Iranians Eager for Hussein to fall

[0.1]

Good work CS.

Ok, now let's look at your arguments. First of all, some facts:

1. nuke programs can't be just turned on and off at will. i.e. if I decide tomorrow to start up a nuke program, even if I had existing structures and some of the materials avaiable, I can't just whip out a couple of Uranium based nukes in a couple of months. So, that program has been going on for years. Almost certainly before Bush Jr took office.

2. Weapons inspectors and heavy troop presence. Hmmm, perhaps you can define heavy troop presence for me. He certainly hasn't made an aggressive moves toward his neighbors, but he has been shooting regularly at American and British planes in the no fly zone (as mandated by the UN I believe). I believe the presence of troops didn't decerase between 98 and 02. Yet, I don't recall inspectors waltzing back into Iraq prior to the end of the previous administration.

So, let's look at the argument from beginning. NK. Your policy would be to support efforts to increase trade and communications, and that puts in a better bargaining position because you are playing nice. Questions.

If you find out that they didn't live up to the first part of the bargain After all, they tell you that they want more in order to keep their end of the deal, what do you do?

If they told you privately on the side that they build nukes, would you let the world know about it? How would you react to that situation?

Of course, the best situation is that you don't find out, and you can continue onward blissfully unaware.


Now, onto Saddam. You haven't labeled him part of the axis of evil and you haven't talked about going back into Iraq, or may be you have. So, here are the questions.

Just how do you intend to get inspectors into Iraq again?

Do you intend to build up the troop presence and how long do you intend to keep them there? (remember, you have to foot the bill for the larger troop presence, and if they stay out there indefinitely, things are just going to cost more and more)

What's your leverage to getting the inspectors back in?

Do you threaten military action if you don't have the inspectors back in?

Let's say that you did, and now we have this shell game going on, missiles that has range, but may be he won't get rid of them. What then?

I believe those are fair questions given your position. I await your response.

[phongn]

Both Iraq and NK are ruled by power hungry dictators. But which of the two is a greater threat? NK has or will have the means to threaten the physical United States to attack. Iraq does not. And likely will not.

With my priorites known, actually invading NK is not a first option so i will go to the bargaining table. First, I will be in a better position to negotiate since I will not have earlier made speeches defaming the current regime as being part an axis of evil reminscent of Axis powers of the early 20th century. Even if they are part of an " axis of evil" I cannot let them know I may think that way. Instead of cutting them off from the rest of the world I would support efforts to increase trade and communication between the US, S. Korea and N. Korea. You have to give them incentive to cooperate, perhaps increased food aid and or trade. I doesn't matter how big our guns are. No nation in the world will accept being told what to do by a foreign power. You have to make them want to do what you want.

This has already been done in the mid-1990s. The DPRK grabbed all the aid and pretended to follow the treaties, then bam announces that they have nuclear weapons out of the blue. Clearly, this hasn't worked.

As for Iraq. Weapons inspectors and a heavy troop prescence in the region will keep him in line. You can't say it hasn't worked because he hasn't made aggressive moves since 91 against his neighbors.

He hasn't made agressive moves, but he's been sneaking around every UN resolution and treaty. He has not been kept in line.

And even if he has the weapons he isn't dumb enough to actually use them against his neighbors.

Gulf War I, anyone?

Furthermore, he doesn't have to use them, the mere existance of them (specifically nuclear weapons) will induce strategic paralysis, ensuring his dominance over the Middle East.

And for "freeing" the Iraqi people. If they want change they can fucking overthrow Saddam themselves. It's their country.

And do what, get gassed like the Kurds after Gulf War II? Get hunted down by the Republican Guard? Hung from the nearest lamppost?

It will turn us into a bully into the eyes of other nations, hurting our standing amongst them. And no nation in this world today can operate alone even us . We will eventually have to turn to our allies

Oddly, we seem to have quite a bit of support around the world for this, no/

[Mr Bean]

This has already been done in the mid-1990s. The DPRK grabbed all the aid and pretended to follow the treaties, then bam announces that they have nuclear weapons out of the blue. Clearly, this hasn't worked.

