlines.sify.com/2010news2.html
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Personally I'd have no problem morally attacking them if would could produce the type of 4 digit civilian body counts and 5 digit military body counts for them and 3 digit for us but we are talking 7 digits for civilians and maybe for soldiers as well. Too cost heavy.
I'll raise you 5, if you give me 1 or 2!
My guess would be Copenhagen. And then London.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Whos next? Hmm difficult one.
My guess would be Copenhagen. And then London.
the next one will be Monte Carlo : a cruel dictator, terrible WOMD : did someone never heard Stephanie singing ? lot of money, a weak army.
Yes Monaco is the choice.
Reasons:
1) We don't go for the war with US cause we love our lifes
2) My country has more natural resources than US (softwood, natural gas, OIL, fish, cleaner water, cheaper engergy sources)
3) Canada has better secret intelligences
Imagine. US will be a big rich fat bitch once they conquer both Iraq and Canada!