What to expect in 2003

[Eliot]

What does everybody expect to happen politically in 2003? All I expect is more war and strife. Saddam Hussein will be toppled, just so his place can be taken by another "evil" regime, more strife throughout the Mid-East, Balkans, Caucasus region, central Asia, India-Pakistan, South America, Africa, etc.
You know, the usual.

Oh, I wonder what will happen with N. Korea? :rolleyes:


Please post your thoughts people.

[Legolam]

I agree that there will be a lot more war and strife in 2003. But hopefully people will come to their senses on both sides. Here's hoping ...

[FREEDOM!]

Hopefully we will over throw the government in Iraq and set up a Democracy. but other than that, what you said.

[Húrin Thalion]

Overthrow? Why hope to overthrow? We all could hope that Saddam organizes a fair election and if he would loose (not likely, he is popular). I hope that we will not have any strifes at all but it is likely to be many. And Bush would not dare to attack northern Korea, too far away and too strong for him, think about the publics opinion.

Húrin Thalion

[Eliot]

I don't think I can agree with you all the way on the N. Korea matter. Distance really doesn't matter. We've got bases in the Philippines and throughout the rest of Asia. I don't think that makes a real big difference.

Plus, if N. Korea even TRYED to use their 4 (or however many they have) nukes, we would completely wipe their country off the map with ours. Their military might have good numbers (same with the Chinese), but we've got the best equipment and technology.

[Khamul]

You are assuming alot about the United States weaponry.

[Anamatar IV]

Assuming of atomic bombs that already wiped several islands off the maps after world war II and assuming of Daisy Cutters that destroyed half of Afghanistan?;)

I really think north Korea is a bigger threat than Saddam but I think Bush might decide to climb the rungs of the ladder from bottom to top.

[Khamul]

Four nuclear missiles can do more damage than you can imagine.

[Anamatar IV]

I can imagine 1 nuclear weapon blowing up New England-I just can't imagine a Nuke being dropped on America.

[Húrin Thalion]

I don't think I can agree with you all the way on the N. Korea matter. Distance really doesn't matter. We've got bases in the Philippines and throughout the rest of Asia. I don't think that makes a real big difference.

It most certainly matters, in the minds of the American public there is a huge difference between sending men to, say France than North Korea. The American army does not dare to attack Baghdad without great casualties, they fear to attacjk the stronger and better equipped North Korean army. In streetfighting like Baghdad would be the difference between high technology /and in some ways, training) is much erased, it would come to a bloodbath. What I can tell the U.S.A. has not fought any militarily strong nation for over 50 years, why should they dare now? Attacking weak nations without standing armies are fine, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq and such but great wars take their toll, no matter how great the fighting force is. Vietnam had to be abandoned much due to public outrage, I cannot tell why the ordinary man should react less now? Sure, 9/11 has increased the awareness of vulnerability and the American imperialism/colonialism has now been restored after the cold war
but you cannot escape that a war with N.K. means casualties and casualties means public outcry.

Húrin Thalion

[Eliot]

Read the whole sentence. I just said that distance doesn't matter in war for the U.S. It really won't make a difference if we're attacking Tuvalu or the U.A.E. We've got aircraft carriers, paratroopers, and choppers to help us with distances.

Plus, if we did attack N. Korea (which I'm not promoting, I hope we don't), we've got bases in (once again) the Philippines, Japan, S. Korea, and we could easily (and quickly) get troops straight into Alaska.

So there, I've made my point. I don't want war with N. Korea. But, IF we do go to war, we can easily win. If Bush knows that N. Korea has nukes, I don't think he'll be the first to attack.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Khamul
You are assuming alot about the United States weaponry.


Um, actually I'm not. I think you're underestimating the power of the U.S. weaponry. Where are you from anyway? If you're an American, you should know how much power your own nations military has. If you're NOT American, I'm not saying our military power makes our country more superior then yours. Oh, (no offense) why does your profile say your birthday is January 1st 1902?

[Khamul]

I would be from the United States, and the spending budget of the Clinton administration was not based on the funding of the National defense. Bush has placed money into it, but still the overall effect will take quite some time to be put into place. The United States will probably not strike first, making us extremely vulnerable. We may be technologically advanced, but we still lack the overall ability to destroy everything in our paths at a random whim. Good thing you aren't in charge. ;)

And my profile is my own business. :)

[Eliot]

I didn't mean it in an offensive manner. You don't have to be snobby about it. Oh well.

P.S. It's not everyday you meet somebody 101 years old. :D

[Khamul]

Don't worry, it's lonely at the top.