3) We stop at Syria (50%) because of too many losses
4) We attack Iran (10%)
5) Yongbon nuclear complex in North Korea is attacked (15%)
6) Total war with North Korea (10%)
Apr-07-2003 21:12
TranceGiant
randomly disappoints
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: (Strudel)-City that never sleeps
Re: Predictions
quote:
Originally posted by IronDragon
3) We stop at Syria (50%) because of too many losses
No way dude. Syria is WAY weaker than Iraq. And we all witness how strong the Iraqi army is. However, a war agaisnt Syria will automatically and surely draw Israel into war. And then everything's possible.
___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”
Apr-07-2003 21:21
DJMaytag
Supreme Pizzaaddict
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: back in Madison, WI... again!
How about this one?:
7) Dubya doesn't find any WMD's in Iraq, so he sets off a nuke in Baghdad and blames it on Saddam to "prove" that they had WMD's.
I'd give this an 70% likelyhood, and a 100% likelyhood of it happening somewhere in Iraq, but not in Baghdad.
Like I said before ... I'll eat my shoes and I'll join IronDragon in eating my hat (even if it involves going out and buying one) if Syria is invaded ... We simply don't have the justification to do so. And furthermore we would have 0 allies in the matter, no UN pretext, and we cannot afford to in the world press. Or afford to financially hehe.
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: back in Madison, WI... again!
quote:
Originally posted by occrider We simply don't have the justification to do so.
We don't have the justification to invade Iraq, but yet we are anyway, aren't we?
When the time comes, the evidence will be created to show the need to invade Syria. The first indications were given when Rumsfeld made a statement about Syria selling/transporting night vision equipment and other weapons to the Iraqis.
BTW, while this is happening in Syria, Iran will be furthur along in its nuclear program, giving us even more reason to invade Iran as well (even if the nuclear program is solely for energy purposes, not weapons.)
Originally posted by DJMaytag
We don't have the justification to invade Iraq, but yet we are anyway, aren't we?
When the time comes, the evidence will be created to show the need to invade Syria. The first indications were given when Rumsfeld made a statement about Syria selling/transporting night vision equipment and other weapons to the Iraqis.
BTW, while this is happening in Syria, Iran will be furthur along in its nuclear program, giving us even more reason to invade Iran as well (even if the nuclear program is solely for energy purposes, not weapons.)
I'm not going to go into it again for the billionth time (since you'll most likely disagree) but we do have justification to invade Iraq in their failure to fully comply with UN inspections.
Apr-07-2003 22:21
occrider
Traveladdict
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York
quote:
Originally posted by JohnSmith
it didn't stop you in iraq.
You got to spend money when the situation demands it ... syria doesn't.
Apr-07-2003 22:22
DJMaytag
Supreme Pizzaaddict
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: back in Madison, WI... again!
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I'm not going to go into it again for the billionth time (since you'll most likely disagree) but we do have justification to invade Iraq in their failure to fully comply with UN inspections.
Says who? We launched an invasion before the inspectors could finish the job! Bush knows that he wasn't going to find anything if they continued and as each day went by the world opposition was growing stronger and stronger, so he had no choice but to illegally invade Iraq before his "justification" was debunked.
Originally posted by DJMaytag
Says who? We launched an invasion before the inspectors could finish the job! Bush knows that he wasn't going to find anything if they continued and as each day went by the world opposition was growing stronger and stronger, so he had no choice but to illegally invade Iraq before his "justification" was debunked.
Says the lack of UN inspectins report that declared that Iraq was fully cooperating and complying. They were running circles around UN inspectors for the past 11 years and no doubt they would continue to do so as evident by their lack of full cooperation. Not to mention the fact that getting them to agree to concessions DEMANDED from them on day 1 was like pulling teeth.
Apr-07-2003 22:40
Yoepus
Neo-condimist
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Ketchup fields, Texas
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Like I said before ... I'll eat my shoes and I'll join IronDragon in eating my hat (even if it involves going out and buying one) if Syria is invaded ... We simply don't have the justification to do so. And furthermore we would have 0 allies in the matter, no UN pretext, and we cannot afford to in the world press. Or afford to financially hehe.
Well Syria is developing WMD (just chemical and biological) and after Iraq is "fixed" will take its standing as the world's 3rd ranking terrorist supporter.
This obviously does poise a threat to the USA and the rest of the world. I don't understand why you all believe the war on terrorism will end with Iraq, or why it should.
In this context, the USA is thinking smart by taking the smaller supporters of terrorism before confronting the larger ones (Iran, and Saudi Arabia).
Regardless a case, and a good one can be made that Syria threatens the USA. The hard point will be to get the UN or the people of the world to think it is a good case.