Ahh yes the Famous Carter/Clinton deal
NK:We need food, cloth, and all sorts of anmities if you want us to stop our missle tests, our people are hungery
Carter: Sure thing, Hey why don't we give you some Nuclear Reactors to help give your people Eletricity, You know the same kind we use over here
NK:The kind that you can enrich uranium with?
Carter: Yeah that kind! Let me just get on the horn as check to see if its ok, Hey Mr President I got this deal with the NK's they will stop the Missle tests and play nice from now on
Clinton:Grovy, Where do I sign? Hey thanks Carter always there in a pinch for me, I was realy sweating this thing
Carter:Naa its ok, let me give the boys the good word, Hey guys he said it was ok, by the by we better bring some of our boys over here to help train yours how to run this thing and repair it, Best bring some of our own safty inspectors to so you know if somthing messes up you have somone to turn to
NK:And you will want Inspectors of the Material to right? to make sure we keep to our end of the deal
Carter:Naa, just let the Safty Guys Cover it, they should know what th they are doing
NK:*cough-snigger MWHAHWHWHHAHAHAHAHA
Carter: Hey whats so funny?
NK: oh nothing...


*Later*
Safty Insepctor:Halt! Where are you going with those trucks of lead cases
NK-Umm just a lunch delivery for the other plant down the road
Saft Inspector-Move along

And so began the NK's Nuclear weapons program, Thats the joke version of it I heard on NPR a few months back, But basicly it boils down to Carter brokered a deal in NK, called up Clinton got him to sign off on it, to give the NK's Nuclear Power Plants(Like the French gave the Iraqys in the 70s) Except they made weapons with their plants before somone could blow it up(As the Isrealies did with the Iraq plant in 81)

[0.1]

Hey guys,

let CS have a chance to answer the questions I posed, I asked him very nicely to put up his reasoning and logic, and he did. Let him answer. No need to jump all over him for putting forth his views. I want to hear his rationale. There must be some good points that I'm missing with the anti-war crowd. And he is the first one that had the guts to answer the question of how do you deal with Saddam without going to war.

I want to see the end game process on this. So, let him answer and don't jump all over him for it.

[Clone Sergeant]

If you find out that they didn't live up to the first part of the bargain After all, they tell you that they want more in order to keep their end of the deal, what do you do?

If Kim Jong II were to allow increased food aid and trade with the west the standard of living in N Korea will improve and he can take the credit. This will increase his support amongst the people. Making it easier for him to rule. He would be able to loosen his grip on the people. It will also put him in better standing with UN for human rights making North Korea feel less like an threat nation on a list to be taken out instead more like a part of the international community. Slowly over time the taste of the fruits of capitalism will erode the regimes power and will eventually topple it.

Right now I think N. Korea believes the west has aggressive intentions towards their country. Or at least wants to marginalize them. So they are attempting to grab some power by holding the threat of them developing long range nuclear weapons against us. If our American rhetoric had been less confrontational it would probably be easier to convince N. Korea to do things our way

If they told you privately on the side that they build nukes, would you let the world know about it? How would you react to that situation?

I would probably negotiate a limit to the number they could build. Kim Jong II would be dumb to attempt anything with his nukes since he knows we will always have more and using his will ensure his destruction. Dictators want to stay in power. Having his nation turned into irradiated dust is not power. Most other nations in the world who have nukes have limited their stockpiles. N. Korea could not reasonable expect to be an exception. I think they would go along with it since their not agreeing would affect their aid putting them back into their marginalized corner.

Of course, the best situation is that you don't find out, and you can continue onward blissfully unaware.

Not neccessarily, I do not like suprises, so N. Korea would merely have to be open about their activities if they want to stay in America's good graces. As long as I know they are doing I can tell when they are going too far.

