Why the US Involvement in Iraq Makes Sense (Please Read)

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"] AK rifles.....check t-90/95 tanks..........check TU-160 bombers..........check best artillery..............check best missiles like the S-300 or the S-400.........check Spetsnaz...............check I could go on and on and there is the fact of 12k nukes they got. Russia hardware is known to be reliable, and very cost effective. The US would avoid any confrontation with Russia as well, it is no Iraq or Iran, this is a world power and an energy empire we are talking about. I am not trying to be a dic k but this misinformation about Russia is getting old. NASA is also using Russian rockets for spacestation missions, as well as the Russian Buran, since Buran proved to be more reliable.muscleserge

You haven't read any of my posts. The future of conventional warfare is different. Russia does not have any hydrosonic missles. Right now only the US has those. Does Russia have any battle stars in devolpment? No. They are going to be left behind in technology.

Look up hydrosonic missles. Those are confirmed, battle stars are just a cool name for a future space weapon I made up.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="stupid4"]

You haven't read any of my posts. The future of conventional warfare is different. Russia does not have any hydrosonic missles. Right now only the US has those. Does Russia have any battle stars in devolpment? No. They are going to be left behind in technology.

stupid4

Look up hydrosonic missles. Those are confirmed, battle stars are just a cool name for a future space weapon I made up.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="stupid4"]

You haven't read any of my posts. The future of conventional warfare is different. Russia does not have any hydrosonic missles. Right now only the US has those. Does Russia have any battle stars in devolpment? No. They are going to be left behind in technology.

stupid4

Look up hydrosonic missles. Those are confirmed, battle stars are just a cool name for a future space weapon I made up.

Also nobody is ever going to use nukes. Those are pretty much worthless.

stupid4

[QUOTE="StrawberryHill"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] Why don't you look up the definition of imperialismDivergeUnify

I know what imperialism means. You are missing the point of the post. Did you read it?

I'm sorry Diverge...I misunderstood your statement. When you made a blanket statement saying that you didn't support imperialism, it made it seem like you hadn't read the post...I think the post was coming from a non-supportive stance of imperialism. Anyway, I made an erroneous assumption and I was wrong, I think. I actually very much agree with your stance.

From a strictly geopolitical and economic standpoint (RISK) the US involvement in Iraq does make sense, however, I don't see it from that standpoint. I think it is a grave mistake to be forcefully imposing ideas upon other people under the guise of democracy.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="StrawberryHill"]

I know what imperialism means. You are missing the point of the post. Did you read it?

I'm sorry Diverge...I misunderstood your statement. When you made a blanket statement saying that you didn't support imperialism, it made it seem like you hadn't read the post...I think the post was coming from a non-supportive stance of imperialism. Anyway, I made an erroroneous assumption and I was wrong, I think. I actually very much agree with your stance.

From a strictly geopolitical and economic standpoint (RISK) the US involvement in Iraq does make sense, however, I don't see it from that standpoint. I think it is a grave mistake to be forcefully imposing ideas upon other people under the guise of democracy.

[QUOTE="StrawberryHill"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] Yes I did. The US is attempting to maintain economic and military dominance by causing disruption among foreign nations. That's not imperialism sSubZerOo

I'm sorry Diverge...I misunderstood your statement. When you made a blanket statement saying that you didn't support imperialism, it made it seem like you hadn't read the post...I think the post was coming from a non-supportive stance of imperialism. Anyway, I made an erroroneous assumption and I was wrong, I think. I actually very much agree with your stance.

From a strictly geopolitical and economic standpoint (RISK) the US involvement in Iraq does make sense, however, I don't see it from that standpoint. I think it is a grave mistake to be forcefully imposing ideas upon other people under the guise of democracy.

Where do you live? Just wondering.

