USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sophion-Black 0]

in my eyes its more of a penalty that is the "last straw" type penalty. it is a penalty that is given to people that society gives up on correcting or just wont waste the money tring to correct him.

[EiZei 0]

in my eyes its more of a penalty that is the "last straw" type penalty. it is a penalty that is given to people that society gives up on correcting or just wont waste the money tring to correct him.

Too bad death penalty with proper appeal processes costs a lot more than the life in prison equivalent and they get overturned more often upping the "dollars spent per execution."

Anyways, spending the rest of your life in prison is hardly corrective anymore?

[NurEinMensch 0]

I will never accept the death penalty as something that is even worth debating much about. There is no justification for killing even the worst serial killer in cold blood.

Self defense is one thing, execution a whole different matter. Lock them up, never let them out again, but don't kill them.

[chops 111]

An Australian found to be trying to smuggle nearly 400 grams of heroin from Cambodia to Australia, was caught in transit in Singapore in 2003.

They killed him at 6 am this morning.

Fucking savages.

Link

Edit: I mean the ruling "Government" that outlaws oral sex, not the average punter in the street.

[harley 3 1185 0]

I have to agree with the consensus that the fellow shouldn't have been hanged. Not because I don't believe he didn't deserve to die (400g of pure heroin is not good. Period) but because it was blatantly a matter for the courts in Australia. That was his destination. That's where he wanted to sell the drugs. He was an Australian citizen.

Still, Singapore society is very different to our own - better suited to such ruthless regimentation and law - something you'd never get away with in Western Europe or in North America. Their harsh punishments seem to work, however. Shame they had to kill a foreigner (and sack their hangman of many years) to prove a point.

[Balschoiw 0]

What´s the big deal ?

In Singapore they had to switch to very rough punishments as the city was totally out of control decades ago.

It´s now one of the safest places you can visit.

Everyone who goes to Singapore is advised multiple times that there is the death penalty for drug-smuggling. You also have to sign those sheets when you´re in the plane on your flight. It´s not something in small letters. It´s explicitly written in very big letters. If you miss the chance to flush the drugs on the planes toilet it´s ONLY YOUR FAULT if you get executed. Singapore airport is very high tech. they have tech sniffers for explosives and heavy drug controls. Anyone who thinks he needs to take half a kilo of heroin to Singapore is just an idiot that deserves to be punished by Singapore law.

[Akira 0]

US Politics?

...but since its here. There are better ways of working off gambling debts then trying to smuggle drugs through Singapore. Kuala Lampur too far for ya? The laws there are very well known (remember the American caning? Man I'm glad that punk got whipped).

[billybob2002 0]

AARGH...English should be the official language or something. Had a incident with a hispanic immigrant yesterday who worked the cash register at McDonalds at the Student Union. This is want happened:

Me: I would like a side salad with Italian dressing. (Got to stay healthy)

Her: Ok, what dressing?

Me. Italian dressing.

Her: (looks confused)

Me: (softly and slow) Italian dressing.

Her: (looks confused and now looks at the price menu)

Me: (hmm...they don't list salad dressings on the menu)

Her: We have ranch.

Me: I would take vinegarette dressing then.

(She knows vinegarette dressing because I have recieved it from her before when I asked.)

Her: (goes to the mini-fridge to get the dressing and comes back with two dressings)

Me: (notice that one is ranch and the other is ITALIAN)

Her: Which one would you like?

Me: (Points to the Italian dressing because she can't read or something).

Me: Thanks...

         

Why would they hire people to work the cash register that have very limited english skills?

[ralphwiggum 6]

THIS IS USA POLITICS! NOT SINGAPORE POLITICS!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]THIS IS USA POLITICS! NOT SINGAPORE POLITICS!

Relax Ralphie ! It was just a mini-hijack

US military news stories were “paid advertisementsâ€: senator

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON - The US military confirmed Friday that it paid to place stories in Iraqi newspapers, going through third parties to reduce the risk to publishers.

But the US-led Multi-National Force-Iraq insisted that such â€information operations†were “an essential tool for commanders to ensure the Iraqi population has current, truthful and reliable information.

