StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I odn't think Saddam is going to leave country, so that just makes it wide open for a U.S. led strike. What are your predictions?

Will we soon hit North Korea as well? Iran? Use Iraqi bases to forcefully resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Will we see more terrorism on the homefront?

No North Korea. According to Rumsfeld, in fact, we will be decreasing our military presence in Korea within the coming months.

It sure does look like war. Probably by the end of the week. Saddam won't go, not in a million years.

Will we go after North Korea? No. For one thing Il-Jung is nuts and really does have some serious weapons. We can't go in so gung-ho.

Iran? Not unless they provoke it. Reform is creeping in slowly but surely. We won't attack them unless it becomes genuinely necessary.

I do think there'll be more terrorism. We messed with an Arab and someone that calls themself Muslim, they'll never forgive us for that even if Saddam would destroy them as gleefully as we would.

Durran Korr wrote:No North Korea. According to Rumsfield, in fact, we will be decreasing our military presence in Korea within the coming months.

You don't think Rumsfield is trying to provoke a response from N. Korea? I mean, with the N. Koreans screaming the U.S. will strike their facilities.. the S. Koreans questioning Rumsfield's sanity for pulling back U.S. troops..

And what was Rumsfield's reasoning for wanting to pull them back? The DMZ was too fucking cluttered, WTF?

And yes, Kim Jong Il is a complete nutcase. That's why I'm tremendously worried. If we should be going after anyone, it's him. The only problem with that is regardless, there will be a tremendous amount of civilian casualties probably both in Japan and Korea. And all those pretty asian girls, *sigh*

Withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, which is where our Middle Eastern policy seems to be heading, might quell terrorism at least a little bit. One of Osama bin Goatfucker's biggest problems with the U.S. is the presence of its military on the Islamic holy land.

Durran Korr wrote:Withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, which is where our Middle Eastern policy seems to be heading, might quell terrorism at least a little bit. One of Osama bin Goatfucker's biggest problems with the U.S. is the presence of its military on the Islamic holy land.

That's what he says, but with all their hate-spewing rhetoric, I don't think he'll be happy until either a) The whole world is muslim or b) The U.S. capitulates.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:No North Korea. According to Rumsfield, in fact, we will be decreasing our military presence in Korea within the coming months.

You don't think Rumsfield is trying to provoke a response from N. Korea? I mean, with the N. Koreans screaming the U.S. will strike their facilities.. the S. Koreans questioning Rumsfield's sanity for pulling back U.S. troops..

And what was Rumsfield's reasoning for wanting to pull them back? The DMZ was too fucking cluttered, WTF?

And yes, Kim Jong Il is a complete nutcase. That's why I'm tremendously worried. If we should be going after anyone, it's him. The only problem with that is regardless, there will be a tremendous amount of civilian casualties probably both in Japan and Korea. And all those pretty asian girls, *sigh*

Rumsfeld's reasoning; 1) it's a regional conflict, and 2) S. Korea has nearly 30 times the wealth of N. Korea and should have no trouble defending itself without the U.S..

And of course the S. Koreans are going to be questioning Rumsfeld's sanity with regards to the disengagement of troops. They benefit enormously on account of the United States' presence.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:Withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, which is where our Middle Eastern policy seems to be heading, might quell terrorism at least a little bit. One of Osama bin Goatfucker's biggest problems with the U.S. is the presence of its military on the Islamic holy land.

That's what he says, but with all their hate-spewing rhetoric, I don't think he'll be happy until either a) The whole world is muslim or b) The U.S. capitulates.

Oh, I completely agree with you, he'd just find some other bullshit excuse. But the non-presence of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia might at least hurt Al-Qaeda's recruiting.

Trytostaydead wrote:You don't think Rumsfield is trying to provoke a response from N. Korea? I mean, with the N. Koreans screaming the U.S. will strike their facilities.. the S. Koreans questioning Rumsfield's sanity for pulling back U.S. troops..

And what was Rumsfield's reasoning for wanting to pull them back? The DMZ was too fucking cluttered, WTF?

The reasoning is pretty clear. They think we can hold against whatever the North Korean Army can throw and we need the troops elsewhere. Given the fact that North Korea is sliding deeper and deeper down the toilet I'm not suprised and I think Rumsfeld might well be right.

Trytostaydead wrote:And yes, Kim Jong Il is a complete nutcase. That's why I'm tremendously worried. If we should be going after anyone, it's him. The only problem with that is regardless, there will be a tremendous amount of civilian casualties probably both in Japan and Korea. And all those pretty asian girls, *sigh*

That's the reason we aren't going after him. Like it or not we have to be more cautious with a guy that has plenty of nasty weapons and is crazy enough to use them. I'm not so familiar with their WMD capability but they do have long range missles to threaten all their neighbors.

Durran Korr wrote:Withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, which is where our Middle Eastern policy seems to be heading, might quell terrorism at least a little bit. One of Osama bin Goatfucker's biggest problems with the U.S. is the presence of its military on the Islamic holy land.

