Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

Who should America strike first, Iraq, N. Korea, or niether?

  • Iraq

    Votes: 16 32.0%

  • North Korea

    Votes: 7 14.0%

  • Neither

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Originally posted by Maniac II
Ya, but the question i asked is : Who should we strike FIRST.... and i dont think we would take them both at once...i'd figure it would be one after the other.:)
Click to expand...

well, in that case, hit N. korea first cause all the attention is on Iraq, then immediatly (i mean like wait a couple minutes) then roll strait on to baghdad
 
Ya, but the question i asked is : Who should we strike FIRST.... and i dont think we would take them both at once...i'd figure it would be one after the other.
Click to expand...

In WWII we handled two theaters and brought them both to unconditional surrender.
 
Originally posted by T8H3X11
In WWII we handled two theaters and brought them both to unconditional surrender.
Click to expand...

True, but then again in WWII we never suffered from a president like clinton, who "downsized" half our military :(
 
And that only took what, four years and a couple of hundred thousand casualties? Besides, I think there were a few other countries that helped just a little in the winning of WW2. :rolleyes:

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Maniac II
True, but then again in WWII we never suffered from a president like clinton, who "downsized" half our military :(
Click to expand...
He didn't downsize it. What he did barely even scratched the surface of the military. And you just pray that one of these days you get a president who realises how needlessly bloated your military really is. I don't actually understand why any American would object to reducing the US military. The last time all of it was needed was when?
 
I don't understand why the US military doesn't have sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads yet.
 
Originally posted by Maniac II
True, but then again in WWII we never suffered from a president like clinton, who "downsized" half our military :(
Click to expand...

Also, in WWII, we were attacked first, there was a draft, the government took over the econimy to preserve war production, gas and food was rationed... (Government intervention in the economy? Sounds kinds socialist to me :rolleyes: )

You know what's irritating, Knight Ridder reported that 83% of Americans support a war with Iraq if the UN is with us, that's the same percentage that can not correctly answer the question, "How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi?"

The correct answer is zero.
 
Originally posted by ChrisReid
I don't understand why the US military doesn't have sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads yet.
Click to expand...

I was always a supporter of the Heroin-Addicted Nazi Attack Dolphin myself.
 
Originally posted by Ender
You know what's irritating, Knight Ridder reported that 83% of Americans support a war with Iraq if the UN is with us, that's the same percentage that can not correctly answer the question, "How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi?"
The correct answer is zero.
Click to expand...

I bet that's the same percentage that sees that and says, "Knight Rider? What does Knight Rider have anything to do with this?"
 
How about America just threaten to nuke the whole world if it doesn't give in to their demands? It certainly has the World Massecring Devices other countries arn't allowed to have to do it, and it would seem that it's what some people would want.
 
Originally posted by TC
Pardon me? How can you see hard numbers that refute what you're saying as flawed?
Click to expand...

Again, you have to understand my dislike of the UN. As it tends to be a large group, rather designed to completely bash upon the United States (especially as of lately), is only going to inform people in negative respects.

It's like saying that guns are good in the hands of citizens for protection-your going to find another study saying it's not. Hard number's aren't that concrete I'm afraid.

But I do agree with you-they probably are right, remember that I said that. I'm saying I see things from the UN as rather flawed-as it is a rather anti-American institution. (Not your numbers.)
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
How about America just threaten to nuke the whole world if it doesn't give in to their demands? It certainly has the World Massecring Devices other countries arn't allowed to have to do it, and it would seem that it's what some people would want.
Click to expand...

"God i love that boy's spunk!" :D
Actuall i agree, us could kick ass against the world... But then all they would have to do i land a few well placed nukes....
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
Again, you have to understand my dislike of the UN. As it tends to be a large group, rather designed to completely bash upon the United States (especially as of lately), is only going to inform people in negative respects.
Click to expand...

Designed to completely bash upon the united states, WHY THE FUCK THEN DID WE DESIGN IT? why did we make it? why did we create the place?

you are showing such a skewed view its sick, the UN most of the time has been used as the US's puppet, we got them to make our defence of S. Korea legit, we got them to agree to take out Iraq the first time, etc etc etc ad nauseum. and they were right to agree each time, now that we are on the wrong side of the moral fence and are being called on it by the un you are so pissed off at them for what not agreeing to everything we ever do?
 
Personaly, I think we sould do N. Korea, since they have those plants going now, and let Iraq sizzle in the desert for a while, since the U.N. isn't for it. That way, when/if they DO have weapons and DO use them against another country (for defense... HA! Last I checked bioweapons, nukes, and chemicals were for offensive, not defensive, unless you like you own land uninhabitable), we can sit back and say "Haha, we told you so!"

However, it's realy about the oil. N.Korea doesn't have any, and thats why you don't see us mobilizing against them, at least not on the scale against Iraq. War is where the money is. Any "moral" backing is to keep the civilians from protesting and potentialy overthrowing the corrupt government.
 
Originally posted by t.c.cgi
That way, when/if they DO have weapons and DO use them against another country (for defense... HA! Last I checked bioweapons, nukes, and chemicals were for offensive, not defensive, unless you like you own land uninhabitable), we can sit back and say "Haha, we told you so!"
Click to expand...
Last I checked, nuclear weapons were the most effective defensive weapon ever invented.
 
I think this needs clarifying. The threat of nuclear weapons is the most effective defensive weapon. Anyone can say they have nukes, and can back it up with photographic or video evidence. They don't actually have to have one, they only have to say they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top