Where I live would be the spot where the war will first start, So I would have the choices of being a slave or a part of a resistance group. I would choose to fight the evil commies.
same here…
North Korea
-
Well, at least there’s no arguement about what kind of regime will be setup in North Korea, because the two will finally be reunited if North Korea is attacked. An attack there would also be the US trying to fix its own mess. The US could have chosen to occupy all of Korea but instead they chose to split it with the Soviets, a stupid mistake at the time that has kept the Koreans in two countries, one wasteland in the north and one US friendly Capitalist regime in the south.
I dont really blame Clinton that much. After Kim Il Sung’s death, who would have thought that the country would keep on developing nuclear weapons and remain as radical as it has.
-
I hear north Koreas ruler has a very big home movie colection
-
Falk, after Iraq we will probably go after Iran before N. Korea. Part of the reason is that we may have to deal with China at the same time as N. Korea. Iraq will be america Two, Iran can be America Three, which we will use mostly for storage space, and then there is always America Four: the Korean Adventure.
-
I think that if the us invades korea then 1. korea gets no help and the war is short lived. or 2. China helps korea and it turns ino WWIII #1 being more probeble
-
GeZe,
I’m afraid that you are mistaken about what is necessary for a WW3 to take place…
You need to have 2 large, formidable, closely-matched opponents for a war of those proportions…
China is NOWHERE NEAR OUR POWER. The importance of tech and air forces cannot be underestimated…
they would lose decisively, and therefore, not get involved in the first place.
-
I’m not sure China would lose “decisively”… though they smart enough not to get involved…
- Moses
-
@city:
China is NOWHERE NEAR OUR POWER. The importance of tech and air forces cannot be underestimated…
they would lose decisively, and therefore, not get involved in the first place.
The world would lose decisively.
That includes the PRC and the USA. -
Good Lord!!!
The war-mongering here is crazy. Why is it that the US is allowed to keep world-annhilating numbers of nukes, yet a struggling country looks to up itself militarily and all of a sudden its necessary to invade them???
The world is a much bigger and more complex place than many here realize. Certainly i may be seen as an idiot (savant?) peacenik, however in my (very limited) travel experiences, i’ve come to realize (shockingly) that people are very much a like in many respects everywhere. They do not all want to take over the world (well, 'cept for in America where they do not even know what goes on in the world that they seek to control), they all have their needs, wants and wishes and most of those do not include being invaded. I have also come to realize that many of these people are very different in their cultures and ways of thinking. Why is it that we in the west, like the Europeans of old continually seek to dominate, shape and change these ways into our image?
What is the truly great thing to do?? To step in and bloody up the works in advance, or to take the high road, helping out these nations (non-militarily) in order to prevent the works from being bloodied up in the first place? Surely it is not America’s fault that N. Korea has been a bit of a hole the last few decades - that doesn’t mean that they are in imminant danger of being attacked by them. I think that the West could take advantage of this massive turning point in N. Korea’s history and convert it into an ally and friend. Stranger things have happened in my short life. -
Consider the following possible scenario…
- Russia, China, or France veto the Iraq resolution.
- Bush decides to attack Iraq and begins collecting forces in the gulf
- Iran begins moving forces to its border with Iraq to “secure the border” for the upcoming US invasion.
- The US attacks Iraq. Initial bombing is messy, the bulk of Iraqi forces are in urban centers. Ground forces are needed.
- US commits ground forces to Iraq.
- China invades Taiwan claiming the US military hardware sold to Taiwan is a serious threat to Mainland China. A preventive/defensive strike is warranted by China for the same reasons the U.S. is invading Iraq.
- Iranian forces cross the Iraqi border. Iran claims it is crossing the border to provide humanitarian relief to innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the conflict. The Iranian troops are there simply to provide security for Iranian humanitarian relief workers and Iraqi citizens who might otherwise be terrorized by elements of Saddams military. It is noted however that Iranian military forces seem to be focused on diffing in around eastern Iraqi oil fields.
?? What does the U.S. do now ??
-
I don’t doubt we’d win a war against China, but prepared for it to go Nuclear. Say goodbye to all of East Asia, including our friends in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. And probably hundreds of thousands of Americans.
