The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

In our (and by 'our' I mean the United States) continuing self appointed World Sherrif position, it's very clear that we decide who should have WMDs and who shouldn't.  This is done in two ways:

Have WMDs and are building nukes - but don't have the proper missle tech to lob something into our, our one of our allies, backyards:  we'll attack you.  Please see Iraq and Syria.

Have WMDs and are building nukes - but MIGHT have the proper missle tech to lob something into our, our one of our allies, backyards:  we'll place economic sanctions about you and label you 'part of the axis of evil.'  Please see North Korea.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if we find out that Canada has purchased some good 'ol 'A' Bombs from Russia?  Or that Mexico has decided to ramp up their 'national defense' and have all of their scientists working over time on developing the Big Thunder?  Do we take the same approach with either nation?

'Gosh, Maine, no.  North Korea is led by a mad man.  Canada isn't.'

No?  That is the country that gave us Celine Dion.  They are nuts up there.

'We would never go to war with Mexico!'

Right.  Other than stealing Texas and California, why would we?

Are we an equal opportunity bully or someone that only bitch slaps countries that can't really bitch slap back?  Just curious.

I wish the world I live in was so black and white. 

^ Don't you already?  Us and them?  Freedom lovers and haters?  Conservatives and lunatics?

I don't think we would, because we're on good terms with them.

Again, this is a gray issue.  We don't want anyone to have nukes but us, ideally.  And since we have the military, we can force that.  I don't really think it's fair that we get nukes and Iraq doesn't, but then again, I don't give a shit what's fair.  It ultimately comes down to us not wanting what we consider to be crazies to have nukes.  I'd argue that our judgment with military has been poor as of late, and I'm sure that on the world stage, a lot of people think we're the crazies.

Maybe they're right.

France, England and 7 or so other countries have nukes and we don't bomb them.  Either b/c, as Dave said, we are on good terms, or b/c it result in non-winable nuclear war.

That being said, I think it would funny to bomb Canada and annex them. They are the 51st state anyways.

We're not led by, threatened by, nor scared of, our crazies.  That difference is huge.

Iran shouldn't have nukes because they've STATED that they're determined to rid the world of Israel.

If we allow Iran or any Middle Eastern theocracy thugocracy to have nukes then we'd likely be in a much larger war.  



We've had how many opportunities to use nukes?  We've done so only once, and saved millions of American and Japanese lives in the process.  Millions.

Depending on whose numbers you want to quote, Saddam killed 13,000 to 86,000 Iraqis per year AND there was no hope for their future.

Whether or not it was our job/responsibility to give them hope and attempt to bring stability to the region is a worthy argument.  Whether or not it's a misguided or impossible cause is even up for debate.  However, whether or not doing so is a noble cause is a ridiculous argument.  

(http://www.nwfootball.net/politics/images/letspretend.gif)

Saddam chose this fate for Iraq.  Do nothing "Paper Tiger" Presidents are what brought us 9/11.  Allowing Saddam to thumb his nose at us and the UN would have only led to braver terrorists.



The extremists hate us.  They have for quite some time.  Nothing will change that.

Around 1980 they decided to use terrorism against us and have done so ever since.

Fighting terrorism is not our choice.  They're going to keep coming no matter how much we ignore them.  Our only choice is WHERE to fight.  

Not to seem too picky but we used them on two different locations at two different times.

Also MacArthur was rabidly psuhing to drop 12 across the Yalu river after the Chinese attacked us.

I don't think we'll ever bomb the crap out of any country that borders us...and don't think either canada or mexico would ever even consider doing anything to provoke America. From a military standpoint, I believe for the foreseeable future anyway, that canada and mexico should be viewed as US satellites and north-south buffer zones for any nearly-inconceivable future ground conflict.


edited for typo-mania

Proof that we're not led by, threatened by, nor scared of, our extremists.

That's a bit picky. 

They were warned on July 26 with the Potsdam Ultimatum.  They decided to defend Japan "at all costs".

The first bomb was dropped August 6.  There was no sign of them surrendering leading us to believe that they were sticking to "at all costs".  The second bomb was dropped on August 9th.

Millions of lives were saved.

They're basically US protectorates.  Both take full advantage of their geographical proximity to the USA.  France, Turkey, Brazil, Italy and Indonesia all have stronger militaries.

You don't really chose where you fight terrorists. They build cells EVERYWHERE. There is no choice in the matter. You fight them where they are.

I disagree, semantically anyways, just because I think the US military IS Mexico and Canada's military.

I totally disagree with Maine that we are the worlds sheriff, most countries pull us into their crap then down the line stab us in the back. Maybe if the so called United nations would do something then send out threatening letters we wouldn't have to do the things they refuse to do.
As far as Mexico and Canada, I don't see us ever attacking them as they too rely on us for existence. America does not attack every country because of oil or nuclear weapons, if this was be very busy attacking many nations. America has always acted in its own best interest destroying evil regimes and dictators. It is funny here we are in the greatest nation in the world and we have post on here about America and its immoral issues, what about China ? Do you thing China would bomb Japan or India ?

Faster than you can say "beef fried rice."

I once heard a thought-provoking comment about China, one that I've never been able to verify, but the person who related it to me was trustworthy enough that I didn't discount it. He said that, for many years, classrooms in China had world maps on their wall that showed Australia, but the name on Australia translated literally as...

 "New China"

I always found that kind of interesting. ;)

This is actually almost laughable.  Countries "pull us into their crap?"  Just out of curiosity, you do know that we trained Bin Laden in his efforts against the USSR, right?  We went to him, not the other way around.  Same deal with Saddam.  He was our best friend until it didn't serve our purpose any longer.

The US doesn't do anything out of the goodness of our hearts.  I knew that as a 19 year old when I was deployed to Panama City.  I remember that the biggest cry was about drug traffic activities.  That stands to reason, our government doesn't like competition.  Protecting the integrity of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties?  Laughable.  "Operation Just Cause."  Right.  Just sayin'.

Of course we wouldn't attack Canada or Mexico.  Not until an amazing oil reserve is discovered in either nation, anyway.  After that the Yukon will become the 52nd state.  I think that my point was completely lost here.  I find it funny between the use of force and sanctions.  Again the ironic nature of that isn't lost on me.  Take a look at the nations where we use force and others that sanctions are put in place.  Then look at those nations allies and military abilities.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Canada would be too polite to bomb us.........Mexico's nukes would break down mid flight and have to be pushed across the border.

True ... in a naive and simplistic way.



Is that an admission that the Nazis (WWII Europe) and communist expansionism (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) were a threat.

What did the USA have to gain in Somalia? 



Yeah, that must be it.  The US government created AIDS and purposely infected the black community for the same reason. 
(http://www.seksueelgeweld.nl/prikbord/images/smiles/rofl.gif)



Canada is #2 IN THE WORLD, Mexico is 15th.   (link (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html))



(http://www.israelity.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/speak%20no%20evil.jpg)



Measuring the strength of your opponent and weighing the cost vs gain makes you go "hmmmm"?   That's one of those things that makes me go hmmmm.   ;)

Naive?  No.  Simplistic?  Even the Wall Street Journal is written on less than a 12th grade reading level.  I simply know (most of) my audience.

Canada's a member of NATO and Mexico has enough to worry about domestically to get involved in foreign affairs.  Rumor has it though they are amassing the Big Fajita which will be launched by catapult across the Rio Grande and the weapon will be loaded with out of work immigrants who will spread like ants and work for real cheap  ;D