What will BushCorp Round 2 MEAN? Your most outlandish predictions here.

dfb547490 · Nov 6, 2004

domingo said:

And a united military of France, Belgium and Germany would definitely not rank behind the UK.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. (Assuming we're only talking conventional forces--if not France's nukes and the UK's would cancel each other out, since they have roughly the same number IIRC)

argentine soccer fan · Nov 7, 2004

Don King will be appointed Attorney General.

96Squig · Nov 7, 2004

dfb547490 said:

Yes, it would. (Assuming we're only talking conventional forces--if not France's nukes and the UK's would cancel each other out, since they have roughly the same number IIRC)
Click to expand...

Since the 70s Germany has had a bigger military than France or UK, because due to more money, ppl, and it was nearer to the enemy. The unification did not make the military smaller, did it?
France and Germany have far more ppl under weapons than the Uk, and chances are high that Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy would join a United European army.
Numbers:
germany: 332 800

France: 294 430

Germany + France: 627 230
UK: 210 450

Us has 1 427 000
So, Germany + France + belgium + Italy + NL + Spain would be: 1 149 460

I think that Austria, Ireland, some scandinavian nations, and some eastern european nations would be very likely to join, so just think of how much that would be...
And the UK could join it too, depending on how the UKI party and the Torries do...
But, the Britain and American armies are far more moodern and better equiped for a fight against terrorism... against superpower the masses of tanks Germany, sweden and France have will help though...
all numbers from. http://www.bmlv.gv.at/truppendienst/milint/td_milint-overview.php?id_r=1

Dyvel · Nov 5, 2008

So how did everyone's predictions work out?

Foosinho · Nov 5, 2008

Dyvel said: ↑

So how did everyone's predictions work out?
Click to expand...

My prediction? Not bad, actually.

ElJefe · Nov 5, 2008

ElJefe said: ↑

A lot less than they, and we, think.

They're lame ducks now. Congress will be even more focused on their Job 1, which is and has always been "staying in office," and will only bend to the White House's will at their pleasure. This is especially true in the Senate, when one-third of them will not be up for re-election until 2010, two years after Bush is out of office.

Plus, the media will be not be as friendly. At this point in 2000, newspapers and news shows were full of hopeful reports of this new "compassionate conservative." The Administration had a clean slate and they were going to get treated the same way as a new puppy. Now, these are the same bums that have been in office for four years already and familiarity breeds contempt. They're not going to get any sort of slack from the press. And this is not a "liberal media" thing. It's a second-term thing. Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon all got much tougher treatment from the media in their second terms than they did in their first terms. Just look at the current coverage of Republicans' cackling with glee over the programs that they think that they're going to pass.

If it's true that you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, the second term is where the media starts discovering all the shells laying around. And this Administration has been cracking a lot of eggs. How much are they going to get done if they keep having to answer questions about missing explosives, Halliburton, Valerie Plame, or whatever else pops up? And more stuff will come up, because scandal is so much more fun to cover than the same old **************s that have been around for four years.

Finally, the continuing situation in Iraq will cost the Bush Administration some political capital on an ongoing basis as long as American servicemen come home in bodybags.
Click to expand...

Hi there.