“As part of our operations, we have offered articles for publication to Iraqi newspapers, and in some cases articles have been accepted and published as function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space, as is customary in Iraq,†it said in a statement.

“Third parties have been employed in an effort to mitigate the risk to Iraq,†it said. The statement said the procedures used to place the stories had undergone policy and legal review to ensure they complied with law and regulations.

The military said it was reviewing allegations raised in news reports about the program and will investigate any improprieties.

The disclosure of the practice of paying to plant favorable stories in the Iraqi press has been widely criticized here as a blow to US credibility and to the independence of the Iraqi media.

Senator John Warner, after being briefed by defense officials, said the Pentagon was still gathering information on the extent of the secret program and whether Iraqi journalists were paid by the military to write favorable stories.

Senior Pentagon officials confirmed that a private firm, the Lincoln Group, was contracted to pay Iraqi news organizations to run military-produced stories as paid advertisements, he said.

“Now it’s been discovered in some areas there’s an omission of that reference that it’s been paid for. And they’re looking into that,†Warner told reporters.

He said the stories were put together by a group working directly under Lieutenant General John Vines, the second ranking commander in Iraq.

They were reviewed by a flag officer and cleared by military legal advisers before being turned over to the Lincoln Group, he said.

He said the material produced by the military was represented as originating with the coalition military.

“Lincoln Group is authorized to provide payment for placement of this material in Iraqi newspapers, similar to the way in which any advertiser, marketer or public relations firm would place advertisements,†Warner said.

The Los Angeles Times reported this week that Lincoln Group staff in Iraq sometimes posed as freelance journalists or advertising executives when delivering stories to Iraqi news outlets, masking their connection to the military.

It said dozens of stories written by military “information operations†soldiers ran in Iraqi newspapers, many of them presented as unbiased news accounts by independent reporters.

Knight-Ridder newspapers reported this week that the military also has paid Iraqi journalists to write favorable stories, making payments of up to 200 dollars a month to members of a military-organized Baghdad Press Club.

“We can’t verify this question of payments to the journalists,†Warner said while adding that he remained “gravely concerned†about the reports.

The influential senator refrained from further comment until the military provides a fuller account, which he said the military command in Baghdad was preparing.

General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, was attempting to combat disinformation in the Iraqi media “in a truthful way,†Warner said.

“I strongly believe that we’ve got to do our best to combat this disinformation. And until I get all the facts, I’m not going to say further on how we go about it,†he said.

Warner also said the program was classified which limited what he could say about it.

The Lincoln Group has remained silent on whether it has paid Iraqi news organizations to run stories without identifying them as produced by the military.

In a statement Friday, the Washington-based firm said it “has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq. Our priority has always been, and continues to be, accuracy and timeliness.â€

“We counter the lies, intimidation and pure evil of terror with factual stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for freedom and security,†it said.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “has taken an interest in this matter,†but would not comment on what he has done.

Haha. Who is evil and liar now ? Hehe, the United States of ridiculous malpractises. The TBA empire strikes again...

[walker 0]

Hi all

The record of communications between the Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and TBA have been released and seem to show a direct intenion by members of TBA and FEMA to prevent Aid from reaching those in New Orleans for not less than two days.

In the record are numerous occasions where the Governor requested the 500 busses already available from TBA to go and pick up Louisiana citizens and yet TBA fob her off or tell her aid is on the way when in fact the record shows no orders for the federal busses to move was passed on.

By turns the Guvenor begs and cajols Aid from TBA and FEMA only to never have it arrive.

I myself remember I bad mouthed her at the time for not being quick enough but the record shows she was working her ass off and that the problem was at the federal end.

I feel the need to publicly apologise to her.

Quote[/b] ]Blanco Releases Katrina Records

La. Governor Seeks to 'Set the Record Straight'

By Joby Warrick, Spencer S. Hsu and Anne Hull

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, December 4, 2005; Page A01

Thousands of documents released by Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Friday night shed new light on clashes between state officials, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and the Bush administration as they struggled to respond to Hurricane Katrina.

