Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on February 06, 2005, 12:53:36 PM
-
Why do we go to war with countries who may be developing Nukes, or may have WMD's, but, as it turn out do not, when there are terrorist harboring countries with nukes who are allies of the US and who do not get attacked?
For example: Pakistan-was the worlds largest anti-US terrorist harboring country prior to 911 and possibly still are, if Saudi Arabia isnt.
Or: North Korea, who has in the past declared at least 1 nuke, possibly as many as 4 and have threatened to use them if we dont knuckle under to their wishes, which is esentially blackmail?
And if these countries, Iran and N korea, are on the list for possible US attack, wouldnt it be wise for them to develope the Nukes for sel;f defense? What kind of fool arse country would try to defeat the US in a conventional, dont break the rules, war?
-
Because, war is a last option?
-
Like Nuke said, war is a last option. Iraq had OVER a decade to comply with UN resolutions. Iraq never did fully comply with the UN resolutions after GW1. Iraq maintained the ability to restart its WMD programs. Iraq would not cooperate in a diplomatic solution.
What happens with the other countries you mentioned? We'll just have to wait and see how it all works out.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Because, war is a last option?
Really?! :rolleyes:
I thought that US is simply unable to defeat anyone who isn't starved to death by 10 years of international sanctions. Look at your last choices: terrorist-supporting bombings of Yugoslavia and starving Iraq...
-
Well, if you miss the opportunity to act BEFORE they have nukes, like NK, then you wait until they misuse them and you have to act.
This is sort of like saying "why didn't the world act when Hitler violates the Treaty of Versailles by introducing military conscription? Or why didn't the world act when German troops occupy the Rhineland? Or why didn't the world act after the Anschluss (union) with Austria or the occupation of the Sudetenland?
Darn good questions, because it was a whole lot harder to act after they invaded Poland.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Really?! :rolleyes:
I thought that US is simply unable to defeat anyone who isn't starved to death by 10 years of international sanctions. Look at your last choices: terrorist-supporting bombings of Yugoslavia and starving Iraq...
Never before as the term "rose colored glasses" been so appropriate.
-
boroda, the USA defeated the USSR without firing a shot. put that in your bowl of potato soup.
-
Originally posted by john9001
boroda, the USA defeated the USSR without firing a shot. put that in your bowl of potato soup.
there were shots fired...
although most will not be declassified in our lifetimes.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Why do we go to war with countries who may be developing Nukes, or may have WMD's, but, as it turn out do not, when there are terrorist harboring countries with nukes who are allies of the US and who do not get attacked?
For example: Pakistan-was the worlds largest anti-US terrorist harboring country prior to 911 and possibly still are, if Saudi Arabia isnt.
Or: North Korea, who has in the past declared at least 1 nuke, possibly as many as 4 and have threatened to use them if we dont knuckle under to their wishes, which is esentially blackmail?
And if these countries, Iran and N korea, are on the list for possible US attack, wouldnt it be wise for them to develope the Nukes for sel;f defense? What kind of fool arse country would try to defeat the US in a conventional, dont break the rules, war?
STFU already.
Karaya
-
Nope, no war with Iran or North Korea unless they strike first. Or let Osama go on their national TV giving the U.S. the finger.
-
now puten is helping the taliban reform in afganistan. We should take care of russia first, then iran and then korea and lastly, canada :D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
now puten is helping the taliban reform in afganistan. We should take care of russia first, then iran and then korea and lastly, canada :D
canada would surrender...I say we should sign them up to AH and let them dogfight for power!!!
No HO's...
whoever wins gets the NOOKIES and decides who does what...
megadud
-
Actually in Latest news Gentlemen, Syria, was declared our Next Target. They have been harboring terrorists for quite the time and we want them out. So Bush decided that it is our next target but there is no Pin in the bullitin board yet on when he's gonnna do it. Hopfully Syria will comply with us and we won't have to use force, but if they don't comply. Well then we'll be doin it ourself.
P.S. Who Ever said that US has to pick on starving countries. Hey I wouldn't start nothin about that. Russia is ONE of the lamest countries I've ever seen and it's gotta be sick for having a ruler at one time that created such mass graves for people that didn't believe in "His Rule" pff, Idiots in this world.