Bin Laden's big problem has nothing to do with our presence in Saudi Arabia. He just hates us because we're a successful and secular country and his fundie nation is a shithole.

Durran Korr wrote: Oh, I completely agree with you, he'd just find some other bullshit excuse. But the non-presence of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia might at least hurt Al-Qaeda's recruiting.

I HIGHLY doubt that. That will just result in the U.S. giving in to their demands. True, it was all our fault this whole mess from the beginning.. but still, we need to correct it and by backing down will just invite more shit down on us. Conversely, by not backing down it will result in more shit coming down on us. I believe they call it the Prisoner's Dilemma.

In regards to your previous comment about N. Korea though. Rumsfield and Bush are smoking crack. In the Korean conflict, those poorly trained and armed N. Koreans managed to make mince meat of the U.S. forces way before even the Chinese entered the conflict. It wasn't actually a long time into the war that U.S./U.N. forces managed to secure a signficant victory.

Stormbringer wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:You don't think Rumsfield is trying to provoke a response from N. Korea? I mean, with the N. Koreans screaming the U.S. will strike their facilities.. the S. Koreans questioning Rumsfield's sanity for pulling back U.S. troops..

And what was Rumsfield's reasoning for wanting to pull them back? The DMZ was too fucking cluttered, WTF?

The reasoning is pretty clear. They think we can hold against whatever the North Korean Army can throw and we need the troops elsewhere. Given the fact that North Korea is sliding deeper and deeper down the toilet I'm not suprised and I think Rumsfeld might well be right.

The problem with that is, Kim Jong Il doesn't give a fuck about his people. If he's going down, all the more reason to give total annihilation a shot.

Bin Laden's big problem has nothing to do with our presence in Saudi Arabia. He just hates us because we're a successful and secular country and his fundie nation is a shithole.

His three issues are: 1) U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, 2) U.N. sanctions on Iraq, and 3) U.S. support of Israel.

Of course I do agree with you for the most part. If the U.S. were to withdraw from Saudi Arabia tomorrow, get the U.N. to lift its sanctions on Iraq, and withdraw support for Israel, I think its fair to say that this guy would still be railing against the Great Satan. He won't be happy till the entire world is in the 10th century.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Durran Korr wrote: Oh, I completely agree with you, he'd just find some other bullshit excuse. But the non-presence of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia might at least hurt Al-Qaeda's recruiting.

I HIGHLY doubt that. That will just result in the U.S. giving in to their demands. True, it was all our fault this whole mess from the beginning.. but still, we need to correct it and by backing down will just invite more shit down on us. Conversely, by not backing down it will result in more shit coming down on us. I believe they call it the Prisoner's Dilemma.

In regards to your previous comment about N. Korea though. Rumsfield and Bush are smoking crack. In the Korean conflict, those poorly trained and armed N. Koreans managed to make mince meat of the U.S. forces way before even the Chinese entered the conflict. It wasn't actually a long time into the war that U.S./U.N. forces managed to secure a signficant victory.

I don't think we'll be giving into his demands by withdrawing so much as we'll be simply withdrawing simply on the virtue that our presence is no longer required.

As for Korea? 50 years later, a very different Korea. S. Korea is quite capable of defending itself at this point.

Trytostaydead wrote:I odn't think Saddam is going to leave country, so that just makes it wide open for a U.S. led strike. What are your predictions?

Will we soon hit North Korea as well? Iran? Use Iraqi bases to forcefully resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Will we see more terrorism on the homefront?

I wouldn't be surprised if hostilities comence sometime tomarrow. There will be no UN vote, they are pulling the inspectors out, IIRC Britan is pulling out their diplomats out of the region. Looks like its on.

The regieme in North Korea is holding on by a string and is desperate enough to try to bluff the world (the US specificly) to continue to send food and other supplies or 'else'. By ignoring the bullshit and taking some measured precautions, the Bush administration is calling NK's bluff. IMHO, the NK regieme will fall by internal preasures some time soon without need for international military posturing.

Iran? Well as mentioned, they are slowly creeping towards reform. With a new Democratic (hopefully) Iraq with a growing economy (hopefully) and the promise of liberty ect.. Iran will continue to topple towards a more democratic way of goverment.

I/P conflict? Well if Iraq falls and Iran goes the same way, then alot of funding for the current conflict on the Palestinian side, will dry up. SA and other Arabian countries will still fund terrorists, but recent events (such as the 25 thousand reportedly given by Saddam to families of bombers, and the Iranian cargo ship filled to the brim with weapons for the Palestinians) point towards Iraq and Iran as major contributors to the Palenstinian side of the problem. Perhaps a break in the funds will make a break in the cycle of destruction that both parties (Iseral and Palestine) are engaged in.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:The reasoning is pretty clear. They think we can hold against whatever the North Korean Army can throw and we need the troops elsewhere. Given the fact that North Korea is sliding deeper and deeper down the toilet I'm not suprised and I think Rumsfeld might well be right.

The problem with that is, Kim Jong Il doesn't give a fuck about his people. If he's going down, all the more reason to give total annihilation a shot.