People are way too quick to shout war these days. War is never a good thing. Except in Bush’s mind, he ran away from the Vietnam war.
-
We have no clear assurances that the next war will be a nuclear one… :-?
-
@TG:
We have no clear assurances that the next war will be a nuclear one… :-?
as chills go down cc’s spine
-
heh… they’ve said that of several wars we’ve faught in before… :-?
-
@city:
GeZe,
I’m afraid that you are mistaken about what is necessary for a WW3 to take place…
You need to have 2 large, formidable, closely-matched opponents for a war of those proportions…
China is NOWHERE NEAR OUR POWER. The importance of tech and air forces cannot be underestimated…
they would lose decisively, and therefore, not get involved in the first place.
firts of all the have tha largest militery in the world second there terranie would make it a hard country to take over completely,the himilayas, the desert, its the 3rd largest country in the world, and the HAVE nuclear weapons!
-
Okay everyone,
Step away from the crazyness.
Slowly - you’re not used to not being crazy. . . i understand that, so baby steps.
Let me know when you are done being all 1950’s America. -
eh… this is all speculation. Not like we have any real power… :-?
-
@cystic:
Okay everyone,
Step away from the crazyness.
Slowly - you’re not used to not being crazy. . . i understand that, so baby steps.
Let me know when you are done being all 1950’s America.lol roflmao
-
@cystic:
Good Lord!!!
More to that later ;)
The world is a much bigger and more complex place than many here realize. Certainly i may be seen as an idiot (savant?) peacenik, however in my (very limited) travel experiences, i’ve come to realize (shockingly) that people are very much a like in many respects everywhere. They do not all want to take over the world (well, 'cept for in America where they do not even know what goes on in the world that they seek to control), they all have their needs, wants and wishes and most of those do not include being invaded. I have also come to realize that many of these people are very different in their cultures and ways of thinking. Why is it that we in the west, like the Europeans of old continually seek to dominate, shape and change these ways into our image?
I don’t see you as an idiot, and i agree from my limited experiences. Man is man, each the same, yet each unique.
And i think i do have an answer to your question:
Missionaric (sp?) spirit. The christian church (emphasising the church, christianity has the spirit to convert everyone, that is a seed that grew and found it means in the church). If you know you are right (like the pope), then by definition people who think differently are wrong. If you then have the power to “teach” them…. voilá.
Pretty simple model, but it shows what i think, in rough terms. -
I think that “missionaric spirit” (not an entirely inappropriate neologism) need not be entertwined w/ imperialism. Certainly many have used Christian symbols to enslave people in the past, but i am not certain that this is of the same “go out and tell the world with love” raison d’etre that drives missionaries. The Mennonite Central Committee does not care where the oil is, just where they can provide food, blankets and other services to needy people.
-
@cystic:
I think that “missionaric spirit” (not an entirely inappropriate neologism) need not be entertwined w/ imperialism.
Certainly many have used Christian symbols to enslave people in the past, but i am not certain that this is of the same “go out and tell the world with love” raison d’etre that drives missionaries. The Mennonite Central Committee does not care where the oil is, just where they can provide food, blankets and other services to needy people.It need not be intertwined, but IMHO it often enough was. In the name of the cross bloody wars were fought first in europe (against saxons by Charlemagne AFAIR, later the Order of German Knights in Russia, the Crusades, the Reconquista in Spain). These were wars which of course were for “power”; but you shouldn’t underestimate the influence of the christian belief and of the christian church.
Of course, if you go back further…
then we find the (late) Roman Empire, ruling “the world” with a christian Emperor in Rome and Konstantinople. Maybe losing this, a single world-dominating ruler, was one of the reasons for later kings to conquer in the name of the cross: to become a king as big as the Roman emperors, to let christianity rule over the world again. This desire, together with the desire for a united christian world under one ruler (which showed itself in the Holy Roman Empire with Charlemagne as first Emperor), can explain a lot IMHO.
And after that, we (westerners) just never stopped behaving like that.The Mennonites are a pretty “new” “sect” inside christianity. When we talk of christians, especially in a historical context, i think we should concentrate on the Catholics and their views… and the official views still are pretty medieval there.
Suggested Topics
