• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Next up?

Who is next up?

  • North Korea

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Iran

    Votes: 9 50.0%
  • Syria

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • other

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Location
BEAUTIFUL Ohio, BEAUTIFUL USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Who will be the next up after we are completely finished in Iraq? Many options. I only put the obvious candidates up there. What do you think?
 

Repub05

New member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure but I don't think we'll be getting into a war anytime soon after we're done in Iraq. But the most likely candidate that we would war against would probably be N. Korea because they pose the largest threat, but like I said I'm not really sure.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
None? If there has to be one...Iran is the biggest threat, considering its intentions and location.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy: 'We'll Go Through Iran'
From The Onion*

WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."
*the Onion is a satirical paper.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Location
BEAUTIFUL Ohio, BEAUTIFUL USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Repub05 said:
I'm not sure but I don't think we'll be getting into a war anytime soon after we're done in Iraq. But the most likely candidate that we would war against would probably be N. Korea because they pose the largest threat, but like I said I'm not really sure.
I agree. It's very doubtfull that we will be in another war anytime soon but you never know with all of the rapid military developement going on in other countries.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
guns_God_glory said:
Who will be the next up after we are completely finished in Iraq? Many options. I only put the obvious candidates up there. What do you think?
Is it a requirement that we always be at war?
 

Soviet_Guy

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
guns_God_glory said:
Who will be the next up after we are completely finished in Iraq? Many options. I only put the obvious candidates up there. What do you think?
Iran will not be touched because it's too close to Iraq and would seem like a clear target for Imperialist Ideals, North Korea is in Asia, near China, near Russia, near Vietnam, are you kidding me?
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Other: Need of Ethnic cleansing, much like Saddam has practiced!
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Gandhi>Bush said:
Is it a requirement that we always be at war?
What is the requirement that we are not always in war? *Inverse Logic Statement*
Requirements:
Pessimism
Isolationism
Hippies
Anarchy
Gandhi>Bush Becomes President! :mrgreen:
etc...
 

Shye

New member
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
how about we DONT go to war with anyone. War is for losers
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shye said:
how about we DONT go to war with anyone. War is for losers
"Other than stopping Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and slavery, and other than securing independence for the U.S. and other countries, war has never solved anything!"


"People [. . .] love to say that 'Violence never solved anything.' But what solved Hitler? Was it a team of social workers? Was it putting daisies into the gun barrels of Nazi Panzer divisions? Was it a commission that tried to understand what made Hitler so angry? No. What solved Hitler was violence. And what will solve the problem of Islamo-fascist terrorism, I'm sorry to say, is not understanding, negotiation, conferences, social workers, daisies, or anything other than the heroic violence of brave men and women with guns, fighting selflessly for their country -- this greatest nation on God's green earth."
--Michael Medved, radio host and author.


"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Shye said:
how about we DONT go to war with anyone. War is for losers
Aparently you've never had a conflict with anyone. Now imagine the conflict in the scale size of countries. It is called a war.

It is vain to look for a defense against lightning.
-Publius Syrus

One who has few must prepare against the enemy; one who has many makes the enemy prepare against him.
-Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception.
-Sun Tzu

Courage is fear holding on a minute longer.
-General George S. Patton

It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
-General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur

Just as the simplest and most natural of movements, walking, cannot easily be performed in water, so in war it is difficult for normal efforts to achieve even moderate results.
-Major General Carl von Clausewitz
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Shye said:
how about we DONT go to war with anyone. War is for losers
Like you and Ralph Nader! :2wave:
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
stsburns said:
What is the requirement that we are not always in war? *Inverse Logic Statement*
Requirements:
Pessimism
Isolationism
Hippies
Anarchy
Gandhi>Bush Becomes President! :mrgreen:
etc...
You have to be a pessimist to avert war? That's a new one.

Isolationism? I've never suggested such a thing, nor would I ever. You don't have to bomb people and occupy countries in order to help them.

Hippies....HECK YES.

Anarchy... I'm lost, where did Anarchy come in?

My vocabulary is far to extensive to become President any time soon.

The notion that we have to constantly be at war is ridiculous. Plus, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time. A loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Much Longer than that word that I recklessly added o's to.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Two World Wars were the result of American Isolationalism. If we had isolated after WWII, we quite possibly would have been involved in a WWIII between U.S.S.R and China vs Europe and America.

If it seems like we are always at war it is because no other snob "high and mighty" nation will lift a finger to do anything for anybody. Europe is quick to point out Africa, but what have they done about it?

The country and government of Syria is the source of the insurgency......
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why does it matter what they have done? What have WE done?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It most certainly does matter. WE do enough. WE constantly bring the Palestenians and the Israelis to the peace tables. WE brought peace between Israel and Egypt. WE fight for peace in Bosnia. WE led the charge in Kuwait. WE led the charge to feed the hungry in Somalia. WE have come to Europe's aid twice to fight against the Germans and one of those times was while we were fighting our own part of it in the Pacific. WE make annual hurricane humanitarian reliefs in the Carribean and South America. WE mobilize and send support to volcano eruptians in the Phillipines. WE currently are running operations in the HOA (Horn of Africa). WE are not the problem. The problem is everybody else's impotence to do anything without our backing or charge. If Europe is so much better, than let's see them do something for the world except point fingers and criticize about how WE don't do enough.

