Possible nuclear strike on Iran?

[Mario 0]

In C&C, GDI is the miliary arm of the UN.

 

you coulda said something easily like that F15:P

[F15pilotX 4]

But you see, the UN eventually disappears in C&C (i.e. C&C3) I'm pretty sure :wink:

[comander starlin 6]

you sure the UN is GDI

[F15pilotX 4]

Read the below:

 

http://cncden.com/cnc3_gdi_overview.shtml

[comander starlin 6]

sorry i was thinking something else when i wrote that, my bad :oops:

[Cygnus X-1 12]

The way the world has attrophied since the collapse of the USSR (things were much clearer back then, if ever ominous threat of nuclear holocaust loomed over us) there are 2 options that would call for drastic change and that would either save us or kill us. The first is the ever used 'GDI' one. If done properly, GDI is a military organization, not the arm of the UN, and it has no allegiance to any nation or group of nations except itself. Now this will never work, because anyone wiht that kind of power starts abusing it. The whole reason that military heads are civilians (well in the US anyway) is to prevent that kind of thing.

 

The other big option, is for the US to go isolationist, wich would basically put the world up shiit creek, and when the rest of Europe and whoever else is begging and crying for US to come in a save the day, we do, thus winning yet another major conflic. Only then afterwards, we are blamed for hte conflict as a ruse for power.....either way, the US looses. We can go isolationist and be blamed for not helping, or we can bend over backwards saving everyones arses, and be blamed for not doing enough.

 

Personally, Im sick of other nations, peoples, and the UN blaming shiit on us. If it were up to me, I would pull out of everything, drop kick the UN out of the US, then deploy the SAC (or what passes for it these days) and go bunker busting on N.Korea and Iran. BUt of course, the US would still support her staunchest allies, such as Israel. They seem to have many of their priorities straight. Ignor the UN, and kill those who would harm them.

[F15pilotX 4]

The problem is, quite a few AMERICANS as well, are scared to do anything that will lower (for the time being, at least) the world's opinion of us :wink:

[Mario 0]

The way the world has attrophied since the collapse of the USSR (things were much clearer back then, if ever ominous threat of nuclear holocaust loomed over us) there are 2 options that would call for drastic change and that would either save us or kill us. The first is the ever used 'GDI' one. If done properly, GDI is a military organization, not the arm of the UN, and it has no allegiance to any nation or group of nations except itself. Now this will never work, because anyone wiht that kind of power starts abusing it. The whole reason that military heads are civilians (well in the US anyway) is to prevent that kind of thing.

 

The other big option, is for the US to go isolationist, wich would basically put the world up shiit creek, and when the rest of Europe and whoever else is begging and crying for US to come in a save the day, we do, thus winning yet another major conflic. Only then afterwards, we are blamed for hte conflict as a ruse for power.....either way, the US looses. We can go isolationist and be blamed for not helping, or we can bend over backwards saving everyones arses, and be blamed for not doing enough.

 

Personally, Im sick of other nations, peoples, and the UN blaming shiit on us. If it were up to me, I would pull out of everything, drop kick the UN out of the US, then deploy the SAC (or what passes for it these days) and go bunker busting on N.Korea and Iran. BUt of course, the US would still support her staunchest allies, such as Israel. They seem to have many of their priorities straight. Ignor the UN, and kill those who would harm them.

 

Dont forget us we're your cloesest Allies :wink:

[F15pilotX 4]

And you're a Brit, correect?

[Mario 0]

aye

[F15pilotX 4]

Lets see...the closest allies of the US, as far as I can remember, are:

[*]UK

[*]Israel

[*]Aussies

[comander starlin 6]

Lets see...the closest allies of the US' date=' as far as I can remember, are:

[list']

[*]UK

[*]Israel

[*]Aussies

 

aussies ok what do they do again?

[General Leang 0]

They deployed the SASR to Afghanistan and are a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq. Prime Minister John Howard truely is Bush's loyal lap dog, probably his largest supporter among the nation leaders.

[Alphabear 11]

We were the third largest contributer to the iraq invasion, also the first invasion force into the country.

 

Agreed about howard being bush's lapdog. We need a PM that is willing to say no to everything the US wants every now and then.

[F15pilotX 4]

Well, I'm sure he's better for you Aussies than a pacifist

[General Leang 0]

To be fair he cannot be blamed for being involved in America's military actions as much as he is, after the Bali bombings that killed 88 Australians. Were it not for that John Howard might not be so willing to throw everything aside for the sake of vengence, much the same Bush has done for September 11.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Keeping in mind of course, that Iraq is not 'vengeance' for 9/11, as so many Liberalistis Democraps like to say over here

 

UK, Australia, Israel, all three (in no particular order) are fine allies of the US, and they have every right to be. What sets them apart from say, France, Germany, ect is that the UK, AL (for my spelling's sake) and Israel are smart. Being pacifist will not allow us to prevail over an enemy hell-bent on our destruction. "Fight fire with fire" is a common expression thrown around, but I say fight fire with overwhelming firepower both in terms of weaponry, and intelligence, mobility, and tactics. And we cant do that by relying on the UN or following hte mainstream EU.

[General Leang 0]

By that I meant John Howard might not have been as committed to America and deploying troops to Iraq had it not been for the Bali bombings.

[BWare 0]

There's nothing like a bombing to wake up a nation.

[Alphabear 11]

Yeah i agreed with his decision to go to iraq, but its the way he will do absolutely anything the US wants which i dont like.

[BWare 0]

Now that's just unfair. Besides going to Iraq (which you apparently agree with), how has he done "anyting the US wants"? Is this just blind prejudice talking or what?

[General Leang 0]

I believe he means agreement to free trade, any and all action against Iran and North Korea, persecution of Muslims; which in the case of one Shiek who stated women deserve to be raped because of the way they dress, is fair enough. Half the issue in my view is that John Howard and Australia do not lead, they follow.

[Alphabear 11]

which in the case of one Shiek who stated women deserve to be raped because of the way they dress, is fair enough.

Dont get me started on him, he needs to be deported. Luckily most muslims take what he says with a grain of salt

[BWare 0]

Now that's just unfair. Besides going to Iraq (which you apparently agree with), how has he done "anyting the US wants"? Is this just blind prejudice talking or what?

[Alphabear 11]

How is it blind prejudice? I never said we should cut off all deals with the US. How would you like it if your government said yes to everything the French government wanted you to do. I just want our PM to start acting like the leader of Australia not a puppet of the US.