Among the more than 100,000 pages of newly released records, which ranged from after-action reports to hand-scrawled notes written at the height of the storm, are memos showing Blanco frustrated and angered over delays in evacuations and the slow delivery of promised federal aid.

"We need everything you've got," Blanco is quoted in a memo as telling President Bush on Aug. 29, the day Katrina made landfall. But despite assurances from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that 500 buses were "standing by," Blanco's aides were compelled to take action when the FEMA buses failed to materialize, documents show. "We need buses," Andy Kopplin, chief of staff to Blanco, said in an e-mail to Blanco staffers late on Aug. 30, the day after the storm hit. "Find buses that can go to NO [New Orleans] ASAP."

Two days later, on Sept. 2, Blanco complained to the White House that FEMA had still failed to fulfill its promises of aid. While cloaked in customary political courtesies, Blanco noted that she had already requested 40,000 more troops; ice, water and food; buses, base camps, staging areas, amphibious vehicles, mobile morgues, rescue teams, housing, airlift and communications systems, according to a press office e-mail of the text of her letter to Bush.

"Even if these initial requests had been fully honored, these assets would not be sufficient," Blanco said. She also asked for the return of the Louisiana Army National Guard's 256th Brigade Combat Team, then deployed to Iraq.

Tensions between state leaders and the White House seemed at times near the boiling point. At 3:49 p.m. on Sept. 2, after spending three hours to appear with Bush at a Mississippi news conference, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) wrote Blanco's staff, "I am returning home to baron[sic] rouge in hoping I can accomplish something for the people I represent other than being occupied with PR." ...

Follow link for full story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....80.html

What is trully terrible about the record of communications is that it leaves one with the unmistakable feeling that TBA and FEMA's inaction was deliberate.

Go here to see the Govenors responce

http://gov.louisiana.gov

Shocked walker

[harley 3 1185 0]

There was one thing which bothered me when I was watching the build-up to Katrina, and perhaps you can clear this up for me Walker, the man in the know -

What happened to the hundreds of school buses which must have been available to the City, the State, hell to the Federal Authorities?  

I read nothing before Katrina of a bussing plan set up, or of all the buses available being utilised, and it drove me mad seeing all the elderly and car-less being told to go to the damn Astrodrome like fish in a barrel.  

As far as I'm concerned, and I've seen nothing yet to dipute this, the State and the City of New Orleans screwed up big time - maybe not as much as the Federales did, but still in a manner which would constitute a need for an Inquiry.  Of course, I still don't know all the facts, so shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong...

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the eve of Iraq's historic election, President Bush took responsibility Wednesday for "wrong" intelligence that led to the war, but he said removing Saddam Hussein was still necessary.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision," the president said. "Saddam was a threat and the American people, and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

Seems like they are trying to cover their rear. Now that tide is turning, they are making a very pathetic attempt to be the "responsible" one. The mood across the conservative forum is quite amazing. One forum I usually look at doesn't even mention the news. No one brougt it up. Guess it hurts to accept the fact that conservatives are in big trouble.

Bush Accepts McCain's Ban on Torture

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON - President Bush embraced Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects on Thursday, reversing months of opposition that included White House veto threats.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bowing to pressure from the Republican-run Congress and abroad, the White House signed off on the proposal after a fight that pitted the president against members of his own party and threatened to further tarnish a U.S. image already soiled by the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Bush said the ban and accompanying interrogation standards will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."

Just a few weeks ago, the Whitehouse was unhappy about the bill that went through Senate. As the extension of the "responsible" acting, it may work, but the milk is already spilt.

And just to show that GOP was short sighted power thirsty idiots,

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/sr.weds/index.html

Quote[/b] ]MEANWHILE, ARNOLD GETS BERATED FOR COS CHOICE: Republican lawmakers scolded Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday, telling him in a closed-door meeting how seriously his support among party stalwarts is wavering. Schwarzenegger spent about an hour with 20 members of the Assembly Republican caucus, who had asked for the meeting following his appointment of a Democratic activist as his new chief of staff. The Republican loyalists cast the hiring of Susan Kennedy, a top advisor to former Gov. Gray Davis, as a betrayal that raises a fundamental question about Schwarzenegger: Is he a Republican, or isn't he?

