This war of the US againest Iraq without United Nations backing is really scaring me. What stops Pakistan and India from declaring war over Kashmir, or Rushia from capturing Chechnia, or Israel from Occupying lebanon Syria and what is left of Palestine? NorthKorea from taking over south Korea, ect, ect......What is stopping any country from invading it's neighbor and starting evil. They can all say they're doing it for national security just like the US is. It's a scary world.....The soverienty of the United Nations is destroyed. How is the US going to control the Chaos, while she was the one starting it.
If the events you have just described occur, what do you think the timescale for them will be? They can't all occur at once. It may not seem like chaos if they happen in intervals of 6 months or a year.
perhaps you don´t have to secure the "chaos" close all bases that the USA have all over the world and use your your soldiers to secure your airports and harbours ! if it´s not enough safety for you ,stop building tanks and use the money to create your SDI Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But why not, the nature of chaos suggests that all order fails. We are already seeing that with Russia and China who couldn't stand each other becoming allies. France and Germany that couldn't do anything but kill each other are uniting in ideas, ect.... So not to mention the potential of the infamous border fights, you may also get big countries trying to get a bigger peace of the pie. I don't think the time frame really matters, because the US will come out of Iraq not ready for another war for a while (4-6 years) Not to mention unreadiness in terms of budget and troop allocation. Countries have a long window to satisfy their political agendas and vengence.......and noone can stop them.
We just fought in Afghanistan and now we're fighting in Iraq. Who's to say that the campaign couldn't take us to Korea, India, and then Russia, eh? We could take care of them all in one swift stroke! spot the star wars reference and win five dollars!
Correction. We trained in Afghanistan and now we are fighting in Iraq. All we did in Afghanistan was tested our weapons and trained our pilots and special ops in chasing bunch of stupid Qaeda nomads. Iraq will take a big toll on us financially....afterall, it has been three weeks and we have not even gotten, Saddam, the first part of many parts of this war. Comeon Pollux V. If you were China's leader, wouldn't you call in secret Russia to create a convoy with the Chechens while you take over Taiwan and Hong Kong....it's a prime opportunity...
If I was suddenly China's leader from who I am today I'd try to preserve peace as best as I could and introduce a capitalist economy into the nation itself. I wouldn't want to conquer anyone because doing so would easily start another world war.
Balkans....how can you compare Jerrick. The balkans invovled two sides, the croatians and the serbians who were primarily fighting one another. US merely assisted in that war and didn't start it. The number of military, planes, immunition, ect.......doesn't even compare with the war on Iraq. The commitment of the Iraq war have no precedent in history. We are far more commited to this war than in Vietnam. This is a military occupation with unknown plans to expand. Do you want to remind me also of Somalia? We had a great time there right? How about running from Biruit after embassy attack and 300 military dead? Don't try to play this US is invincible crap, we're very vincible if we keep with our current idiotic posting all our plans and dirty laundry policy......
And how would you introdue capitalist economy without the capital, richness, and markets of Hong Kong and Taiwan. How can you improve your trade without control of the most famous ports of these countries. Believe me, the historical fights over these areas are for good reason.....they're not mere game....They're important political strategies for survival and control.
Whats to stop war? Foriegn trade Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If canada likes to buy our oranges and we like to buy their...thier... uh... syrup? We won't fight if we have economic ties. If there is war both of our economies will suffer because Canada won't buy our oranges and we won't buy thier syrup. This was the reason why insituted the martial plan after WWII so Germany would have something to loose and we would have economic ties. The most important thing to do thought is never to become isolationist.
Yeah salty, but the problem is not establishing trade relation with Iraq and US over oil. It's more like defying the world to take control of the entire reserve, set the prices that US wants, and sell the oil to whom the US please. US wants to use the Iraqi oil to boost it's economy and control and bargain with the rest of the world. Who the hell is Opaq, US wants to abolish the old opaq and establish it's own opaq, with it being it's only member.
Salty: "If canada likes to buy our oranges and we like to buy their...thier... uh... syrup?' Try oil and gas: America gets far more of it from Canada than from the Arabian Gulf, is happy to pay Canadians more for it, and Americans don't even think about it because we have minimal cultural/religious/political friction. Surely this has nothing to do with the Jewish lobby, or racismPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're right, I started saying Taiwan, and Hongkong followed. Still if you ask anyone from Hongkong if they're chinease, they'll tell you, we're from HongKong, and they'll refer to the chinease as the communist china.
Heflores, I understand what you are trying to say, but c'mon. Pakistan and India have basically been at war for the last 50 years, maybe not full-blown, but a war. The only thing that stops them is MAD because of their nukes. Russia hasn't captured Chechnia because of the Chechnians, although they've certainly been trying, Israel won't try to occupy Lebanon or Syria because it would be in a serious fight, and so would N. Korea. Huh? This war is 3 weeks old. We were in Vietnam for over 2 decades and committed 58,000 men to their deaths. Don't try to compare the 2 to me at this point. We lost 18 men in Somalia and killed an estimated 1000+ Somalis. We left because Clinton decided there was nothing to gain by being there, not because the US was 'vincible'. Beirut? Teh standing orders was the US Marines could not fire their weapons, but just be there and act like a UN peacekeeping force. And again, Reagan wavered on his conviction. While I agree with you that I don't want the US to maintain a heavy hand in the Middle East, let's not get carried away with our analogies.
