This is great.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: why not? the troops are already there. Why not Iran instead? The country is now encircled, no more problem of "second front" with an uncooperative Turkey. Chris Losinger wrote: Israel would probably love it if the US did a bit of regime change in Syria. I can already hear the Arab countries claiming the US are an israeli puppet.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: Why not Iran instead? Syria is smaller. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
KaЯl wrote: Why not Iran instead? The country is now encircled, no more problem of "second front" with an uncooperative Turkey. Look in a map. Iran is huge. You need million soldiers to take it. Any way, it'll collapse from inside.
-
peterchen wrote: o maybe we share the same paranoia I already suspect some will say it's a common feature of leftists-liberals-reds-communists :rolleyes:
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
KaЯl wrote: Why not Iran instead? Syria is smaller. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
:-D The people prone to say it make me kind of proud :rolleyes:
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
"I think that we believe there are chemical weapons in Syria, for example," Bush said. Does he want to start another war? Also, is the US claiming that they, the Russians, the Chinese etc. don't have chemical weapons, that having chemical weapons became a big issue? AFAIK, whatever their reputation be, Syria has not done a military offensive on a neighbouring country like Iraq did. Anyway, the statement sounds ominous. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
I think the US administration is just trying to apply a little "diplomacy" while the memory of Iraq's defeat is fresh in everybody's mind. It's like a parent who smacks child #1 on the butt for doing something bad and then "reminds" child #2 to be good. If GWB does a thing (militarily) in Syria he'll lose any and all support here and get soundly "flushed" out of office at the next election. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
-
I think the US administration is just trying to apply a little "diplomacy" while the memory of Iraq's defeat is fresh in everybody's mind. It's like a parent who smacks child #1 on the butt for doing something bad and then "reminds" child #2 to be good. If GWB does a thing (militarily) in Syria he'll lose any and all support here and get soundly "flushed" out of office at the next election. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
Mike Mullikin wrote: If GWB does a thing (militarily) in Syria he'll lose any and all support here and get soundly "flushed" out of office at the next election Why wouldn't he have the same support than when invading Iraq? :confused:
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
I thought size doesn't matter :rolleyes:
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
we could probably take out Syria in a week. there wouldn't even be time for the news networks to update their graphics. it would be perfect. Iran would take too long, and i don't think the US population is up for yet another war. (of course i'm probably wrong about that) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
we could probably take out Syria in a week. there wouldn't even be time for the news networks to update their graphics. it would be perfect. Iran would take too long, and i don't think the US population is up for yet another war. (of course i'm probably wrong about that) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: The US is the only country I am aware of that isn't dedicated to the obliteration of Israel and the Jewish inhabitants thereof. Wouldn't you have a small tendency to fall sometimes into extremist arguments? :suss: Did Sweden or Switzerland ask for the wipe out of Israel :wtf: ?
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: Wouldn't you have a small tendency to fall sometimes into extremist arguments? No. Or, maybe. I tend to see things in black and white, very few shades of grey. KaЯl wrote: Did Sweden or Switzerland ask for the wipe out of Israel OK - this answer should have been read in the context of, "I can already hear the Arab countries claiming the US are an israeli puppet." - not the entire world. Mike
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: If GWB does a thing (militarily) in Syria he'll lose any and all support here and get soundly "flushed" out of office at the next election Why wouldn't he have the same support than when invading Iraq? :confused:
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
Saddam was a villain, easy to stoke the fires of war against. Syria (while not 100% innocent) would be a much harder sell. Frankly, I think the general populace in the US wants to rebuild Iraq and get on with life. Not to mention, it's time for the UN to step up and prove it's relevence. Sadly, I doubt this will happen. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: Any way, it'll collapse from inside. Why are you so sure it will collapse? :confused:
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: Why are you so sure it will collapse? Many reasons: Young generation (vote from 16 I think) are already a majority, they're secular, know the west (illegal sattelite dishes are common), and want world acceptance The clerics gave some fake democracy, the people liked it and now want more Viable opposition The best overview is Tom Friedman columns from NYTimes from several months ago.