That is the problem. But the North Korean Army is going to be suffering a lot and won't be able to put up much of a fight half starved. Why hold a bunch of troops we depseratley need elsewhere to repel an attack the enemy can't mount. The Korean army isn't likely to be able to make much of a conventional offensive.

Kimmy might want to go out in a blaze of glory but if we don't push him I doubt his sons or his commanders would be eager to call down the thermonuclear fire on themselves. He might be suicidally insane but they aren't. If we push him though they'll probably fall in line.

The UN just order all UN personel (including inspectors) out of Iraq.

Iran may well just have a revolution themselves after the Iraq war: for one, they'll have Americans to both sides of them (Afghanistan, Iraq) who are battle-hardened and ready to go. They are already pissed at their government for making them international pariahs and forcing religion down their throats. That same government is rocking the boat by publicly going nuclear.

Plus, Iran had a revolution 20 years ago, so the precedent is there.

For the rest of the Arab world: let's suppose this goes as predicted, and after seeing Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan fall like dominoes to the Americans for bad behaviour, what will the other Arab governments do? Seriously? Going to war will be suicide, clearly.

What if the citizens actually cheer the US as liberators? There is a chance this will be the case? What about when that gets shown all over al-Jazeera? And that the Americans, for once, are serious about backing up their words?

If these countries fall, and support begins to dry up for terrorists groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, then those grouops will be forced to the bargaining table. President Bush is th eonly US president that used the term "US support for a free Palestinian state" without smirking. He's aslo the guy that has told Israel to stop building settlements (unenforced, true, but at least directly discussed instead of glossed over).

Maybe, a lot of dictators will be thrown out of office. That's the good scenario. Or, panicky Jihadists stage coups and start launching everything they have. That's the bad scenario. One way or another, the MidEast may be headed for a housecleaning. It couldn't happen to nicer guys.

If the terrorist supporters dry up, and the Palestine situation gets cooled down, then the MidEast may find itself with nothing to fight about.

Then we can all go watch Africa tear itself a new asshole.

I wouldn't be surprised if, after Iraq, Bush starts leaning on Israel to disband some of the settlements and come to terms with the Palestinians, so long as Arafat allows a Palestinian premier with real independent power. The administration wants the Israel-Palestine conflict to go away because it would make the War on Terror a much easier conflict to handle, and they think part of the equation is an independent Republic of Palestine. If Iran has a revolution, that leaves nothing but keeping an eye on North Korea and patching up relations with Europe (and rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan). Then...China, probably. They're gearing up for a new Cold War over there. Best to be prepared.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush lands troops to create a new DMZ there either.

Trytostaydead wrote:Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush lands troops to create a new DMZ there either.

That will go over like a fart in church. I'm about as interntionalist as they come in American politics, and I'd rather see those assholes light each other on fire for the next hundred years before I'll see American soldiers risking their hides in Palestine. Besides, it's, what, 50 miles from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordanian border? Where are you going to PUT a DMZ?

Trytostaydead wrote:Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush lands troops to create a new DMZ there either.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would be the dumbest move ever. That quagmire should be avoided like the plague. Every US adminstration has stuck to diplomacy to try and resolve that situation. Evrytime its been mentioned thatmaybe a Marine detachment should be sent in to help keep the peace in a treaty negotiation the US has begged off.

Nu uh, that is one hell hole I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Stravo wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush lands troops to create a new DMZ there either.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would be the dumbest move ever. That quagmire should be avoided like the plague. Every US adminstration has stuck to diplomacy to try and resolve that situation. Evrytime its been mentioned thatmaybe a Marine detachment should be sent in to help keep the peace in a treaty negotiation the US has begged off.

Nu uh, that is one hell hole I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Right, DO remember who IS President of the U.S. though.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Stravo wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush lands troops to create a new DMZ there either.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That would be the dumbest move ever. That quagmire should be avoided like the plague. Every US adminstration has stuck to diplomacy to try and resolve that situation. Evrytime its been mentioned thatmaybe a Marine detachment should be sent in to help keep the peace in a treaty negotiation the US has begged off.

Nu uh, that is one hell hole I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Right, DO remember who IS President of the U.S. though.

Yep, the same president that correctly predicted the Axis of Evil, brought vengeance down on the Taliban and put France in its place. Yep, that same dumb guy.

Stravo wrote: Yep, the same president that correctly predicted the Axis of Evil, brought vengeance down on the Taliban and put France in its place. Yep, that same dumb guy.

Not saying he was wrong, except for his reasons, just that he's an idiot.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Stravo wrote: Yep, the same president that correctly predicted the Axis of Evil, brought vengeance down on the Taliban and put France in its place. Yep, that same dumb guy.

Not saying he was wrong, except for his reasons, just that he's an idiot.

Not the smartest man in the world, without a doubt, but hey, Ronnie was losing his mind by the end and he did a pretty good job. Its gotten to the point where its not really the president anymore, its his people. Bush has one of the best set of advisors and administrators that any pres has had and I think it shows. Bush has the vision drive and determination, his people make it work.