• 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.

War in the Near Future?

Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
To all of the different users on this site, I would like to pose a question in recieving a response on how close you all feel America is going to another war? I'm sure we are all aware of the 'beef' with North Korea. What they have done in secluding themselves from the 8-nation talks regarding the developement in nuclear weapons, (i feel), is more grounds in going to war than what we are involved with Iraq right now. Iran also poses a threat to our countries safety. Back to the main question, how close are we, as Americans, to invading another country?
 

MeChMAN

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
Location
Florida
The more we talk about who we are going to war with next, the more we realize that this could be a start to WWIII
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
6,090
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How quickly we forget that it took 18 UN resolutions and mulitple CONGRESS approvals to get to where we are.

We will not start a war with North Korea or Iran anytime in the very near future.

If it were to happen quicker - they will start it with us and totally bypass the UN system.
 

Thor

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
115
Reaction score
2
Location
Tennessee
We will play the diplomacy game until the majority of are troops are out of Iraq. Once that is done then look for us to take strong steps in the direction on Syria. The U.S. will hope that strong action with Syria will lead to Iran backing down and quiting there nuclear build up. If not, then we will continue into Iran.

We will not invade N.K. I feel that China will influence that decision more than we will ever know.
 

Thor

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
115
Reaction score
2
Location
Tennessee
vauge said:
How quickly we forget that it took 18 UN resolutions and mulitple CONGRESS approvals to get to where we are.

We will not start a war with North Korea or Iran anytime in the very near future.

If it were to happen quicker - they will start it with us and totally bypass the UN system.
If Bush is President then the U.N. will not have much say in it. Symbolizm only. And I'm glad of that.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We are not going to go to war with North Korea, but I wouldn't put it by Bush to start something with Iran or Syria.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I really think we need to concentrate on the war were in now. We cannot properly fund the troops we have in Iraq. With all of American tax dollars going to this war, war is a very sensitive subject. Especially now with Iraq. When will it end, and what is the solution? I think it is great that they were given the opportunity to vote, and experience on a very small scale what democracy is, but an Islamic nation will never see Democracy. They are two ideas, beliefs that will always clash.
 

Dennis Miller

New member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Here is what I believe. I believe that the US has done it's job for the time being. They have stepped up and done what the American government solely set out to do, and that was to be the instigator of the world. The US federal government had secretly pushed, for many years, to one day see a European Union, despite what we are hearing Bush say these days. This is exactly why Bush has made the 'trips of apology' to Europe recently. He is attempting to make amends with the giant world superpower. First he slaps the monster in the face and then asks if we can be friends. He has made the world watch out for 'terrorists in the Middle East' and now the world is paranoid, so we are looking at a possible WWIII. Terrorism + Paranoia + Bush Agenda = WWIII. It's amazing how Bush is able to :spin: things around to make it look like the whole world is after each other, rather than him being after oil. Now that the EU is entering the bigger picture of things, they will be the new world power, not the US, and Bush is secretly thrilled about that. You see, Bush is Dr.Frankenstein, while EU has become the new monster that Bush will control :comp: from the Whitehouse. He has become the puppet master, and there are 25 big strings on the EU that are being pulled by none other than the president, himself. It was only a matter of time. Watch out China, you could be next. There are rumors that George W Bush :twisted: is brushing up on his Chinese. He says, next he'll try to master the English language.
 

Imperiosus

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
While North Korea is a very large threat, we simply can not fight two wars. Lets stick with Iraq and make sure the new democracy is supported then we can more actively pursue the situation
 

Notredamer

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The next American military action will most likely occur in Iran. However, it won't be an invasion, it will be something similar to 'Desert Fox'. That's what is most 'likely' and I honestly don't think it is very probable to begin with.

I don't think America will enter an actual war for a pretty long time. Most likely our next military action will just be an intervention. I tend to believe that the next major action will take place in Cuba, after Fidel dies and leaves the fate of the nation uncertain.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
As you start to approach your next election, GWB will invade somewhere because he knows he has nothing to offer beyond stirring up blind patriotism.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Arch Enemy said:
Hopefully the UK. :2wave:
I was under the impression that we already controlled the UK? I mean, a majority there were against the war, but ol' Tony decided to follow Bush rather than his own people! Yep, Tony's on a leash, and with him are the British people, dragged into every conflict in which America so chooses to engage.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
well I think it'd be fun if we invaded then gripped tighter on the leash, this will give us good reasons to impeach Bush and Tony won't be in power no long!
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Notredamer said:
I tend to believe that the next major action will take place in Cuba, after Fidel dies and leaves the fate of the nation uncertain.
My god..we better not intervine with Cuba. Fidel promised Cuba to his brother Raul..I doubt this will occur without a ton of Western sabatoge. But..the U.N. loves Cuba....Hm.
 