-
KaЯl wrote: Wouldn't you have a small tendency to fall sometimes into extremist arguments? No. Or, maybe. I tend to see things in black and white, very few shades of grey. KaЯl wrote: Did Sweden or Switzerland ask for the wipe out of Israel OK - this answer should have been read in the context of, "I can already hear the Arab countries claiming the US are an israeli puppet." - not the entire world. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: this answer should have been read in the context of, "I can already hear the Arab countries claiming the US are an israeli puppet." - not the entire world. Ok, sorry. However, Egypt and Jordan have already signed a peace treaty with Israel. With a negociation about the Golan (and the syrian "influence" on Lebanon), I think syria could sign one too
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
Ok. So Monaco, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg should worry :)
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
Naah, M1A1 can't manuveur in small places:-D
-
KaЯl wrote: Why are you so sure it will collapse? Many reasons: Young generation (vote from 16 I think) are already a majority, they're secular, know the west (illegal sattelite dishes are common), and want world acceptance The clerics gave some fake democracy, the people liked it and now want more Viable opposition The best overview is Tom Friedman columns from NYTimes from several months ago.
I agree with your arguments, but not with your conclusions. Iranian evolution to a more democratic state could be peaceful and progressive, without a collapse of Iran. Of course, I suppose for that there wouldn't be external interference like in the past. Would be a democratic Iran pro-US? Not that sure.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
Saddam was a villain, easy to stoke the fires of war against. Syria (while not 100% innocent) would be a much harder sell. Frankly, I think the general populace in the US wants to rebuild Iraq and get on with life. Not to mention, it's time for the UN to step up and prove it's relevence. Sadly, I doubt this will happen. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
No one wants UN to have teeth. Then Israel will also have to comply. I don't know whether there are any UN resolutions against Syria. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Saddam was a villain, easy to stoke the fires of war against. Syria (while not 100% innocent) would be a much harder sell. Frankly, I think the general populace in the US wants to rebuild Iraq and get on with life. Not to mention, it's time for the UN to step up and prove it's relevence. Sadly, I doubt this will happen. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
Mike Mullikin wrote: Saddam was a villain, easy to stoke the fires of war against Weird, I don't see differences betwwen SH and the Assad dynasty! Mike Mullikin wrote: Not to menetion, it's time for the UN to step up and prove it's relevence. Sadly, I doubt this will happen. I doubt it too, unless the US back for this time the UN policy, even if it doesn't follow strictly the american point of view.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
No one wants UN to have teeth. Then Israel will also have to comply. I don't know whether there are any UN resolutions against Syria. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: No one wants UN to have teeth. Then Israel will also have to comply. Well, no. Resolutions regarding Israel are chapter 6 - advisory, so you don't have to implement:)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Saddam was a villain, easy to stoke the fires of war against Weird, I don't see differences betwwen SH and the Assad dynasty! Mike Mullikin wrote: Not to menetion, it's time for the UN to step up and prove it's relevence. Sadly, I doubt this will happen. I doubt it too, unless the US back for this time the UN policy, even if it doesn't follow strictly the american point of view.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: unless the US back for this time the UN policy, even if it doesn't follow strictly the american point of view. The same can be said about France, Germany & Russia. ;P The UN's irrelevence comes from it's inability to deal with the "Iraqs" of the world not from the lack of backing from the US/UK. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
-
Ok. So Monaco, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg should worry :)
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
yes, i think they should. we're pretty sick and tired of seeing all those rich people enjoying themselves in Monaco. and, since they have no military, and everyone knows what the US thinks about the French military, it should start thinking about building bunkers. Luxembourg sounds like a dangerous place - they spent $148 million dollars on their military in 2002! what are they planning! Lichtenstein? their obnoxious neutrality and ties to the horrible Swiss make them prime targets for regime change. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler