Who should America attack?

[Felch]

Note to mods: This isn't meant to be a duplicate thread. If this question is asked elsewhere though, I won't feel the least bit offended by this being closed and a link provided. I do think that this is a different way of asking the same question people usually ask, and it's of a broader scope than many other threads.

Iraq: Everyone has heard the justification for this.

North Korea: They have nukes and a bad attitude, but the potential for destruction in South Korea should give pause to hawks.

Sudan: They should be an easy target, engage in slave trade, and are carrying out a war of extermination against Christians and Animists. They also sheltered Al Qaeda, and have chronic shortages of aspirin due to preliminary bombardment.

Pakistan: They have nukes, a repressive dictatorship, are hosting Al Qaeda, and are a destabalizing force in the region. Technically they're our ally, but that hasn't stopped us from bombing the Canadians.

Saudi Arabia: They sponsor terrorism, oppress women, and do all sorts of bad stuff. Plus they have even more oil than Iraq.

Columbia: We haven't involved ourselves in a jungle war against Communists for thirty years. Can't let the lads get rusty.

[Q Classic]

YEAH!!! BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[Urban Ranger]

Attack ignorance and misinformation.

[Felch]

Now, Q, you know full well we only intend on spilling the blood of dark skinned people for oil. Very few whites are likely to be hurt.

And remember kids, that makes it all okay.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Attack ignorance and misinformation.

You're a bit too far away to make any airstrikes worthwhile, UR. Besides, we wouldn't want to hurt any innocents, now would we?

[Alexander's Horse]

Attack Australia - we're so bored.

[Urban Ranger]

I thought you guys are planning to invade NZ?

[Ted Striker]

Ivory Coast!

War for Chocolate!!!

Oh, wait, Frenchie already did that.

Italiano did too but he isn't mouthing off about the US.

[Felch]

Did you decide on what to do with the reserves?

[GePap]

you forgot IRAN!!!!

How could you Felch? Are you a secret Ayatollah?

[Felch]

My old boss was from Iran. He had to leave in a hurry after the revolution. Maybe my bitterness over how he skimped on the paychecks made me subconsciously forget to include the Islamic Republic.

[Kramerman]

where is the "all of the above" option?

[Q Classic]

Now, Q, you know full well we only intend on spilling the blood of dark skinned people for oil. Very few whites are likely to be hurt.

what other anti-war slogans are there that i can lampoon? hmm... that one's funny, i think i might be persuaded to post a buncha those up around campus to combat the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" posters...

not because i like the war, mind you. because it's funny.

if we attacked a banana republic, would we have to engage an old navy near a gap?

[orange]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Attack ignorance and misinformation.

[Carver]

Sudan is easily the most morally justifiable war.

They permit slavery. They are engaging in near-genocide with the Bantu people of southern Sudan. They do everything they can to disrupt international relief supplies from getting to the south. When they don't kill southerners they will drive them from their land if there is an economic reason to do so, i.e. oil. They have supported international terror by harbouring Al Qaeda and by supporting the fanatical rebels in Uganda, the LRA.

The only moral justification for invading Iraq or North Korea would be that those governments are doing a horrible job of caring for their people. But we don't invade nations for that reason (except when its really easy, like Haiti). Otherwise, nations have the right to build whatever weapons they like, although they should withdraw from the NPT if they're going to build nukes.

Columbia... maybe we should. Instead of persuing the useless "war on drugs" and locking up criminals of questionable criminality, we could take the war to those who run the international drug cartels.