|
| Thread: the "black list" poll |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:21 AM |
|
|
I don't think NATO would ever attack a nation for its resources like Iraq did Kuwait. I don't think you give them enough credit. NATO is a bunch of idealists who believe peace is the solution to everything. They would never even dream of attacking a nation, unless it was to free the citizens like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:24 AM |
|
|
Though not for resources, Nato attacked Serbia in 1999, and member states have attacked many countries since it's beginings.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:27 AM |
|
|
Well then maybe NATO should be stricter on nations who act independently from the organizations. America attacked Iraq without the consent of NATO and there was nothing they could do about it. Policies should be made to punish nations who act out of line like that. America, however, did the right thing in my opinion. Iraq really did need a new government. If a member of NATO attcks a nation unprovoked though, then there should be something NATO can do to stop them.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:36 AM |
|
|
Nato won't fight america, so therefore if america goes it alone, short of throwing them out and grumbling a lot there aint a damn thing it can do to that member state.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:38 AM |
|
|
America likes to have lots and lots of friends though, very rarely will they act alone. Iraq was a fluke.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 01:59 AM |
|
|
But if say it was backed by large, non-nato states I doubt it would pay attention to the refusal of Nato, which would leave Nato simply whining on the sidelines...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 05, 2003 10:48 PM |
|
|
Then kick the US out, if NATO can't do anything to keep its members under control than why is it even there?
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 07, 2003 09:16 AM |
|
|
Indeed, why is it there.... it certainly cannot control the actions of it's members Like France and Britain/USA.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 08, 2003 08:24 PM |
|
|
Of course if the US did attack Syria, NATO would probably remove the US from their organization, in fact, the UN might too. I don't think either organization would allow the US to act out of line twice.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
HodgePodge
Adventuring Hero
Bard Extraordinairé
|
|
posted July 13, 2003 07:35 PM |
|
|
Well, I Am the Lone Vote for ...
Any African Country because Bush is too much of a cowardly rat to stand up in any real fight. He would only attack a country which could be beaten in a few days; so he could pamper his arrogant pride; no matter how much blood is shed. Besides, the whole world is already getting fed up with Bush & his bull-sh**!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 13, 2003 11:45 PM |
|
|
Bush might involve himself in Liberia, but I can't see him trying a regime change without UN support in an African country, just simply not enough political and economic payback from most of them for him to justify such an action.
Aqua:
Sorry, but that's utterly niave, neither would dare remove the US as the US forms an integral part of both and like it or not, both need the US whilst the others are so squabble prone.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted July 14, 2003 07:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
[Bush]would only attack a country which could be beaten in a few days
Hey, leave France out of this! 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 14, 2003 07:40 PM |
|
|
Tsk tsk, you explain and explain, but the yanks never listen, we all know you'd loose your way and invade spain by accident
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 17, 2004 03:22 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 16 Jan 2004
|
Astounding And Many Good Debate Directions
I'd like to address some of the people who have posted thus far.
Draco, you are wise to take into consideration Bush's re-election. That is a very reasonable factor to consider and I think it holds a great deal of weight when deciding on which nation might be attacked next.
Nidhgrin(and the rest who voted Iran), In light of recent events I think the world now sees Iran as a victim after realizing how many people were lost in the devastating earthquake. I think this moves them down in priority on a list to be attacked.
Grendal, Excellent hypothesizing my friend! Very good direction of thought! Very educated. I'm very much impressed but as you now know Iran may now be perceived as victims rather than military targets.
HodgePodge, I believe Africa will be the site of an ongoing NATO campaign(not american-allied) to help stop the massacres and atrocities being committed there.
Aquaman333 and PrivateHudson, You both agreed that North Korea wouldn't dare attack anyone. I completely disagree here. Make no mistake about it, North Korea will never stop in its relentless persuit of regaining the entire peninsula. This would further the interests of both communistic North Korea and communistic China.