If someone needs a refresher course on how Arnold became the governor, he rode on the idea of "kicking some bureaucrat's butt". However, his lack of clear agenda finally caught up with him, and all of the propositions he supported in the "specialelection" got nixed.

GOP threw their support behing Arnold during the Gray Davis recall, and turned a blind eye to some of Arnold's stance in abortion. Just to show that GOP was interested in power, contrary to their claim.

[EiZei 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....33.html

Quote[/b] ]

Photos of Bush With Abramoff Are Withheld

White House Calls Pictures Irrelevant to Ethics Inquiry

Several White House officials have been briefed about pictures of President Bush and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff taken since 2001 but will not release them on grounds that they are not relevant to the ongoing money-for-favors investigation, aides said yesterday.

"Trying to say there's more to it than the president taking a picture in a photo line is just absurd," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. Bush, he said, does not recall meeting Abramoff and did not do any favors for the disgraced lobbyist.

Am I the only one that still remembers the GOP "outrage" over the fact that Kerry stood 5 meters from Jane Fonda in a photograph taken 35 years ago?

Maybe he should have just shaked hands with her..

[chops 111]

Quote[/b] ]

"Trying to say there's more to it than the president taking a picture in a photo line is just absurd," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. Bush, he said, does not recall meeting Abramoff and did not do any favors for the disgraced lobbyist.

Nothing makes you look more guilty than to refute an unmade accusation. As for Rummy and Saddam... I can imagine Winston Smith sitting at his desk, carefully cutting out Saddams face...

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Story

GENEVA - The United States should shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and either release the detainees or put them on trial, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.

The world body also called on the United States to refrain from practices that “amount to torture.â€

The White House rejected the recommendation to shut the prison.

“These are dangerous terrorists that we’re talking about that are there,†spokesman Scott McClellan said.

-AP (continued by clicking link)

This is something that should be brought up in this thread. To my opinion, the harsh no-BS way, is to release them at Geneva. The humaine way, the soccer mom way, is to politely say no way and continue to reject. Either way, it will turn up to be the American's choice, not the UN's.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]

Story

GENEVA - The United States should shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and either release the detainees or put them on trial, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.

The world body also called on the United States to refrain from practices that “amount to torture.â€

The White House rejected the recommendation to shut the prison.

“These are dangerous terrorists that we’re talking about that are there,†spokesman Scott McClellan said.

-AP (continued by clicking link)

This is something that should be brought up in this thread. To my opinion, the harsh no-BS way, is to release them at Geneva. The humaine way, the soccer mom way, is to politely say no way and continue to reject. Either way, it will turn up to be the American's choice, not the UN's.

Nice to see that applying double standard is the cornerstone of this war. By doing what enemies do we are degrading ourselves to their level. Bring the charges and get them incarcerated legally.

I hope you can say that when some insurgent captures US soldier or civilian contractor and then tortures them. To them US soldiers and contractors are the enemy combatants.

Forgot to add:

Over the weekend, as many of you heard, Dick Cheney managed to wound a lawyer. Although in sick joke it could have been a better shot with one less lawyer on the planet, in reality, this is anything but.

It amazes me that people bend their rules just to cover their political affiliation's fault. Some cautious people said that without details it would be hard to lay the fault, but a lot of gun forums seemed to blast the media and protect Cheney instead of blasting his poor discipline.

After Cheney came out and said that it was his fault suddenly I hear crickets followed by some quiet applause for being "truthful".

When there was presidential elections years ago, GOP made fun of Kerry for hunting. At least no one got shot with that hunting.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]GENEVA - The United States should shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and either release the detainees or put them on trial, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.

 When in the history of warfare have POWs ever been put on trial? It's such an absurd notion, only a 21st century inhabitant of the west could possibly think of something so daft. What can you expect though, in the west everything is about trials and lawyers.

