Interesting scenario...

[Gargoyle]

In my opinion, several hotspots exist, therefore several scenarios can unfold: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. We attack Iraq (that's a given). Northern Kurds flee Northbound toward Iran border. Iran has already stated they will use military force to prevent refugees from entering country. Iran re-enforces southern border and starts killing Kurds. US Military attacks Irans southern troops. Iran sends military south, US drawn into war with Iran. Russia, not wanting US to control oil fields in both Iran and Iraq, sends troops to Northern Iran and attack Iran from the North.

North Korea, seeing that US is drawn into war with 2 countries, sends troops south into South Korea. Options here: 1) cruise missile North Korean nuclear facilities and infrastructure. 2) pull out US troops at the 39th Parallel because they will be overwhelmed and Nuke the 39th Parallel. If a million man army is going to cross, they cross over radiated/contaminated ground. 3) Japan reinstates a military army and naval fleet in the invent North Korea bombs Japan. 4) China invades Taiwan, knowing US won't dare bomb China.

India nukes Pakistan and invades. Pakistan retaliates with their own nuclear weapon. War between those nations is started.


It's far fetched, but who knows. Time will only tell now.

I'm not against action against Iraq. I'm just voicing how it could escalate into a grander, global scale.

 

[gamblingislife]

Or we could just sit back and wait for more terrorist attacks. Your scenario is way far fetched.

 

"Or we could just sit back and wait for more terrorist attacks. Your scenario is way far fetched."

Because all ZERO times Iraq has attacked us or been linked to an attack against us was enough ... fuk it, we have a whole world of children to kill. Go get em' boys.

 

[PatPatriot]

You know somthing Lander, shortsided guys like you can count dead kids but you can't count saved lives.
Peace without freedom is no peace at all.

 

First, the word is "shortsighted".
If you're going to insult somebody at least use a phrase that you know.

Second, you're point is valid GIVEN the right circumstances exist. Maybe Iraq will be better off after this (not that a forumla of death's vs. right's exist), but for argument let's say they are ... the world is now divided over Bush's childish antics MEANING the war on terror in infinately less effective. Let's not forget the intelligence of the Germans & French (amongst) others that led to the arrest of several Al Queda suspects. Not likely to happen again any time soon ... and what will the long-term ramification be from that? Who knows?

 

[Gargoyle]

gamblerslife,

If you read further, I stated I was not against the war in Iraq, therefore, I am against just sitting and waiting for the next terrorist attack. It's not that farfetched, considering the rhetoric between North Korea and the USA. I, for the record, believe North Korea is MORE of a threat than Iraq. They have the ability and the motive to create and sell nuclear grade plutonium because that nation is starving. The only reason they have a million man army is because that's the only way to get food and they are running out of that pretty fast. If there only commerce in selling nuclear grade material to terrorist, in my opinion, they will do it.

Gargoyle