The Bobcat Nation

http://www.cq.com/public/20050603B_homeland.html

Should this be the next country to invade?

yup..should be the next country to invade although some things i may point out:

1) Iran is going to be stronger then Iraq

2) do you think the UN will let us invade iran? I seriously doubt that Until a president they like *read...a demicrat* is elected president

3) iran is developing or already has in its posestion, nucluear fuel enough to produse a bomb

i would love nothign more to have iran back as our 800 pound gorilla in the mid east


also some interesting news about iraqui...err syrian nukes
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050603/D8AG4U4G0.html

In what time frame? I think we should worry about finishing the job in Iraq and Afganistan first.

Iran has been on the US watch list for years, but the potential of nuclear strikes (from Iran) has kept us from attacking. With the current temperature in the Middle East I don’t think we will see the US entering anymore Muslim countries in the near future. The government has to be real picky about who they are going to attack, because the Muslim World already thinks we are gunning for them… Iran is safe for a while, but they are heading the list of future US army targets (North Korea is really challenging for the number one position).

mquast53000 wrote:Iran has been on the US watch list for years, but the potential of nuclear strikes (from Iran) has kept us from attacking. With the current temperature in the Middle East I don’t think we will see the US entering anymore Muslim countries in the near future. The government has to be real picky about who they are going to attack, because the Muslim World already thinks we are gunning for them… Iran is safe for a while, but they are heading the list of future US army targets (North Korea is really challenging for the number one position).

lets nuke iran and North Korea - let god sort them out lol

But then you'd have to study the Koran and make the distinction as to exactly how their interpretation of events differ than my Bible...perhaps Allah and God actually are/is one and the same?

I'm not sure if you were serious about nuking Iran and N. Korea or not Hells, but let me just say that I really hope we as a society are better than that.

The 9/11 hijackers were evil because they killed innocent civilians in response to governmental policies. If we kill millions of innocent people because they happen to live under an authoritarian government that we consider a threat, then we become no better than the 9/11 hijackers.

The Biggest reason we will not invade Iraq, or North Korea:

Their leaders did not embarass, and plot to assasinate, Bush Senior.

Grizlaw wrote:I'm not sure if you were serious about nuking Iran and N. Korea or not Hells, but let me just say that I really hope we as a society are better than that.

The 9/11 hijackers were evil because they killed innocent civilians in response to governmental policies. If we kill millions of innocent people because they happen to live under an authoritarian government that we consider a threat, then we become no better than the 9/11 hijackers.

i was kidding!! good lord man do you really think i am crazy enough to want to just nuke everybody? wait....dont answer that!

Hell's Bells wrote:i was kidding!! good lord man do you really think i am crazy enough to want to just nuke everybody? wait....dont answer that!

Possibly.

More seriously, though, some of my more hawkish friends actually do favor nuking N. Korea and most of the Middle East. This is a debate I've had on a few different occasions, and I'm probably a little quick on the trigger to respond.

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:i was kidding!! good lord man do you really think i am crazy enough to want to just nuke everybody? wait....dont answer that!

Possibly.

More seriously, though, some of my more hawkish friends actually do favor nuking N. Korea and most of the Middle East. This is a debate I've had on a few different occasions, and I'm probably a little quick on the trigger to respond.

i do also know of some radio commentators that are in favor of doing that...ibet they are just trying to "pull your leg"...i hope

my question is this: why dont we just have 250,000 troops stationed in iraq ready to pounce on any potential terrorist? we basically did the same in germany - for the record our troops are still there from the post ww2 rebuilding effort.

i just wonder how mike moore and anyone who gets shocked at our casulties in war would respond to all the casualties at normandy?

We have no resources in terms of manpower to invade Grenada (exageration, don't freak out) let alone Iran. The Army can't recruit anyone to join and now they are trying to fudge their numbers. Plus our troops aren't receive the type of training the need to fight this type of war. We need a 5 year break once we ever get out of Iraq to be able to field and train anyone to fight terrorist-type outfit. Our own military people are telling the Pentagon our strategy is dated.

Hell's Bells wrote:i just wonder how mike moore and anyone who gets shocked at our casulties in war would respond to all the casualties at normandy?

Of course, the reality is that Moore and friends are opposed to the war, period. It wouldn't matter how many or how few casualties there were; they'd be outraged just the same, because they simply oppose the war. Normandy was different; I obviously wasn't around back then, but I doubt there were many people vocally arguing that we should not be involved in WWII the way they're arguing such about Iraq.

I do have to say, though, the one thing that does scare me is the cavalier talk of "who should we invade next?", as if it were a given that we should definitely invade *someone* next. The attitudes toward war in this country have changed since 9/11, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. Throughout history, there have always been regimes that were a threat to us (the Soviet Union, etc.), but for the most part, we have always managed to work through such threats without resorting to war.

I have to wonder how the Cold War would have ended if Americans in the 70's and 80's had been as willing to invade other countries as we are today. Would we have attacked the Soviet Union and started WWIII? If we had, where would we be now?

The reason Russia became such a threat is because we weren't proactive and let them dictate the surrender of Germany and thus Eastern Europe.
And yes I know you can be proactive without war and I think that is what we are doing with N. Korea.

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:i just wonder how mike moore and anyone who gets shocked at our casulties in war would respond to all the casualties at normandy?

Of course, the reality is that Moore and friends are opposed to the war, period. It wouldn't matter how many or how few casualties there were; they'd be outraged just the same, because they simply oppose the war. Normandy was different; I obviously wasn't around back then, but I doubt there were many people vocally arguing that we should not be involved in WWII the way they're arguing such about Iraq.

I do have to say, though, the one thing that does scare me is the cavalier talk of "who should we invade next?", as if it were a given that we should definitely invade *someone* next. The attitudes toward war in this country have changed since 9/11, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. Throughout history, there have always been regimes that were a threat to us (the Soviet Union, etc.), but for the most part, we have always managed to work through such threats without resorting to war.

I have to wonder how the Cold War would have ended if Americans in the 70's and 80's had been as willing to invade other countries as we are today. Would we have attacked the Soviet Union and started WWIII? If we had, where would we be now?

grizlaw the question would be where would we be if we were proactive with germany like we were with iraq and N.Korea. I will tell ya this...there would not have been a holicost like there was, germany was not prepaired for war in the 30's, but noone was prepaired for war in the 1930's. Germany was SCARED of france and britin

Grizlaw wrote:I do have to say, though, the one thing that does scare me is the cavalier talk of "who should we invade next?", as if it were a given that we should definitely invade *someone* next.

No kidding. Again, why can't we just begin to stay out of foreign affairs? I do know we have our arms deep into the dirty laundry that is a "world peace" effort, but our government seriously needs to think about backing off a bit, i.e., letting some stuff go. Or is it already too late for that?

grizzh8r wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:I do have to say, though, the one thing that does scare me is the cavalier talk of "who should we invade next?", as if it were a given that we should definitely invade *someone* next.

No kidding. Again, why can't we just begin to stay out of foreign affairs? I do know we have our arms deep into the dirty laundry that is a "world peace" effort, but our government seriously needs to think about backing off a bit, i.e., letting some stuff go. Or is it already too late for that?

We could go back to being isolationists like pre-WWI

mquast53000 wrote:We could go back to being isolationists like pre-WWI

I wouldnt mind a bit - LETS DO IT!!