  Personally I have a hard time with the term "terrorist suspects" to begin with. So in past wars were POWs reffered to as "axis suspects." or  "yankee/rebel suspects"? POWs do not get trials, they sit out the duration of the war in POW camps end of story.  When the Jihad is over they can go home.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]GENEVA - The United States should shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and either release the detainees or put them on trial, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.

When in the history of warfare have POWs ever been put on trial? It's such an absurd notion, only a 21st century inhabitant of the west could possibly think of something so daft. What can you expect though, in the west everything is about trials and lawyers.

Personally I have a hard time with the term "terrorist suspects" to begin with. So in past wars were POWs reffered to as "axis suspects." or "yankee/rebel suspects"? POWs do not get trials, they sit out the duration of the war in POW camps end of story. When the Jihad is over they can go home.

And here was I thinking that the Bush administration has been continually insisting that these people are not POWs.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]And here was I thinking that the Bush administration has been continually insisting that these people are not POWs.

*B-ding* We have a winner.

Sputnik Monroe- The confusion you are experiencing is due to the deliberately vague and fuzzy situation that the bush administration has allowed to exist (and furthermore created).

They are not POWS (entailing adherence to Geneva convention etc) but IIRC 'Enemy Combatants'.

In other words 'They're not prisoners of war! They're smizzoners of warr!"

There are Uighurs imprisoned who arent guilty of anything, a US court has cleared them and branded their imprisonment unlawful and yet they have not been released. China views them as dangerous seperatists and would probably treat them even worse, but the US doesnt seem to want to grant them asylum as that would sour relations with China- So they're still chained up in Guantanamo, even though the US government accepts they were mistakenly detained!

Thats just the most glaring example of what a total cock up Guantanamo is.

---

Washington Post

Uighur Human Rights Project

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

From the ABC article

Quote[/b] ]SABIN WILLETT: The Uighers were sold for $5,000 a head - at least my clients, and probably more, to US forces. And by the time people figured out who they were, they were on a sort of one-way escalator to Guantanamo and were never able to get off.

MARK SIMKIN: Another Uigher soon joined them, Sadiq Turqistani. His story is even more bizarre. He'd been imprisoned by the Taliban, accused of trying to assassinate Osama bin Laden. The American soldiers liberated Turqistani from the Taliban jail and sent him to a Cuban one.

SABIN WILLETT: They used to say the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I guess in the Bush Administration the enemy of my enemy is my enemy. I don't know how they can possibly explain Sadiq's case. My guess is that people thought Sadiq might have some useful information. If it were true that he had tried to assassinate bin Laden, maybe he would know something about where bin Laden was, things like that.

MARK SIMKIN: Sadiq Turqistani, Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu al-Hakim spent years at Guantanamo Bay before they got a day in court. In a room like this one, the military ruled that they were not enemy combatants. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. That was nine months ago. But they're still prisoners.

MAN 1: The Uighers are in a surreal black hole. They've been declared to be innocent and yet they remain in Guantanamo with no sense of when they are going out.

MARK SIMKIN: The Uighers have now been moved to a somewhat more comfortable part of the prison, but they are still captives cut off from the world.

Some of them fled from bombing and were captured and sold by bounty hunters. One of them was a prisoner of the Taliban. POWS.

Its absurd.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Here's the problem: today's war is is very different than that of WWII. we have no one face to look to for diplomatic relations. Its also hard to draw the line between POW's and CEC's (captured enemy combatants).

My opinion is that we hold them until we do have one face to look at for diplomatic relations. There we can use this as a stepping-stone for good PA. eventually getting to the point where we show that the US is not an evil country.

Hey no laughing... its a theory, the only one i got... but it sounded good.

[j w 0]

WWIII coming up??

Ah, well. Let's keep our fingers crossed for this not to happen.

Quote[/b] ]  

The Pentagon is moving strategic bombers to Guam and aircraft carriers and submarines to the Pacific as part of a new "hedge" strategy aimed at preparing for conflict with China, Pentagon officials said yesterday.

  Peter Rodman, assistant defense secretary for international security affairs, told a congressional commission that the response to the emerging military threat from China is part of the White House national security strategy made public yesterday.

