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.

:D

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.

Want to place a small wagger on Britain and Russia ever firing at the Yanks?

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

Can we put money on this?

What kind of money? Over what time frame? 5yrs, 10yr, 25yrs?

W.Bush will be gone in 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 25 yrs....

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.

Originally posted by Thor


Anyway, Bush is now guarenteed another term. Don't see why, but he is.

Not likely....

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.

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. :)

Well I thought it would be pretty crazy, if at this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.turkey/index.html) 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.

Originally posted by Coldrake
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.

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!

Vietnam era fights are long gone. We are in a technology era. Why we always go back to the 78 rpm records and the technology behind it - I will never know.

Originally posted by Maveric
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!

Umm...Pearl Harbor is not part of the continental US. At the time of the Japanese attack it was simply a US naval base on US-controlled territory. And if memory serves me well, Japan lost.

As far as Vietnam, for the most part I agree with you that it was a tragic war However, I served in Vietnam and I know first hand about it so I don't need to hear it from you. Slaughtered? I don't think so. We had 50k dead in a 10 year period compared to about 1m Vietnamese deaths, so yeah I guess you can say there was a slaughter. But the American public grew weary of it and we were brought home, thankfully, because that was a war we didn't need to be fighting to begin with. But your point about Vietnam does nothing to refute my point about a successful invasion of the continental US. No offense, but what do you know about the strategies of war?

And I think you missed the point of my post. I merely laid out the realities of the current strategic situation. Short of a nuclear attack, there is no combination of nations that would be capable of launching a successful invasion on the continental US. If you think differently, then lay your war plan out there for me.

I will say this - I've said before that maybe the best thing to happen to the American people is that they experience the horrors of war on their own soil. The WTC attack was not the same thing. It was horrible, but brief, and only served to anger Americans. A sustained war on American soil might make Americans less likely to support a government that was quick to call for war in the future. It may happen one day, but it won't be in the foreseeable future.

im thinking that by the time i turn 25, there could certainly be a war. Whether it will happen though, is something that could possibly be avoided with a good deal of luck.

Originally posted by Coldrake
The WTC attack was not the same thing. It was horrible, but brief, and only served to anger Americans.

This seems to be an understatement. I’d say the WTC attack blew a giant hole in our economy that is still an open wound 16 months later. Not only did general pessimism intensify the recession, but the attack handed Bush a pretext to go after Iraq. That sounds like a highly effective campaign to me.

Our war on terrorism will only end up increasing terrorism.

Yes.

Originally posted by Coldrake
Umm...Pearl Harbor is not part of the continental US. At the time of the Japanese attack it was simply a US naval base on US-controlled territory. And if memory serves me well, Japan lost.

As far as Vietnam, for the most part I agree with you that it was a tragic war However, I served in Vietnam and I know first hand about it so I don't need to hear it from you. Slaughtered? I don't think so. We had 50k dead in a 10 year period compared to about 1m Vietnamese deaths, so yeah I guess you can say there was a slaughter. But the American public grew weary of it and we were brought home, thankfully, because that was a war we didn't need to be fighting to begin with. But your point about Vietnam does nothing to refute my point about a successful invasion of the continental US. No offense, but what do you know about the strategies of war?

And I think you missed the point of my post. I merely laid out the realities of the current strategic situation. Short of a nuclear attack, there is no combination of nations that would be capable of launching a successful invasion on the continental US. If you think differently, then lay your war plan out there for me.

I will say this - I've said before that maybe the best thing to happen to the American people is that they experience the horrors of war on their own soil. The WTC attack was not the same thing. It was horrible, but brief, and only served to anger Americans. A sustained war on American soil might make Americans less likely to support a government that was quick to call for war in the future. It may happen one day, but it won't be in the foreseeable future.


i wasnt aiming this post at you inparticular......but when you say 'what do you know about stratagie'...my dad is a tank commander my brother is in the army...i get a fair bit of feed back about what happens!

and no its not impossible to attack america...do you think america could attack china if they wanted...yes they could! do you think china could attack america if they wanted?...yes they could (im not talking politicaly now)!

its not an invincible army america has!

Before I make my point, can I ask all you US citizens out there, how can you stand by and let that smirking twat face ruin your great country? I love the States, I've spent 3 summers in 3 different parts of it and it sickens me that such a inarticulate, corrupt, gun slinging fool is running the whole show.

