If the USA gets involved in the near future with forcible consequence in IRAN ie Attacking them, do you think a draft in the US would be in order? In recent news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_troops_iq1) The top general in IRAQ has said that the soldiers there are stretched. If we were to get involved in another war at this time, I don't see how it would be possible to have another war on another front without having more soldiers. In my opinion, we would have to be crazed to go to war with IRAN and I think that they are hoping for a peaceful outcome with this whole Nuclear plant issue. On the other hand, if Iran attacked Israel or pissed enough people off, it may end up being necessary. Only in jest now: The U.S. should send over some crafts that looking like flying saucer and drop bombs on IRAN's nuclear plant. Then the whole world can just blame it on the Aliens.
Of course they're hoping for a peaceful outcome. Even if there is or isn't a shortage of troops, there's nothing currently that would indicate an armed conflict is in the making. I trust that you've noticed that other countries are starting to side against Iran's nuclear program. And that could mean that IF force becomes absolutely necessary the U.S. would probably not have to go at it alone. Incidentally, the latest news seems to indicate that Iran may very well accept Russia's offer to supply the needed materials which could mean that they will halt their own efforts to produce it.
i agree with this. i think that the UN would most likely go against Iran together in which case the US would probably send in a completely minimal amount of troops considering how thinly stretched our forces are around the world currently. if they accept russia's offer conflict may be avoided completely.
If we do go to war with Iran (for whatever reason), how about we elect a separate and concurrent democratic/liberal executive and cabinet to run this war so that we can compare which party is actually better at executing a war? Hell, we could give each party it's own army, navy, air force; we could build another pentagon (or pentagram, if the liberal majority prefer), etc., but since we are going to be fighting so many wars in the near future (after all, there is a lot of policing, nation-building, democracy-spreading, oil and labor exploitation, and terrorism-halting to do, not to mention good cheer to spread), why don't we spread the wealth, so to say? Maybe we could create two military-industrial complexes too. I mean, two would be better than one, right? And a little competition between the "two" military-industrial complexes would be healthy, right? Lower prices and all. Maybe someday one of them would be driven out of business due to incompetency (like Ford, or United, say), but hell, we'll deal with that when the time comes, maybe prop one of them up or something. I don't know, maybe I should forget the whole thing. Mercs, you know. Wouldn't want our armies too competitive. Might blow up in our collective face.
Apparently we aren't allowed to be hypocrital on this forum so there we go: So, how should the world attack the US? Should we just nuke them? Boycot them? Or mount a full scale invasion. And do we need to reinstate the draft in several countries to do so? Or should we continue with terrorist attacks? After all, the US is producing nuclear weapons, has used them in the past and says will use them in the future.
No way we will attack Iran the way we attacked Iraq. If the nuclear issue isn't settled and Iran starts to enrich it's own uranium, Israel will attack the facility with conventional weapons. What happens then?
I think you should stick to picking cotton, cottontop & leave the military thinking to experts, these ideas are rambles, lets all thank god you are not in the whitehouse, or for that matter in the army with a loaded gun.
It's a mystery to me, cotton. Their track record is not so good. I guess it's not about responsibility and moral, but about what you can get away with. Since there are no superpowers anymore but just one hyperpower they can get away with anything.
But I am in the army, vincent my boy. Legally. West Point grad to boot. Class of '92. Even trained with some of your Sandhurst boys. Spent a little time training with the Israelis too. Very austere military academy there. Not to mention the Berlin Brigade (6/40th Armor). So I can command, drive and fire an M1A1/A2, BFV, or other piece of jet-propelled heavy metal at the enemy's ass if necessary. It's good though, here in the good ole usa, that I don't have to be in the army to own, carry or fire a gun, unlike Britain. Too bad, though, about that incident. Anyway, what's so wrong with rambling?
actually, i think the US has a decent track record in terms of nuclear arms. we had the bomb first and only ever used it to end the biggest worldwide conflict in a thousand years. we then had a race of proliferation with russia, but never used a single one of those weapons for any military purpose. we then agreed jointly with russia to draw down our arsenal, not sell it off, and keep it in high security environments. we joined and helped negotiate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in order to minimize the risk of nuclear attack anywhere in the world. we have been involved in many conflicts all over the world after the use of nuclear weapons, and have not even threatened their use in any one. i'd say that shows a decent amount of restraint. and i think that most of the world is against iran developing nuclear weapons at this point considering that their country is run by a delusional war-mongering theocrat bent on enforcing the rule of muslim law throughout the world.