Atlas

New member
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
In the Free World.
Thor said:
We will play the diplomacy game until the majority of are troops are out of Iraq. Once that is done then look for us to take strong steps in the direction on Syria. The U.S. will hope that strong action with Syria will lead to Iran backing down and quiting there nuclear build up. If not, then we will continue into Iran.

We will not invade N.K. I feel that China will influence that decision more than we will ever know.
Interesting, the part about Syria and Iran makes enormous sense and to some extent even the part about N.K.

*** Small comment, the war against Syria has already begun. Why do you think did they made the Syrians leave Lebanon? This will cause the Syrians massive economical problems. Add to this the renewal of the total embargo toward Syria by the USA. This is how the new wars are fought. Wear your enemies economy, makes his allies back-stab, and than go in with the troops. And of course who instigate all of this? Uncle Sam.

Now back to our history lesson.
No doubt there will be a new conflict, if you look at the 20th century with a history book you will notice something:
The 20th century was by far the bloodiest in human history; it saw two world wars and many other smaller in scale, but still unbelievably deadly regional conflicts. To reach the number of casualties (military plus civilian) of the 20th century one would have to take all the casualties of 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th century, and multiply that number by four.
I have no doubt that this type of behaviour will continue.
The USA, will wait for the situation in Iraq to stabilize (get troops out, get the oil pumping, satisfying the media and do some of that Goebbels style propaganda). Afterwards, ;like the quote said Syria and Iran will have a taste; nevertheless, the USA will never, ever, take on N.K.
For many reasons-- 1- N.K. is no Iraq, it actually has an military force that can make the USA break a sweat and have true casualties.
2--- The Geographical situation makes it hard for the Invader (USA).
3--- Most likely the other power (China) will have something to say.

There is no precise time frame for this because too many factors can influence such unstable plans. But no doubt the 21st will be in the image of the 20th.

By: Atlas
 

mikeangelo

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
the iraq occupation will have to continue for years to come if the US wishes to achieve its policy aims. in fact it would have to increase its efforts by a factor of 8. however were the US to downgrade its goals then it could achieve them more quickly and exit from the region. however the US is unlikely to do this. It would harm the perception abroad of an invincible army. not that it hasn't been harmed enough already.

as long as the US army continues on this road it will be bogged down and unable to respond to threats elsewhere on the globe. However the US will still act on other state and non state actors through its coalitions. e.g. the situation in Kosovo where the KLA was the main stay ground force and was operating in conjunction with special ops and air cover.

The US could provide air cover through existing air bases throughout the muslim world. All it needs now is a coalition of countries willing to sacrifice its sons and daughters for america's global standing.
 
Last edited:

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
All it needs now is a coalition of countries willing to sacrifice its sons and daughters for america's global standing.

I dunno if that's sarcasm or not but for america's global standing? I think most country's can care a rat's ass about US's global standing or any country's other than their own.
 

Turenne

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
11
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The thign is any invasion/war against NK,Iran and Syria would be pointless andf illogical.None of those countries are a threat to the US.China has NK by the balls.Iran and Syria have both been complient with the US in the past over Al-Qaeda,Afghanistan and al-Sadr.Nor can the US afford another war.

The possibilities of war with either Iran or Syria come down to a Kurdish revolt in response to Iraqi Kurdish promptings in an attempt to create Kurdistan or a Iranian response to Isreali bombings of Iran's nuclear plants.Neither likely as stability in Iraq and avoidance of confrontation with the US are the backbones of Syrian and Iraian foreign policy.
 

Loki

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle of nowhere Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We won't invade anyone for a long time to come. Our army isn't big enough,

the americans don't want it. As far as N korea and iran are concerned, as

long as their nuclear armed, we have no military option.
 

BRAXUS

New member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree but would like to add that with N Korea being nuclear now Im inclined to believe that China may start somthing with N Korea before anybody. I dont think they like having N korea having nuclear power. But it could also go on the reverse, with china aligning its self with N Korea.

But I do feel a war is comming and Iam not sure any country or any act will be able to prevent it. The only question is will anybody be left after?
 
Top Bottom