Page 1 of 2
Predicting the future
Posted: 6/23/2003, 3:09 pm
by mosaik
Let's see how many of you choose option 4.
Obviously I want to discuss this. I want to discuss it because in a year when they do invade, i want everyone to remember that we had a discussion about it a year earlier and that everything i said came true.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 3:28 pm
by Corey
Kinda like the US invading Syria that you predicted oh so well.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 3:29 pm
by Bandalero
eh...maybe, of course this all depends on talks between the countries and if they fall through or not. i wouldn't worry about it much, i'm sure they want no part in war and are only using their nuclear plants for energy not weapons. unless of course they were smuggled in from Iraq.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 3:31 pm
by happening fish
Yeah cause Iraq really had weapons

Posted: 6/23/2003, 3:36 pm
by nelison
the only country which said they had weapons was the only country the USA ignored... North Korea... They admitted to having them and the USA went for Iraq. Brilliant!
Posted: 6/23/2003, 3:39 pm
by Corey
The difference is that North Korea was literally STARVED for attention. They are merely trying to create bargaining chips and the USA isn't falling for it.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 3:43 pm
by mosaik
Corey wrote:Kinda like the US invading Syria that you predicted oh so well.
The Iraq thing isn't even over yet, Corey. give your government time. the nazi's didn't stop with Austria or Czechoslovakia. amerika won't stop with Iraq.
They may well invade Syria. All I know is, the UN set a timeline for the iran thing and there are whispers about miliatry conflict in the next 12 months. face it - your government has made it clear that they will not tolerate resistance from the rest of the world, and they percieve re-arment of any middle eastern nation as resistance.
there will be war maybe with syria, maybe with iran, maybe both at once. the minute baghdad fell, plans were in the works.
eh...maybe, of course this all depends on talks between the countries and if they fall through or not. i wouldn't worry about it much, i'm sure they want no part in war and are only using their nuclear plants for energy not weapons. unless of course they were smuggled in from Iraq.
well Iran promised to be "more transparent" with their nuclear program, but we all know talk is cheap. Bush is not a fan of the ruling powers in Iran. he will invade. that's all there is to it. he'll make up a reason if he needs one, and even if you know it's bullshit you'll support him because you also fundamentally disagree with how iran is won and can see no real harm in removing their islamic government.
ask yourselves honestly how much of what i said just now is true. now that iraq's so called WMDs are basically a confirmed myth, you still say "at least we got Saddam".
Posted: 6/23/2003, 4:04 pm
by Neil
I'm doubting a war with Syria......it will not happen unless they do something even more idiotic than they have already done, harbor terrorists.
Ummm.....there is a mile long list of countries harboring terrorists, don't think the U.S. is going to throw their weight around THAT much.
Iran, a possibility, simply because the public in Iran is getting sick and tired of the Islamic Fundamentalist government.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 5:03 pm
by Bandalero
in 12 months bush will be worrying about his re-election campaign, he's got no time for Iran. he's already done the war thing now he's got to make it look like he's got other agendas other then foriegn policies. otherwise his opponet is gonna destroy him and his economic policies.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 5:05 pm
by Neil
exactly.....if its going to happen it won't happen under this term (granted Bush wins reelection)
If Sharpton is elected, I'm moving to Trinidad......beside the point

Posted: 6/23/2003, 6:13 pm
by teelow
Will the 5 votes be reaching the U.S. government? Because I am sure they care what we think.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 7:22 pm
by nelison
ya he'll probably get re-elected unfortunately. Only because there isn't a quality democrat running. If they could have Gore or Hillary Clinton run for them they'd win hands down.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 7:46 pm
by Corey
*shudders* Please, don't even JOKE about Hilary becoming president.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 7:47 pm
by Furious George
Hey, anyone but Bush.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 10:14 pm
by Bandalero
We need a revolutionary.

Posted: 6/23/2003, 10:21 pm
by One-Eye
I'd go with the nonexistent 5: They might, but I wouldn't support it.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 10:40 pm
by nelison
Corey wrote:*shudders* Please, don't even JOKE about Hilary becoming president.
If there's ever a women president I think she would be the tops of most people's lists. It's better then Bush that's for sure.
Posted: 6/23/2003, 10:43 pm
by Bandalero
that's not saying much,

Posted: 6/23/2003, 10:53 pm
by One-Eye
Indeed.
I wanna be president.

Posted: 6/24/2003, 1:06 am
by Bandalero
she's gonna run on her pro-moofing ticket, and we'll all support her...won't we? WON'T WE!!!!!!!
