the real MEC army could happen

[shortbus408]

as we all know Iraq and afganstahn(sp)....well its ****ed but thats not the point those two countires are the main breeding ground for terriost now. Iran is on bushs eyes, if we go to war with Iran the whole middle east will be against USA.
that could make some kind of middle east aillance. discuss

[Henniger]

I'm sorry, but that made no sense.

As far as I can tell from your post, you believe everything you hear from the media.

[exho]

I'm sorry, but that made no sense.

As far as I can tell from your post, you believe everything you hear from the media.

i agree

[big_sammy_b]

as we all know Iraq and afganstahn(sp)....well its ****ed but thats not the point those two countires are the main breeding ground for terriost now. Iran is on bushs eyes, if we go to war with Iran the whole middle east will be against USA.
that could make some kind of middle east aillance. discuss

Actually no, the main effects of recent U.S war mongering is that they are causing INSTABILITY in those regions which result in civil war which is why the U.S is under the threat of almost random terrorism from lots of independant fractions rather than a united army.

Iraq - when Saddam was there it was stable and united. Now lunatics from all over the place are flooding there to get a peice of the pie when the US leaves in will be civil war, the little 'US friendly' government put in won't last 5 minutes.

Afghanistan - as above. And we have already seen the U.S start to lose its grip and civil war and massive increases in heroin production already.

So no the chances of terrorism being replaced by a united organised army is unlikely.

[Alphaeno]

I'm sorry, but that made no sense.

As far as I can tell from your post, you believe everything you hear from the media.

Do you or someone you know works in the CIA and actually has contacts in the Middle East and tells you about what is happening? Otherwise, if you get your information from the internet, written articles, radio, or TV, then you're getting your information from the media. If you cant trust the media, who can you trust?

As for the question, I think its to early to tell. But I hope not because how can we fuel our war machines if we go to war with the people who control most of the oil?

[big_sammy_b]

i don't believe that the media has given that impression anyway.

[Combined]

as we all know Iraq and afganstahn(sp)....well its ****ed but thats not the point those two countires are the main breeding ground for terriost now. Iran is on bushs eyes, if we go to war with Iran the whole middle east will be against USA.
that could make some kind of middle east aillance. discuss

Bush cannot go take the US on another war, especially not against Iran, its' population is over 68 million (Iraq 26 million) and it's three times bigger than Iraq. No way it's going to happen.

[Dregnan]

I wouldn't be suprised to see something like an MEC coalition at some point in the future. Though the arab states are way to fractured from one another in what their values and goals are. Even Europe who has very similar values among its countries is having a hard time holding the EU together.

Do any of you guys read 'The Onion'? Well about a month or two ago they had a great article that was supposed to be taking place in the year 2050...the title was "Democratic Union of Arab States unanimously votes to invade the United States". What a priceless concept! (if you've never read the onion go to www.theonion.com)

[Kaltagesta]

Do you or someone you know works in the CIA and actually has contacts in the Middle East and tells you about what is happening? Otherwise, if you get your information from the internet, written articles, radio, or TV, then you're getting your information from the media. If you cant trust the media, who can you trust?

As for the question, I think its to early to tell. But I hope not because how can we fuel our war machines if we go to war with the people who control most of the oil?

There's a difference between reading newspapers, websites and watching different news site, having a think and then formulating you're own opinion, and "believing everything the media says", which is what he initially claimed.

They used to have an alliance, when Israel was formed, but thats because they all had stable countries with a mutual hatred of Israel. They are generally less stable now, and while they may still hate Israel, they know they could never beat Israel in a way, unlike what they thought when they first formed the alliance.

[dark-eye]

who knows in the near future there will be some sort of of MEC army. what actually bothers me more is the fact that China isn't that poor anymore. their economie is growing everyday and with an rate like this they're gonna be a bigger threat then some MEC army (no offence it COULD be possible that such an amry will rise and will be a threat).

[xNightfirex]

Oh hell, the Arab countries are at war with each other as well as the US. MEC would mean that the Arab countries decide to wisen up a bit and fight together, which is so unlikely it's funny.

[Kaltagesta]

who knows in the near future there will be some sort of of MEC army. what actually bothers me more is the fact that China isn't that poor anymore. their economie is growing everyday and with an rate like this they're gonna be a bigger threat then some MEC army (no offence it COULD be possible that such an amry will rise and will be a threat).

Not while said economy is so dependent on the US as a trading and industrial power.

[glaeken]

I can not see this ever happening. As the US are finding out their are many factions/tribes through-out the Middle East and often they hate one another just as much as they hate the US. If the US were not in Iraq they would be killing one another rather than targeting the US forces.

As for Iran and Iraq they are not exactly close relationship wise given they fought a war against one another through-out most of the 80's and hundreds of thousands died. That kind of thing tends to leave a bitter taste.

[Yezo]

I dont see a MEC union happenning anyways. All of the U.S's ally's great britain, france, etc, all have lots of power too. You seem to forget the U.S has a shitload of nukes which they hide to say that they dont have any. Remember WW2 ended with a nuke on japan. Which surprisingly doesn't say much about their policy of attacking civilians, which has undoubtably changed. However, keep in mind in the cold war both russia and the U.S had enough nukes to decimate this entire world.

Even you can imagine the reprocussions of fighting the U.S.

Plus long range bombardment has become increasingly accurate with the breakthrough's from the US's largest trading partner - Canada. The long range remote guidance systems allow them to hit a 4-Meter target litterally hundreds of miles away. A demonstration was shown early last year.

Remember the U.S still has hundreds if not thousands of long range stealth bombers still sitting in their hangers. Some of which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The only real super powers that would be evenly matched againsed the U.S in power would be super powers in europe and russia. Even though the chineese may come close they dont have any method's of delivering a successful strike oversea.

With new breakthroughs in supersonic technology, most aircraft are way ahead of the SAMs interception point.

[dark-eye]

i agree that China won't be doing much without the economical help o the US, but imagine if they can stand on their own feet. at a given moment they'll go to war, and if they do were done for it cause they have one resource we don't have, the us doen't have or any other country and thats an 1.5 billion population. But untill its so far lets enjoy BF2