To make my point, I'd like to ask has anyone read 1984 by George Orwell? If you have, you'll know that the Leader keeps everyone in line by making them fear the enemy. Nobody questions the Leader's actions/mistakes as their first concern is that of the enemy. It seems to me that George Dubya is attempting to do something similar in the good ole USA. Creating this myth of an "Axis of Evil" to keep the focus off unemployment, social welfare, education, the environment and all the other issues which would be hitting the headlines instead. It also seems somehow unpatriotic to publically critise the President.

So, will he start WW3? - I reckon he'll keep this ball rolling as long as he can.

i find it ironic that the "enermy" in 1984 used to be the partys friend

WHO trained osama?

Not irony.

goofy:p

Originally posted by bryboru
can I ask all you US citizens out there, how can you stand by and let that smirking twat face ruin your great country?

Welcome to sciforums bryboru. I rarely meet them but somewhere out there is half the nation who likes Bush. The mid-term elections reinforced that. Since we’re a majority rule country we’ll have to go where Bush takes us. As scary as it may be I think it likely he’ll serve two terms. Maybe this is what the U.S. needs to wake up some people, like the guy who said “I’ll vote for whoever lowers the gas price by 10 cents a gallon.”

Originally posted by Maveric
i wasnt aiming this post at you inparticular......

OK, I understand.

but when you say 'what do you know about stratagie'...my dad is a tank commander my brother is in the army...i get a fair bit of feed back about what happens!

OK, You get some feedback. I apologize.

and no its not impossible to attack america...do you think america could attack china if they wanted...yes they could! do you think china could attack america if they wanted?...yes they could (im not talking politicaly now)!

When you say "attack" I'm not completely sure what you mean. Do you mean nuke it? Sure we can do that. But why? Could China conduct a first strike? No. At least not an effective one, and the retaliation would be devastating for them. There would be no thought of mutually assured destruction. China would be destroyed and the US would easily survive. That's not bravado. That's the reality of the current situation.

I assume though that when you say 'attack' you are talking about a conventional invasion. Again, could the US invade China? Of course. But what would be the point? To conquer a nation generally requires the offensive force to occupy it and subdue the population. China is far too large with a population too great. The Japanese Empire was never able to subdue the Chinese in 12 years. But, for the sake of argument, if the US did decide to invade China it could. Why? Because it has the navy and the transport capabilities to do so.

Could China invade the US? No. China has a small ocean-going navy at this time. Most of its boats are coastal, and its subs are diesels. It doesn't have the transports to move troops across the Pacific in any numbers. They simply do not have the ability to conduct an amphibious invasion at this point.

I am not saying this as an arrogant american, but simply as someone who is in a position to make a realistic evaluation of the current strengths and capabilities of both the US and China. But who knows? In ten years China may have those capabilities.



its not an invincible army america has!

I agree. No army is. But if the US army is defeated it will be finally for fighting in some foolish war far away from US shores. However, if that army was drawn up in defense of the continental US, I dare say that it could take on all comers indefinitely. First, an invader would have to wade through the US Navy, which would be no easy task, and at this point there is no combination of navies out there that can match its strength (again, just talking on-paper strengths). Invaders would have to try and get an amphibious transport force across an ocean with the world's most powerful navy and the world's most powerful air force, both of which would be intent on destroying that invasion force. And what would be left, if anything, would then have to take on an entrenched US army. Military doctrine has always been that an invading force should have a minimum 5-3 superiority against an entrenched force, and preferably 2-1. While that has not always been the case, it is a pretty good rule of thumb.

Originally posted by bryboru
Before I make my point, can I ask all you US citizens out there, how can you stand by and let that smirking twat face ruin your great country?

Hopefully, we can get him out in '04. He wasn't a shoe-in in 2000, with the contested voting in Florida giving him the election. I didn't vote for him to start with. Didn't like Gore either, but I figured Bush would be a replicant of his dad, and that made him more dangerous than Gore.

To make my point, I'd like to ask has anyone read 1984 by George Orwell?

Yes, and your point is well taken and has been discussed in many circles here in the states.

So, will he start WW3? - I reckon he'll keep this ball rolling as long as he can.

No. The rest of the world may not like what Bush is doing, but none of them will go to war over Saddam. The rest of the world would like to see him gone too, they just don't support getting him out this way. But they're NOT going to risk a world war over a two-bit dictator. Terrorism against the US and its interests will go on, of course, but that was inevitable anyway unfortunately.