Gunco Forums banner
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
cephus you are on point, but can we agree that future invasions are necessary or is there still some doubt about our options? US may not be a good "nation builder", but we are a sovereign nation and should defend our interests abroad with troop presence. it is just an option that works- well i might add.
 
Discussion starter · #23 ·
maxim.semyonov said:
cephus you are on point, but can we agree that future invasions are necessary or is there still some doubt about our options? US may not be a good "nation builder", but we are a sovereign nation and should defend our interests abroad with troop presence. it is just an option that works- well i might add.
Damn right! My preference is the option be used when others have failed. In Iraq, UN sanctions failed. The 91 invasion failed, in that it left Saddam in power. Something had to be done in light of all intelligence reports, even after the invasion. Perhaps, it could have been handled differently? Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. I don't know how, but I do know our military did a damn good job in which we can all have pride.

I would rather turn Iran into an ashtray than spill a drop of American blood there. Maybe, that's radical, but better them than us. Same goes for Syria, N Korea, or Saudi Arabia. Just my opinion. If there is another 911, I say Islam quits being a religion and becomes a national threat to be dealt with in a relentless military manner. Do we need to nuke them? Probably not. Muslims have been at war with each other for centuries, which is one reason they are so backwards. The US could finance one group to destroy another, and then another, until there is just one faction left which we can deal with in a nonhostile manner. We would not be creating the hatreds, just using them as tools in our defense. If that fails, give W a bag of pretzels!
 
I Support our troops, even if I dissagree with where they are. That being said, I totally support the Afganastan and Iraq opertaions. I support Iraq a little less because we should have done it the first time in the ealry 90's!

As far as Iran is concerned, Reagan did it to Lybia I believe and Bush will do it to Iran if need be, and that is send in an airstrike and take out what does not need to be there. Bunker-busters, and Daisy Cutters...hmmm...been a lot of research going in to those lately. Only thing is what Iran would do in Iraq if we did do it. I could see the US defending the Iraq/Iran border for a long time.

NorthKorea should be left to the South Koreans, with as much support from the US as neccessary in money and equipment. I think we could keep China in line with the Most Favored Nation trade status. (that we should pull so fast their eyes pop out of their heads) But there is always room for escelation when we violate a nations sovereignty how ever right we are in doing so.
 
My opinion is, sooner or later we will be fighting Syria and Iran, no matter if we want to or not. We have a choice to wait until they are ready to start the conflict, or to use preemptive assaults on strategic locations when we know for sure we see there is no other alternative. That time is approaching a lot faster than most people want to accept.
 
I agree we are many places for little to no reason, but a MULTI-national force would still be better if and when we have to fight somewhere else in the Middle-East. Otherwise I feel that the Muslims would further look at the US as destroying/attacking their way of life. JMO :blowup: I love that one;)
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top