My personal opinion pretty much mirrors PrivateHudson's with a slight degree of difference. I agree with all his posts except he left out one very(and probably the most important and deciding factor in a war with North Korea) important bit in his direction of thought. In that geographic and socio-political region of the world China decides the direction of the stability of the region both pollitically and economically. I believe there will be no war at all because, as Draco pointed out, Bush would be jeopardizing his re-election. Not only will he not jeopardize his own re-election but if he invaded North Korea today it would not truly be a war with only North Korea. It would absolutely force China to take a side. This would not be a war China could afford to remain neutral in. If they were to choose the side of America(which I highly doubt) then North Koreans would lash out on their neighbors with a retributive vengeance the world has never seen. The nuclear holocaust would not be in America, it would be in China and North Korea. If they were to choose the side the North Koreans(I believe this to be the case) The United States would be forced to back down as they would most assuredly NOT have entered the war with Brittain's support(and most of NATO as well). I know in my heart that the citizens of the United Kingdom would never take part in a war with North Korea unless they were attacked in some way. As for us Americans we have a long ill-fated history with the North Koreans and there are many people here who think of North Korea as if it were the modern day Soviet Union from the cold war. Hate rests well when blanketed with scars from old wounds. My friends, I submit to all who read this post that if we invade North Korea it will undoubtedly begin the next world war, of that I promise.
Finally, I'd like to compliment PrivateHudson for the majority of his posts in this thread. Your educated guesses backed by current facts is on the mark. I feel they were short of only a few important things. You have posted excellently and held up your opinion with dignity under the verbal onslaught of certain careless nationalist individuals.
"My dear, There is no such thing as an unimportant war."
Julias Caesar responding to Cleopatra when asked why he must leave and take so long to come back.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted January 17, 2004 03:33 AM |
|
|
What happened? Did I just completely ignore this thread?
Consis, take into account that the last post in this thread before yours was in July, well before the earthquake.
I don't think we will attack N. Korea unless they attack us or another country (ex. decide to invade S. Korea again)
It is a very scary situation, anything could happen...
____________
|
|
HelcahisieRo...
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 07:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Picture 1:
Sadam pleading to a US soldier: " I don't have weapons of mass destruction!"
US Soldier: "Prove it!"
Picture 2:
Kim Jung-il challenging the US soldier: "I do have weapons of mass destruction!"
US soldier: "Prove it!"
Well, that is a very good point. I, as a person who hate the United States, cannot help disbelieving the "morals" of the United States. The truth is that the United States, while not admitting that North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, fears its developing them. That is why the country is reluctant to resume connections.
____________
Ai! laurie lantar lassi surinen yeni unotime ve ramar aldaron!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted January 24, 2004 06:04 PM |
|
|
|
Helcahisie, can you explain why you hate the United States? It might be good for many folks to hear it straight from an individual's personal point of view why this sentiment is so increasingly prevalent in the world today.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted January 25, 2004 04:13 AM |
|
|
If you hate the United States. Then generally you hate it for one of two reasons: 1) you can't stand Bush, but this doesn't make sense. Do you hate Germans because they were led by Hitler? No. You don't hate America. You hate Bush. Get it right. 2) we call football: soccer. This has spawned many a bloody argument. I myself have killed 5 people while discussing this topic.
Either way there's no excuse for being so closed-minded as to believe you can hate every single person in an entire country. I don't like Ariel Sharon, but do I hate all Israelies? Of course not.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted January 25, 2004 05:41 AM |
|
|
|
Aquaman, let's see if Helcahisie will answer the question. With all due respect, we might all learn something if we stop assuming we already know everything. I have heard that's one of the traits about America that others tend to dislike.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted January 25, 2004 06:58 AM |
|
|
Again, how can a trait be held by all Americans. We're aren't all drones with the exact same characteristics. There is no such thing as an "American trait". Only individual American's traits. You can't refer to entire countries when speaking in that type of context.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
|
|