Now, onto Saddam. You haven't labeled him part of the axis of evil and you haven't talked about going back into Iraq, or may be you have. So, here are the questions.

Just how do you intend to get inspectors into Iraq again?


Do you intend to build up the troop presence and how long do you intend to keep them there? (remember, you have to foot the bill for the larger troop presence, and if they stay out there indefinitely, things are just going to cost more and more)

What's your leverage to getting the inspectors back in?

Do you threaten military action if you don't have the inspectors back in?

Let's say that you did, and now we have this shell game going on, missiles that has range, but may be he won't get rid of them. What then?

Reduced sanctions will probably get their attention. Saddam, like Kim Jong II can take credit for the increased trade. So long as Saddam thinks he is important in the world community and can remain in power he will cooperate.

Maybe I should not have said heavy troop prescence. I mean there should be at least a carrier group or two in the gulf and a handful of bases in Saudi Arabia or Turkey most of the year to remind Saddam of his routing during the Gulf War and that he does not want a repeat performance. I think Saddam is like Fidel Castro. He will not go away. We are going to have to find a way live with him.

For me it basically boils down to this: A war in the middle east will not improve the region. It will only cause more problems as people in the muslim world grate under the concept of a western country occupying one of their fellow nations for an extended period of time. Even if it is ruled Saddam Hussein. They will think American culture will corrupt theirs and will want to drive us out. Terrorist attacks on troops in Iraq and on the U.S. itself will ensue like we have never seen before. I don't like Saddam at all but, I think a war now is a mistake because it is more trouble than it is worth.

[Mr Bean]

Point of Note we can not nuke North Korea unless they nuke us first
Why? Simple, Radioactive fallout that will be quite deadly to those close by and quite likley to multiply by a few Magnitudes Cancer cases in the Region where the Fall-out lands

And the problem?
The fall out lands in three places
1. China, A pissed off Nation with Nuclear weapons who would not dought want us to pay restiutions to every single citizin hurt
2.South Korea our ally
3. Japan, our ally and trading partner


Thusly we will never pre-emtivly nuke him

[Clone Sergeant]

Point of Note we can not nuke North Korea unless they nuke us first
Why? Simple, Radioactive fallout that will be quite deadly to those close by and quite likley to multiply by a few Magnitudes Cancer cases in the Region where the Fall-out lands

And the problem?
The fall out lands in three places
1. China, A pissed off Nation with Nuclear weapons who would not dought want us to pay restiutions to every single citizin hurt
2.South Korea our ally
3. Japan, our ally and trading partner


Thusly we will never pre-emtivly nuke him

I know. I was saying we would do so in retaliation, so N. Korea would have to think twice before using their own.

[Mr Bean]

They don't need to use there Nukes at all is the point CS, The fact is we can not succesfuly invade them, Nukes or No Nukes and they know it, Meanwhile they have all the time in the world to perfec their Missles for Intercontental Ranges, Meaning the only other option left to us is Sancutions and Internal Revolt

NK is a Test case, A "WHAT IF" if Iraq where allowed to get Nukes, Of course the thing is unlike Iraq, NK is two steps above complete starviation and one step famine and we are the ones feeding them at the moment if you take my meaning

[0.1]

Ok CS,

nice response. So for both cases, you believe the best way to deal with the transgressor is to make their lives easier and expect them to comply. Ok, let's start up again with the countries separately.

NK first,

Situation: NK, just told you that they've built up nukes in violation of your previous treaty. And the dialog goes like this:

NK: We are sorry, but we build several nukes even though we agreed not to do it.
US: Ok, we understand, we'll let it go, but you are limited to say 10 nukes total. If you agree to this, we will continue our side of the deal and probably increase aid to your country to lift it out of its impoverished state.
Alternatively, if you do not comply, we will cease all aid to your country.

CS, is that a fair assessment of the general dialouge between NK and US if you were in charge?

