|
Predictions (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Says the lack of UN inspectins report that declared that Iraq was fully cooperating and complying. |
Well where's the smoking gun then? You'd think they'd have found one by now, right? If they really have any WMD's, they'd only be able to use them within a limited range, and it's nowhere near enough to be able to be used against the US. They could use them against our troops in Iraq, but wouldn't they have used them by now? Hell, if they have them and are willing to use them like the neo-cons claim, then why have there been no attacks in the past 12 years? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
6) Total war with North Korea: 70% - if the nuclear complex will be bombed, North Korea will definitely retaliate with nukes
Don't try to ask me for any deeper background to these numbers ... there is none ;) |
So your outlook is that there is a 70% chance that the world is going to be plunged into nuclear war? :) |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
... as long as Likud rules :rolleyes: |
here, you said it |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
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. |
I'd support USA if they attacked Saudi Arabia, because such an attack would infact prove that the US priorities in the middle east are not just oil and domination, but that there might actually be some will to bring down idiotic extremist regimes. But let's be real, SA is one of the biggest US allies in the region and an attack on it is never going to happen.
Iran, on the other hand, is making some progress into becomming a more liberal society, so a war to bring down the current Iranian regime may not be necessarry at all, as the regime may collapse by itself with only a small push from the outside. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Iran, on the other hand, is making some progress into becomming a more liberal society, so a war to bring down the current Iranian regime may not be necessarry at all, as the regime may collapse by itself with only a small push from the outside. |
Exactly, I can see another Iranian revolution just the by the spill-over of Iraqi democracy.
But Saudi Arabia, I could only envision such a thing perhpas if Iran, and Iraq were... but it would be much easier to forsee a revolution for pro-western reforms if Syria fell as well.
Regardless, I see Syria holding out for eternity - being the middle east's Cuba or North Korea unless war would come upon it.
But thats just my 2c |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
Well where's the smoking gun then? |
the objective of resolution 1441 was not to find a smoking gun but rather to have proactive cooperation by iraq to disarm themselves of illegal weaponary. something that none of blix's reports on iraq fully acknowledged.
oh and btw this may end up being your smoking gun:
| quote: |
The U.S. National Public Radio, reporting what appeared to be a separate discovery to the one in Albu Mahawish, said U.S. forces found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons.
NPR said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...aq_usa_cache_dc
|
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
The following article made me nervous:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgam...l?bid=3&pid=546
How much longer, I asked him, could this administration wait before dealing with North Korea and its efforts to develop nuclear-weapons material? A little while, but not too long, he said. Until after the Iraq war? Yes, Woolsey said, we can take care of things then. (That was when the prevailing assumption was the war in Iraq would take about as long as a Donald Rumsfeld press conference.) And, I wondered, is this a challenge that can be taken care of with, say, a well-planned and contained bombing raid, one that strikes the nuclear facilities in question? "Oh, no, " he said. "This is going to be war." War, full-out war, with a nation that might already have a few nuclear weapons and that does have 600,000 North Korean soldiers stationed 25 miles from Seoul, with 37,000 US troops in between? "Yes, war." He didn't flinch, didn't bat an eye.
:nervous: |
Again your speculating that the words of an ex-government official prophesize what is actually going to happen. |
|
|
| JudgeJulez |
| hahahaha that article was hilarious. "Wolfowitz of Arabia"? And the Pentagon actually considering putting the former head of the CIA as head of the Ministry of Information in Iraq? :haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by JudgeJulez
hahahaha that article was hilarious. "Wolfowitz of Arabia"? And the Pentagon actually considering putting the former head of the CIA as head of the Ministry of Information in Iraq? :haha: :haha: :haha: |
:) The pentagon needs to stick with planning out wars and let the bigboys do the rest of the thinking. |
|
|
| IronDragon |
| 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. |
Whoa dude, you totally misunderstand. I am virtually saying I will NOT eat my hat if we invade Syria because I am VERY sure at this point it will happen.
I said I would eat my hat if we don't find proof of Iraqi WMD.
That being said, I agree, right now (things could change) pretty much none of the justification for war (I'm reluctant enough on this war) is their with Syria, let alone Iran; a North Korean invasion probably out of the question now. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by IronDragon
Whoa dude, you totally misunderstand. I am virtually saying I will NOT eat my hat if we invade Syria because I am VERY sure at this point it will happen.
I said I would eat my hat if we don't find proof of Iraqi WMD.
That being said, I agree, right now (things could change) pretty much none of the justification for war (I'm reluctant enough on this war) is their with Syria, let alone Iran; a North Korean invasion probably out of the question now. |
Whoops ... I got confused with all the hat and shoe eating going around :) |
|
|
|
|