What we can get away with, now, is soon to be vastly different from what we are going to be able to get away with in the near future. Look at Asia lining up against us (India, China, Russia). And who do we, as Americans, owe a debt of gratitude to for bringing this increased tension to the world? Why, none other than radical fundamentalists right here at home. Neo-cons. The bushes, cheneys, rumsfelds, frists, delays and neys of this sweet little ole harmless country. I say, let's throw a party for them. What a wonderful world it's shaping up to be under their wise and benevolent rule. Hip-hip-hooray!! Three cheers for the good ole boys club of America!!
True, but the threat is definitely inherent and implied. Why would we ever need to use them again? Does wonders for your bargaining power, too.
Yeah you could buy oozie machine guns before clinton came in, but i hear bush has reinstated that right to buy machine guns. Well a machine gun does come in handy, if there is a queue at the supermarket checkout, or if your child is bullied at school, he can borrow pops machine gun, to kill everybody, no cotton i prefer the british truncheon it does the job, and evrbody lives to tell the tale, guns are for gun clubs, or game shooting, there not for walking about with. I think michael moore is just about right on your gun culture, i hope your seeing some action in iraq, are you not lyndsey englands boyfriend, hey and cotton it gets damn hot in iraq 50 degrees sometimes, please feel free to take off your body armour to cool down, but leave your helmut on, there is enough fresh air inside your head.
arguably, we had plenty of bargaining power on the international scene prior to our use of nuclear weapons. and a threat is not the same thing as a deterrent. a police officer doesnt come up to you and say "hey, i'm going to give you the death penalty as soon as you murder someone." no, the death penalty is there to act as a deterrent to commiting murder in the first place, its not the same as a threat. whether it works or not is another debate in itself, but whatever.
vincent baby, you are a dolt. still trying to find my phone number? shouldn't be that hard, with directions to my house and all. by the way, thanks so much for all the flowery e-mails. please, send more. also, how's your little prince harry liking his time of service guarding his grandma? he gone nuts yet? or did they give him some cross or such for valorous service?
Arguably. Your splitting hairs now. No, you're right, the lawbooks do that. However you want to put it. Zoom out a little.
well, i mean theres a big difference. if you read a little bit about threat escalation and how it works, then you'll realize that a deterrent and a threat arent the same thing. maybe i gave a poor example, but that doesnt mean im splitting hairs. why dont you walk up to a person on the street who is a foot taller than you and 150 pounds heavier with a bunch of scars and a sledgehammer in his hand and punch them in the face? because chances are you will get the shit kicked out of you. so you dont do it. thats a deterrent that isnt a threat. thats how it works. theres a million different scenarios where this could be demonstrated. sorry though, i see that this is a costly digression from your little verbal slap fight with that vincent dude, so i'll just let you go on with that its more entertaining.
charles cure, I understand what you are trying to differentiate between. To me, though, the differences are miniscule. Let me put it another way. Let me zoom out a little, rather. With regards to Iran and their crazy president (who is really just a mouthpiece for the ayatollahs). Do you think the three men who run Iran are more or less dangerous than Kim Jong Il in North Korea? About the same? Probably, if you believe the line of bullshit fed to Americans through corporate media outlets. Personally, I think Kim is the more dangerous, and he's the one with the nukes. Seems to me that bush has a hard time dealing with more than one thing at once, so why not start with the one that has the nukes and save all the rhetoric about Iran for later. This morning, he had more to say about North Korea counterfeiting our precious dollars than he did about their nukes. Don't worry about Iran. Worry about North Korea, where our foreign policy has and is continuing to fail. Even the brilliant Condoleezza Rice isn't making much difference. Iran is much more easily dealt with. This simple fact, that we are not making any progress with NK, should be much more important than Iran. The problems are that NK isn't an arab or a muslim country, the terrain there is not flat enough for our tanks, and it isn't as easy, politically, as Iran was thought to be, not to mention there isn't much there worth fighting over. Nukes? Apparently not really as big a deal as bush claims. Certainly not as important as the counterfeiting they are doing with our currency.