Now, onto Iraq:

The idea is to reduce the sanction over time. I didn't see you mention anything about inspections, so would I be correct in assuming that you would not even try to enforce inspections? (Again, correct me if I'm wrong)

The dialouge between U.S. and Iraq if you were in charge would go something like this:

Iraq: we will play by the rules if you ease sanctions, or lift them altogether, I can take credit for lifting Iraq out of the misery that was inflicted on us by the unjust UN sanctions.
U.S.: very well, we'll keep our presence here as insurance that you won't do anything stupid like 1990. We won't even ask about inspections if you agree not to become an aggressor again.

Again, would that be a fair assessment of the dialouge that would occur if you were in charge?

Question: What are the consequences if they fail to comply?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Mr. Bean, Some more ammo.

The inspections won't work, don't work, and have never worked. TWICE, not once, but TWICE the UN inspectors have given Saddam a clean bill of health, and the official UN seal of aproval, certified 100% nuke free.

Then the defectors come out. Google search, Dr. Kadir Hamsa. AKA Saddan's bomb maker.

Chief inspector Cluesou, Sorry, Blix, was the mega bonehead who gave Iraq the LAST "nuke free UN aproved" sticker.

Inspections DON'T FUCKING WORK, when the inspectee is uncooperative.
Inspections and containment are not a SERIOUS options in the real world.
Like peeing you pants in the dark, the only result is a warm feeling, and a problems you can not YET see!

[Stuart Mackey]

yeah right, and do you know what the political ramifications would have been if you had? you get september 11 eleven years earlier, and god knows what else

With No Funding, And no Safe zones to hide in outside of Afghanstan would be quite hard to succesfuly stage large scale 9/11 style attacks

I dont think that fundingwould be a problem nor oppertunity, and they based out of Afaganistan quite well enough as it happens.

Christ on his cross at what point will you Americans realise that there are consequences for your actions?

By Wong man,

???

when do you not get the fact that I was mearly point out what was militarly achivable, not nessarly a good idea, Just as I can point out the fact that we can say, if the next time a Bank Robber holes up in a Bank, Instead of Surronding the place with Cops we could instead Pound the Bank Flat with 155mm Howizters

I'm point out what we can do not what we should do you did you miss that little point of fact?

You implied it well enough

We had enough Military Might in the Middle East to March out way through to both Iran and the Gates of Jerisiulum if we wanted

But thats besided the point, The point is we listen to our Allies who only wanted a Temporary solution instead of a permant one and here we are twelve years later because of it

[Stuart Mackey]

Mr. Bean, Some more ammo.

The inspections won't work, don't work, and have never worked. TWICE, not once, but TWICE the UN inspectors have given Saddam a clean bill of health, and the official UN seal of aproval, certified 100% nuke free.

Then the defectors come out. Google search, Dr. Kadir Hamsa. AKA Saddan's bomb maker.

Chief inspector Cluesou, Sorry, Blix, was the mega bonehead who gave Iraq the LAST "nuke free UN aproved" sticker.

Inspections DON'T FUCKING WORK, when the inspectee is uncooperative.
Inspections and containment are not a SERIOUS options in the real world.
Like peeing you pants in the dark, the only result is a warm feeling, and a problems you can not YET see!

ahh so just propose invading everyone in sight who you think mayhave wmd's? The US hasnt shown any proof that they know that Iraq has any wmd's, but that dosent matter, you just know it through the use of mind reading satellites perhaps?

[Clone Sergeant]

NK: We are sorry, but we build several nukes even though we agreed not to do it.
US: Ok, we understand, we'll let it go, but you are limited to say 10 nukes total. If you agree to this, we will continue our side of the deal and probably increase aid to your country to lift it out of its impoverished state.
Alternatively, if you do not comply, we will cease all aid to your country.

CS, is that a fair assessment of the general dialouge between NK and US if you were in charge?

What other option is there? Attack and have them raze S. Korea and Japan. I could always cut off the aid but that would put us in the position we are today. With N. Korea pulling stunts like the testing of missiles like it did today.