You should learn more about America. Maybe you wouldn't be so quick to join the ranks of the cowards that really do nothing.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
guns_God_glory said:
War isn't something you want. Without war there is no peace. With peace there is war.
Ahh yes.

War is peace
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GySgt said:
It most certainly does matter. WE do enough. WE constantly bring the Palestenians and the Israelis to the peace tables.
Middle East

WE brought peace between Israel and Egypt.
Corner of Africa

WE fight for peace in Bosnia.
Europe

WE led the charge in Kuwait.
Middle East

WE led the charge to feed the hungry in Somalia.
Bingo!

WE have come to Europe's aid twice to fight against the Germans and one of those times was while we were fighting our own part of it in the Pacific.
Unless you count the North African campaign.... Europe.

WE make annual hurricane humanitarian reliefs in the Carribean and South America. WE mobilize and send support to volcano eruptians in the Phillipines.
Everwhere, but Africa.

WE currently are running operations in the HOA (Horn of Africa). WE are not the problem. The problem is everybody else's impotence to do anything without our backing or charge. If Europe is so much better, than let's see them do something for the world except point fingers and criticize about how WE don't do enough.
My point was that: If they think we don't do enough in Africa, the proper response isn't "WE DO MORE THAN YOU." If they don't think we do enough and you don't think they do anything and they want to do something about Africa, organize with them so that you're doing more and they're doing something. Sometimes it is not so terrible to give someone what they want.

You should learn more about America. Maybe you wouldn't be so quick to join the ranks of the cowards that really do nothing.
Coward? Do not presume that you know me, at all. You don't.

I've been learning about America my whole life.

I know that we do much around the world. I respect that. I never meant to imply that America wasn't doing anything. We do quite a bit, I know.

It's easy to criticize America. We've devoted 400 billion dollars to a war. Do you know how many children die of Malaria in Africa these days? 20,000 children a year I've heard. Do you know what 400 billion dollars could do to Malaria and/or AIDS? Do you know what 400 billion dollars could do to poverty around the world? It's easy to criticize America, and though we do much, there is much left undone. It's easy to say "You missed a spot" to the guy that's doing all of the work.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"It's easy to say you missed a spot to the guy that is doing all the work"


Now that was a profound statement and really does sum up the rest of the world's attitude towards us.


We do more in Africa than people think. We give a lot of money to that continent and a lot of military support from one thing to the next, but we can't get bogged down in one place. When we discover the vaccine or cure for AIDS, Africa will not have to worry about paying for it. Africa is a mess. It is still no excuse for other countries to not actually try to do something on their own. Using us as an excuse for them not acting is something that they have gotten used to doing. We are spread out all over the world keeping would be dictators and oppressors at bay. All of Africa's problems are internal, just like Bosnia, but we have seen Europe's answer to it's own back yard problems. They wait for the Americans.
 
Last edited:

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well if you're tired of seeing America being used for it's muscle... Stop being used for your muscle.

If Europe's got a problem, Europe needs to handle it. If we offer aid, if they request aid, that's one thing, but doing 100% is something that has to stop.

By the way, I checked on Malaria. It's not 20,000 people a year. It's 1,000,000 people a year. If you do the math right, you should end up getting 2 people a minute dying of malaria. It was reported that 30 to 40 million nets were needed yearly and only 15 million are recieved. Do I blame America? No. $7.79 for mosquito netting.

7.79 x 40,000,000 = $311,600,000

Some things are more important I guess.

Is that America's responsibility? No. Hopefully the G8 meeting will address this and similar problems, but in the end it will come down to how much green America commits to the solution of this problem. We're the superpower. Blair asked Bush for $25 billion. Bush gave $674 million. Hmm...

In the time it took me to write all this, 28 people died of malaria in Africa.
 

Shye

New member
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
"Other than stopping Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and slavery, and other than securing independence for the U.S. and other countries, war has never solved anything!"
well we need to have a war with bush then. he is a very fascist person, especially his people.


Arthur Fonzarelli said:
"People [. . .] love to say that 'Violence never solved anything.' But what solved Hitler? Was it a team of social workers? Was it putting daisies into the gun barrels of Nazi Panzer divisions? Was it a commission that tried to understand what made Hitler so angry? No. What solved Hitler was violence. And what will solve the problem of Islamo-fascist terrorism, I'm sorry to say, is not understanding, negotiation, conferences, social workers, daisies, or anything other than the heroic violence of brave men and women with guns, fighting selflessly for their country -- this greatest nation on God's green earth."
--Michael Medved, radio host and author.
oh war is necessary for some things like in Hitler's case, but not the war we are at right now

Arthur Fonzarelli said:
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill.
oh yes war is NOT the ugliest thing, but we got Hussien out of power, yet we are still at war with Iraq. What gives? oh wait we still need to finish the pipe lines in Iraq before we will end the war my bad
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill.
Awww, John Stuart Mill, who also said:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
 
Top Bottom