  Although U.S. relations with China are good, "both sides understand very well that there is a potential for a conflict, particularly in the Taiwan Strait," Mr. Rodman said during a hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.  

Read full article here.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Yes, doesn't look promising... fingers crossed!

So, what do you think about this? I've already posted this on another forum, and gave a "long short" estimate, although half of it is nicked off from Clancy novels...

It may sound strange and naive. It doesn't offer a complete analysis of the possible consequinces. It might have MANY errors. I wrote all of this out of my head, so... I'm posting it just to start a conversation.

Quote[/b] ]China has the largest armed forces in the world (2.5 million atm I think), and they could mobilize alot more in the event of a war. China has been upgrading it's defensive (and offensive) system quite alot in the past few decades, and although they're still inferior to US systems, it wouldn't be an easy enemy to beat. It's a well-known fact that that the Chinese has nuclear weaponry, which will surely make Pentagon to consider the effects of a possible war.

USA is spending a huge amount of money to it's armed forces at the moment. It has forces around the world, which would both make the thing easier and harder: they can mobilize some forces much more quicker, but some areas, such as Iraq at the moment, need the presence of foreign armed forces, due to tensions inside the area and the possible danger of the neighbouring countries. And they can't mobilize too much of the army, because in case of a large scale war between China and USA, I wouldn't count out the propability of an invasion by China. I do doubt it's effectiveness though, due to the amount of well-trained gun owners in the USA and the patriotism. Germany never got full control of France, and Coalition forces in Iraq are having similar problem, resistance. In case USA invades China, I'm quite sure that it would turn into a second Iraq, although in much larger scale. It wouldn't be strategically very wise to invade China, unless they'd set up a Chinese government really soon.

European nations would propably be mostly safe, atleast at the beginning of the war. USA would propable ask for help from it's NATO companions. I can't quite think of Russia's role, it's armed forces in their current state aren't suited for fighting in many fronts. It might attack Baltic countries, which, atleast in my point of view, is quite unlikely. Major NATO forces situated mainly in Germany and Poland would be mobalized to help they're eastern NATO partners. Russia would have hard time fighting them off, even if USA and some of the NATO forces wouldn't be present. Russia could invade some of the old Soviet era countries, but that might lead to some reaction too. There's a good chance that Russia will start fighting against China, if they do anything.

Iran would most likely react. It might go and help China, but would most propably atleast start an attack on Iraq. That would draw quite alot of supplies from USA and it's friends, even if Iran's army is quite mildly equipped by modern standards. Libya might react somehow, also, but that's not very likely either. Israel would be under a threat, which might lead to the use of their nuclear weaponry (I have no doubts of them having nukes) as a "precaution". It's known to happen (Six days war, 1967), using conventional weapons only, though. I doubt that Saudi's would help Iran, but they might just get run over, despite the fact that their Army has M1 Abrams' for it's armoured forces.

India and Pakistan are both known to have nukes and they have alot of tension between them. One simple thing could result the end of both countries. I'm not sure of India's stance, but I have a feeling they're a bit anti-US too...

The Korean peninsula would surely turn into a war zone, once again. Most propably North Korea would use it's nuclear weapon, assuming it has one. That would bring even more stress on US forces, after all, they have quite large military bases in the North-South Korean borderline.

Feel free to discuss, just don't flame me, please.

[Necromancer- 0]

I don't think we'll ever be in war with China..

The reason of that is very simple.. they won't be able to dump their cheaply produced electronics elsewhere.

[Student Pilot 0]

I think if we wait long enough, China will implode upon itself.  The Chinese leaders have instilled a strong communist government, but they have also given their people limited freedoms for economic purposes.  This means the Chinese leaders have managed to introduce two completely different ideologies into their system.  For this reason, I can't see China staying the way they are for very long.  We could very well see a large-scale revolution (perhaps starting with another Tienemman Square).  China will either become completely Democratic or completely Communist.  If they become Democratic, I think there is a good chance they will be our allie.  If they become Communist, I think we will see them go down the same road that the Soviet Union went down, perhaps strong at first, but collapsing in the end.

My two cents

-Pilot