Now, onto Iraq:

The idea is to reduce the sanction over time. I didn't see you mention anything about inspections, so would I be correct in assuming that you would not even try to enforce inspections? (Again, correct me if I'm wrong)

The dialouge between U.S. and Iraq if you were in charge would go something like this:

Iraq: we will play by the rules if you ease sanctions, or lift them altogether, I can take credit for lifting Iraq out of the misery that was inflicted on us by the unjust UN sanctions.
U.S.: very well, we'll keep our presence here as insurance that you won't do anything stupid like 1990. We won't even ask about inspections if you agree not to become an aggressor again.

Again, would that be a fair assessment of the dialouge that would occur if you were in charge?

Question: What are the consequences if they fail to comply?

First, Iraq would not be proposing the deal it would be us. Very subtle, trying to make it seem that a gov't that doesn't charge in guns blazing would be dictated to by some tin-pot dictator. No, it would not be a gradual reduction over time. It would probably be a limited lifting that will allow only specific goods. Yes, there would be inspections and then after being given a chance to try and behave under our conditions Saddam continued to engage in the proliferation of WMD after being given a chance to stay in power would I go in to remove him. I would prefer the support of the UN because I do not want the U.S. occupying iraq alone because that would paint a large bulleye on America for the terrorists. UN troops should dominate the occupying force.

But anyway, I'm not the president nor to I presume to think I am capable. My answers were merely based on the fact that I reserve aggression as a last option. I feel we have other choices right now. When the reasons are clear and I believe the evidence presented, will I support a war. Then the military can go right ahead and blast bastards back to the stone age with my full support.

I've let you get me into this game of 20 questions when my main point in my first post was and I reiterate: I believe the eventually occupying of Iraq is going to be big trouble. Muslims in the region don't like us much already. The feeling will not improve when American APC's and tanks are rolling through the streets of bagdad. They haven't forgotten the crusades. If the occupation drags on(which it will) support for terrorism will skyrocket and we will take it up the ass in the long run for this invasion. That's all I really had to say on the issue. You are not going to change my mind. I have no intention of changing yours. We could debate on what we each think should be done until we are both blue in the face but it no longer matters. Bush is going in no matter what happens. I gave up on hoping he might change his mind a long time ago. Only question now is what happens after we've taken Saddam down.

I'm pretty much disgusted with the whole thing. Bush needs to hurry up and get it over with so we can get to the hard part of picking up the pieces afterwards.

[Mr Bean]

You implied it well enough

Maybe in your own mind but when I wrote that post and when most people read it it was designed simply to convey what is Militarly possilbe should America decided to say fuck it and try and take over the world, We've done this exericse before and somone got pissed off before when we did a thread "What if the US wanted to take over the world" Some person who could not read got angrey at us for advoceting that American Engage in a Gobal War of Conquest


Same as last time, I'm mearly pointing out whats possible not what is advisible or what I support

(*BTW the By Wong thing is a joke of the common Catholic saying)

[Dark Primus]

My main concern with this war is the reaction of the muslim world to having a Western country occupy a muslim nation. The terrorists were already pissed just because of military bases in Saudi Arabia. They are going to go fucking nuts when we occupy when we actually take over an entire country and by force of all things. They will be thinking it's the crusades all over again.

Yes it is a damn shame that these terrorists don't see the suffering Iraq people are going through. Caused by Saddam himself. Nor do they see the money he steals from his own people to build large mosques. Probably a hideout for his weapons.
Nor do they see the people of Iraq are getting more tired of Saddam. They can't say that in TV, nor to the news reporters who are there.

We will probably see an escalation of terrorist attacks against the U.S. itself and American citizens abroad. We can no longer pretend that the terrorists can't hurt us. The empty lot where the Twin Towers used to be has proven that. And we can't pretend that we beat Al Qaeda and their threat is gone, because we didn't, regardless of the rhetroric of the Bush Administration. Al Qaeda has merely dispersed and has become even harder fight. And it doesn't matter if Bin Laden really is dead because his message of hate lives with his followers and they would fight even harder for a Bin Laden the martyr.