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

Also nobody is ever going to use nukes. Those are pretty much worthless.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="StrawberryHill"]

I'm sorry Diverge...I misunderstood your statement. When you made a blanket statement saying that you didn't support imperialism, it made it seem like you hadn't read the post...I think the post was coming from a non-supportive stance of imperialism. Anyway, I made an erroroneous assumption and I was wrong, I think. I actually very much agree with your stance.

From a strictly geopolitical and economic standpoint (RISK) the US involvement in Iraq does make sense, however, I don't see it from that standpoint. I think it is a grave mistake to be forcefully imposing ideas upon other people under the guise of democracy.

Where do you live? Just wondering.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

Also nobody is ever going to use nukes. Those are pretty much worthless.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="gobo212"]sorry I am against imperialism.stupid4

So am I.

[QUOTE="StrawberryHill"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Its at least a improvement.. In early days we didn't even care for democracy, we were ok with brutal dictatorships as long as they kept obediant.sSubZerOo

Where do you live? Just wondering.

Yeah, I live in the USA, as well.

There's no question that life here is better than many other places. But I just have to wonder...is forced democracy really democracy in the end?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Why do you think nukes are worthless? Nuclear power is the greatest power the world is able to create at this moment. They can create a bomb today that can release approximately 100 to 200 times the amount of energy that was released on Horoshima. Nuclear power is the first step in travel to the stars. Nuclear powered engines, it is estimated, are the second ot last step in achieving the fastest travel time humans are capable of achieving, the first being anti-matter powered engines.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="StrawberryHill"]

Where do you live? Just wondering.

Yeah, I live in the USA, as well.

There's no question that life here is better than many other places. But I just have to wonder...is forced democracy really democracy in the end?

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"] are u making a funny, or I s*ck at internet.muscleserge

Look up hydrosonic missles. Those are confirmed, battle stars are just a cool name for a future space weapon I made up.

I can't because I can't copy and paste for some reason. Go to cuttinedge.org. That is where I found most of my information. Also I read up on it in George Friedman's book "The Next 100 Years". A lot of my ideas came with the help of his book.

I was pointing out why nations want nukes.. It pretty much is the ultimate deterrent from ever being invaded by another power... While at the same time giving you equal grounds with negotiations with rivals.. Its no wonder every one wants a nuclear weapon.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Why do you think nukes are worthless? Nuclear power is the greatest power the world is able to create at this moment. They can create a bomb today that can release approximately 100 to 200 times the amount of energy that was released on Horoshima. Nuclear power is the first step in travel to the stars. Nuclear powered engines, it is estimated, are the second ot last step in achieving the fastest travel time humans are capable of achieving, the first being anti-matter powered engines.

BumFluff122

Nuclear engery is very important. That will play a key part in the 21st century, however the use of them as weapons will not be used. They are too devestating and if one country did use them the whole world would unite against them. In the end nukes just create enemies.

I can't because I can't copy and paste for some reason. Go to cuttinedge.org. That is where I found most of my information. Also I read up on it in George Friedman's book "The Next 100 Years". A lot of my ideas came with the help of his book.

stupid4

[QUOTE="stupid4"]

I can't because I can't copy and paste for some reason. Go to cuttinedge.org. That is where I found most of my information. Also I read up on it in George Friedman's book "The Next 100 Years". A lot of my ideas came with the help of his book.

BumFluff122

Sounds interesting. I'll be sure to check it out.

Btw I meant cuttingedge.org, this is a very trustrworthy site.

Who cares. Russian stuff is still very reliable and very effective. Military technology has barely advanced in the last 30 years. I'd still prefer an AK over these high-tech super guns that jam with dust in the air.

UssjTrunks

That may have been the most foolish statement I have ever read.

[QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]

Who cares. Russian stuff is still very reliable and very effective. Military technology has barely advanced in the last 30 years. I'd still prefer an AK over these high-tech super guns that jam with dust in the air.

stupid4

That may have been the most foolish statement I have ever read.

The US's goal was to stop the creation of a unified Islamic State in the middle east by splitting the middle east up.