I was just thinking, with Bushes plans to invade Iraq are getting closer to reality, might some other countries retaliate in Iraqs defence. Or something much, much worse. Views plz
Losses of WW3: Extermination of all humanity, or at least a great part. Benefits of WW3: Extermination of all humanity, or at least a great part. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In answer to your question, no. What countries would dare retaliate in Iraq's defense? The situation would be bad, and I think we could possibly see more terrorist attacks as a result, but I doubt it would be as bad as WW3.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It would take at least 3 out of the following list to take on America: Iraq, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Israel. Anything less and the war, while a bloody one, would not be much of a competition. None of those countries will join Iraq. There is small possibility that a war with China could occur, but not for quite some time and none of those nations will aid China. A World War means a war where both sides could loose.
Due to its background, the Russians may challenge the US about its actions toward Iraq. The UK is challenging them now with Blair saying its a bad idea.
British and Russian relations is quite high. I'm betting it may happen soon. Now that Russia is a democracy, Britain will have no quams with Allying with the Reds. It'll be good to see the countries that the US have had wrapped around their little finger get even
I know, but its when the Russian and the Brits will crack and say no to the states. Anyway, Bush is now guarenteed another term. Don't see why, but he is.
Not a chance, Bush wasn't even elected for his first term (thanks to the dumb Floridians), and his presidency has been a failure so far. As for a WW3 scenario starting, you never know.... Look at how the first two World Wars started.
I dont know about WW3, but its certain that attacking iraq will have terrible consequences: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-374710,00.html "Brent Scowcroft, who remains close to the Bush family, urged the President to concentrate on trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians while separately pursuing terrorist threats to the United States. But he said that by going to war with Iraq without linking President Saddam Hussein and September 11, Washington was risking a conflagration in the Middle East that would also engulf its efforts to defeat global terror groups. " And it looks like bush war plans are going full speed ahead: http://library.northernlight.com/FB20020804410000012.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc
Any attack on Iraq will not happen unless Iraq does one of the drastic things they are being accused of. Most of the "leaks" and sabre rattling are designed to do one thing: Make Iraq believe that they will be attacked to prevent them from doing what no one can really stop them from doing. If Iraq uses any kind of biological or atomic devise, they will be destroyed and the world will say, "Gee, guess the U.S. was right" and if they never use those weapons and never get attacked them they have been stopped which is a victory for everyone. A win-win situation, but only if the threat of a pre-emptive attack is real enough.
static 76 "Not a chance, Bush wasn't even elected for his first term (thanks to the dumb Floridians), and his presidency has been a failure so far." All independent reviews and recounts confirmed that Bush did win Florida, of course the results were buried and never made the headlines of any of our liberal controlled news organizations. By the way, those dumb Floridians were mostly retired transplants from up North. They had the same percentage of discounted ballots in those counties in 1996 but because Clinton won the election so handily, nothing was made of it. I am sure those statistics were in the minds of Democratic stategists as a place to focus on in case of a close election, which is exactly what they tried to do. Figures lie and liars figure.
Bush I don't think other countries will defend Iraq against an American invasion, I think they would want to defend the oil. Do you think that Russia, China, North Korea, etc, would allow America to take over the oil fields in the Middle East? I don't think so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well I thought it would be pretty crazy, if at this meeting the nations involved decided to unite together for a common defense against the economy, the culture, and the military of the United States. If they all joined Iraq and erased their borders, W. would be so ripshit, I would laugh my ass off. Of course there's no way in hell that's going to happen, so, yeah...anyway... I saw a job approval poll of Bush, he's down to sixty or fifty nine percent. That's the lowest its been since 9/11. America's Fuckhead is going down the drain. I hope that if he comes campaigning up here I can shake his hand, god that would be so awesome. He's a total asshole, but nevertheless he's had the nation in his pocket and has been able to rewrite the constitution because of an act of terrorism that killed 3,000 people. I have total confidence that bin Laden will not be mentioned by him until the democrats start accusing him of not going after this guy, which has some truth to it. Bush has definitely sent out assassins, detectives, whatever, he just isn't telling anyone about it and isn't having much luck in the first place, so he's using the war with Iraq to distract the people from the real situation at hand. -We have to find bin Laden, we have to destroy Al Qaeda -Through peaceful means we have to either eliminate or get-close-to-eliminate terrorism. We will get nowhere by bombing people.
There will be no WWIII over Iraq. Increased terrorism, yes, which is plenty of reason to avoid an invasion since presumably this whole issue started because Bush accused Iraq of aiding Al Qaeda. Our war on terrorism will only end up increasing terrorism. Britain will never side with the Russians against the US. An English-speaking nation will never side with a Slavic nation against another English-speaking nation. In the event all those other nations mentioned above did decide to unite against the US, they could not hope to seriously challenge the US short of a nuclear exchange, which means everyone loses (MAD; mutual assured destruction). Those nations combined could not take on the US conventionally. The US is well protected behind its two natural protective barriers - the Atlantic and the Pacific. Combine the navies of those nations and they could still not take on the US Navy. Without that capability, they could never get near the US borders. Besides, the whole scenario is ridiculous. A world war would destroy the world economy, and ultimately that is the driving force behind international relations. Even China now appreciates the benefits of a capatilist market and would rather trade with the US than fiit.
I'd love to be in on the wager that Russia and/or the UK would attack the US (wagering that neither would do it). I'd take it out to 25 yrs w/ no problem and any amount of money proposed.
americans are always so sure that they are safe......you say they have two natural defences..the oceans basicaly....that didnt stop japan during world war2 did it look at pearl harbour....the american public arnt dull and are not as stupid as they are made out to be, its just they are led to belive they are safe bye the government, thus making them look like they have no thoughts of their own other than what they are told to belive! i think some (not all) americans need to open their eyes and realise that they are not industructable and that a war with a small country like iraq could result on defeat...its not always about the size of the armys....its about stratagie...look at vietnam the yanks where slaughtered there! wake up!