I wonder what would happen if USA used the same brutal ways like the Russians do, to combat terrorism. Have you noticed why there are so few Russians are taken as hostages, if any?

I think the real war will not be against tanks and fighter/bombers in the desert, it will be against chemical and biological weapon attacks in American cities.

Yes who are not afraid of that. You better strike against them first, before they strike you.

Bush is deliberatly looking to escalate a situation that can still be resolved through more peaceful means.

How? Saddam wont step down, he wont reveal his total weapons arsenal. Those options are gone, then I don't see any chance for a peaceful end to this.

For the first time in history, the United States is openly instigating a war(at least officially), it could at least be one that makes sense. We have yet to see the "smoking gun" that proves Iraq is a threat. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world we have a Kim Jong II who is a far worse dictator who will soon have nuclear missiles that can actually hit us, and what do we do against him? We say diplomatic means must be explored. To be quite honsest i'm far more concerned with North Korea than Iraq. That damned missile shield will never work so that is no assurance.

Iraq is not a threat to its neighbours when it comes to military power, but when it comes to long distant weapons, then it could be a threat, or he could develope biological weapons and give it to terrorits who might use it against US. I don't think Bush is willing to take that chance.

And Kim Jong II is just a guy with a big mouth, and he knows if he fires his nukes against the US, NK will be nothing but a total waste land in return. Would not surprise me if China stepped in to remove this Kim fellow, his actions are becoming more eradict.

[0.1]

CS,

Thanks for being such a good sport. You're actually the first one who had enough guts to answer the questions. And no, I have no intention of changing your mind. You'd have to do that yourself if you wanted to. I simply wanted to see what guided your thought process to get you to your current conclusion.

Now, for NK, you cut aid (which puts you in the position today) or you continue aid (and they might keep ignoring you anyway which may force you back to the first option). As you have basically agreed that the military option is not a good one. The position that has been taken by the current administration is not exactly one which is totally out of the question, but I understand you favor giving the NK a second chance for them to keep their promise, and if they don't, drop the hammer. Is that right?

In Iraq, you would suggest that we propose easing sanctions in return for playing by the rules. That is a different tact, and certainly one that hasn't been really tried at all. But in your suggestion, lift sanctions first, and then wait for inspection. I assume that in that scenario, you'll go back to the UN if he still isn't in compliance over time.

Question here is of course: what is the time frame you are looking at?

Ok, fair enough. I think the UN idea certainly sounds very reasonable, but then isn't that kind of what Bush is doing now? After all, by your argument, he could've always just gone ahead and ignored the UN altogether. I don't think you can automatically assume it's a facade Bush is putting up, because otherwise, why bother having Colin Powell at the UN at all when the U.S. has a perfectly good ambassador there. Granted that if nothing goes through, he may go anyway. But until CNN broadcasts the first round of air raids, I would say nothing is set in stone.

By the way, when you say UN troops, do you mean reflagging U.S. troops as UN troops? Or get a mix from different countries like what they had in Samolia?

[Coyote]

In Iran, many of the common folk arre upset at the mullahs for turning their country into an international pariah. Average Joes on the street want trade, freedom, and to be left alone by the Ayatollah nutcases and their morality police in charge of the country. It comes as no surprise that they are eager for a US invasion of Iraq.

Most Westerners have no idea the amount of hatred between the Persian peoples (Iran) and the Arabs. Everyone worries about the Iranians getting nukes and going after Israel or the US... in truth, these countries are probably 6th and 7th on the list. Arab countries top the target list. It goes beyong the Sunni/Shia'a split, centuries beyond that.

I am of the opinion that the common Iranian people, once they wake up one morning and realize that the US has Iran bracketed by Afghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other, they will see the pinch and overthrow the mullahs and take the country into their own hands. As a democracy? A revitalized Shah? Who knows? But they had one revolution in recent memory so it's not like the idea is anathema to them. I hope they do it-- take back their own country, and determine their own destiny.

As to the North Koreans, well, remember that there was a war with Iraq that ended specifically on the promise that WMD's would be destroyed and that inspectors would be allowed to verify that. No similar war scenario or treaty exists with North Korea. Also, while NK has tossed a lot of rhetoric, Kim Jong Il has primarily been a problem only to his own people and has not actually launched weapons at his neighbors, fought with them, etc. Iraq has. NK has made threatening gestures but produced no real warfare.

Certainly the same blanket approach of foreign policy, treating every single nation in the exact same way, is not wise.

[Clone Sergeant]

CS,

Thanks for being such a good sport. You're actually the first one who had enough guts to answer the questions. And no, I have no intention of changing your mind. You'd have to do that yourself if you wanted to. I simply wanted to see what guided your thought process to get you to your current conclusion.

Now, for NK, you cut aid (which puts you in the position today) or you continue aid (and they might keep ignoring you anyway which may force you back to the first option). As you have basically agreed that the military option is not a good one. The position that has been taken by the current administration is not exactly one which is totally out of the question, but I understand you favor giving the NK a second chance for them to keep their promise, and if they don't, drop the hammer. Is that right?

That would be correct.

In Iraq, you would suggest that we propose easing sanctions in return for playing by the rules. That is a different tact, and certainly one that hasn't been really tried at all. But in your suggestion, lift sanctions first, and then wait for inspection. I assume that in that scenario, you'll go back to the UN if he still isn't in compliance over time.

Yes, that is also correct

Question here is of course: what is the time frame you are looking at?

Ok, fair enough. I think the UN idea certainly sounds very reasonable, but then isn't that kind of what Bush is doing now? After all, by your argument, he could've always just gone ahead and ignored the UN altogether. I don't think you can automatically assume it's a facade Bush is putting up, because otherwise, why bother having Colin Powell at the UN at all when the U.S. has a perfectly good ambassador there. Granted that if nothing goes through, he may go anyway. But until CNN broadcasts the first round of air raids, I would say nothing is set in stone.

Agreed, Bush is doing something similar to what I'm suggesting. As far as timetable is concerned. I'm not too sure. I certainly do not intend to give them 12 years like we did before. Perhaps a year or two. I'm just concerned with the U.S. shouldering the entire burden of the war. From invasion to occupation. I want to wait to see if we may be able to get more of our allies to join us.

By the way, when you say UN troops, do you mean reflagging U.S. troops as UN troops? Or get a mix from different countries like what they had in Samolia?

I want a mix of troops from many nations to spread out the threat of terrorist attacks in retaliation, making it harder for the terrorists to drive out an occupying force. If it were just us making up an occupying force and the terrorists then launch a 9/11 level attack or worse, perhaps multiple ones, the american people's resolve will weaken, making it harder for them to accept the massive expenditure of money and manpower required to occupy a nation on the other side of the world.

[Stuart Mackey]

You implied it well enough

Maybe in your own mind but when I wrote that post and when most people read it it was designed simply to convey what is Militarly possilbe should America decided to say fuck it and try and take over the world, We've done this exericse before and somone got pissed off before when we did a thread "What if the US wanted to take over the world" Some person who could not read got angrey at us for advoceting that American Engage in a Gobal War of Conquest


Same as last time, I'm mearly pointing out whats possible not what is advisible or what I support

(*BTW the By Wong thing is a joke of the common Catholic saying)

But thats besided the point, The point is we listen to our Allies who only wanted a Temporary solution instead of a permant one and here we are twelve years later because of it

Well it sure sounded like it to me, ...oh, by Wong, you will never take over the world @!&$!!!

[Dirty Harry]

Bookmark Bump. Will probably want to come back to this thread at sometime.