Will Bush decide to attack North Korea or Iran before his term ends?

I remember watching CNN like 8 months ago and one of there pentagon correspondents (Jamie Mcintyre I think) said he was interviewing George W bush about Iraq and Afghanastan and at the end of the interview he asked Bush about what he was going to do about North Korea at which time Jamie Mcintyre said bush gave him this wierd look as to say ,just wait and see what were going to do to them.
So my question is, now that Iran has secretly been trying to develop Nuclear weapons and Noth Korea openly developing nuclear weapons do you think George W Bush will plan to attack Iran or North Korea before the end of his term?
I personal think he will but not until after they recoup from the Iraq war ,like in another 2 years.No flaming, I'm just curious if you guys think he will or not.

if i was a president id go for iran, it has more natural resources to exploit and the armies are already in striking distance... america will attack north korea when china gives them the excuse by invading taiwan..

Originally posted by the dustman
if i was a president id go for iran, it has more natural resources to exploit and the armies are already in striking distance... america will attack north korea when china gives them the excuse by invading taiwan..

If I was "a" president! natural resourdes to exploit! I wonder whose side you are on? But any way I hope you are right, it is time for Islam to go were it belongs, thats right the rubbish bin of history.

@zurvan

I was wondering, which part of Iran do you curently live in?

Its hard to say...but he did get 2 more countries, well 2.5 so far...so he'll probably get both. I'd say he'd go for Iran, North Korea seems to be on the back burner...has been for awhile.

I would probably go after North korea first just because if the U.S goes into Iran first, I got this wierd feeling North Korea will attack the U.S fearing they will be next.Plus North Korea has long range missiles able to hit the U.S so you would want to attack them first and try to take out as many long range missiles as possible.Iran has no long range missiles so allthey could do is watch and wait!

Originally posted by zurvan
it is time for Islam to go were it belongs, thats right the rubbish bin of history.

as long as we muslims keep on practising islam no fool can do jack
and by that it will live on


back on topic
i would go for the country with the emidiate threat
since they are capable of hiting the west cost of the US
think how far their striking distance will be in a few years

In Bush's mind he thinks that both are viable targets. I think he should concentrate on finishing what he started before opening up yet another can of worms. My guess would be Iran 1st.

Does anybody honestly believe that the US could succeed? I mean honestly, we are getting our butts handed to us in Iraq due to lack of equipment, soldiers, and leadership from the Bush administration. Heck, Afghanistan, the 'success' is under the control of warlords dealing in drugs, worse than before we came! The only thing the US controls is Kabul!

The US military is stretched so thin, and so badly managed by Bush and his cronies, that we are lucky that Iran or North Korea doesn't invade us!

In NKorea there is at least "a" change that many civilians truly feel liberated from their dictator, you probably wouldn't see the dreadfull insurgant aftermath. Iranians might be divided, but I think most of them would close ranks if under foreign attack (more than the iraqi)....

On the other hand, many believe some nukes are already in place in NkOrea, this puts Skorea at great risk, I don't see them supporting an invasion, also there is the China component, while USA dominates in the air and at sea, landing actually amercan troops there would allow China to project their massive amount of infantery to meet the americans, the situation could get out of hand pretty quickly...No oil in Nkorea, so I expect more of an assasination attempt on Kim (and let political gravity do the work) than troop deployment.

As for Iran, Bush would have to act really quickly if he wants to avoid some nuclear retaliation on Saoudi oilfields, with iran and saoudi oilfields burning and or contaminated, Oilpeak would hit sooner than planned

As I mentioned in another post, I think it's somewhat peculiar that OPEC and specifically Saoudi Arabvia decided to officialy cut back capacity, I wonder if they not secretly stashing some Oil for the american army at millitary bases overthere, in case the thursty Abraham tanks be ordered to go for iran....?

Well, I guess , the earliest would be a month after the iraqi election, because the elections would fail badly if the Sji'tes in southern iraq (no doubt) will start angry protests...

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

the U.S couldnt give a # who runs afganistan as long as they leave the gas piplines alone thats why they had the war in the first place. america is just lucky that afganistan is a #hole full of warring factions and ethnic groups that dislike each other so the "divide and conquer" method worked well. those afgan tribal leaders will happily slit each others throats for a purse full of coins..... the scroungers probly cost us more in international aid than the oil is making.

Unless the CIA gets 5 percent from all the opium poppies to finance their war against drugs in colombia

I don't think USA [and UK probally] will attack North Korea unless their is oil to be won, money in it for them etc...
OR if their is a real situation where North Koreans start deploying nukes in bases, and soldiers/vehicles on the border...

It would be a nice present to leave the dems two days before he leaves office, wouldn't it???

Will Bush decide to attack North Korea or Iran before his term ends?

This administration will opt to do neither.



seekerof

Originally posted by curme
Does anybody honestly believe that the US could succeed? I mean honestly, we are getting our butts handed to us in Iraq due to lack of equipment, soldiers, and leadership from the Bush administration. Heck, Afghanistan, the 'success' is under the control of warlords dealing in drugs, worse than before we came! The only thing the US controls is Kabul!

The US military is stretched so thin, and so badly managed by Bush and his cronies, that we are lucky that Iran or North Korea doesn't invade us!

Well, no, they couldn't invade us, but yeah, the U.S. needs a larger military with higher discipline, and more funding. However, after withdrawing from Iraq and given some time, disregarding nukes, I think the U.S. could succeed.

And if the U.S. went against N.K. with the primary purpose of blowing it straight to hell, then we'd definitely succeed. It's when you try to wage war without killing any civilians and then try to occupy the country and all that, that trouble starts.

But no, I don't think Bush will do that, the last thing people in this country want is more warfare, especially over pointless things. Unless N. Korea bombs us or something, no way will we go in there.

If we did though, we'd have Chinese support most likely, because China, while not too quite liking the U.S. right now, doesn't like N. Korea having nukes that close either.

but, the least thing we want to see is yet another US military station around us. We won't help you that's for sure. This is exactly why we went into Korea in 1950, to drive you out away from our border or to create a buffer zone.

We aren't really helping you on N. Korea. It is but a pawn for us to leverage you just like what the US does with Taiwan against China and use Ukrine against Russia. It is all a part of the game. It has nothing to do with liberty and freedom just like Iraq; It's about global dominance and resources.

I think that iran will be attacked before it can develop Nukes. I think that there will be an attempt to get iraq like sanctions put on it. If the UN refuses, bush will have popular support to do it anyway, because american security is obviously the responsiblity of americans. If they do go thru, I suspect that iran will say 'fine, sanction us biatches' and continue on with their programs. The president will then also have support for the war, because he can say 'they're obviously lying, why else would they accept these crippling sanctions over a noo-cleer power plant?" Indeed, why would they no?

North Korea I have no idea about. I think war with them is unlikely. They have nukes and getting into a war with a nuke powered country is scenario for, well, global thermonuclear war. At the very least no president who has an american city nuked on his/her watch is going to get any sort of popular support. Also, North korea is largely dependant on outside support, and wouldn't be able to stand if sanctions were placed on it. I think that they realize this and figure that, while taking over the world or the region would be nice, better to have armed and hostile peace so that the dear leader can get nice south korean made platform shoes. Whereas the iranians, as I have mentioned elsewhere, are unfazed by the possiblity of having tehran nuked, they have 'expendeble populations'. Well, the leadership doesn't care anyways.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Will Bush decide to attack North Korea or Iran before his term ends?

This administration will opt to do neither.



seekerof

We will see about this.

I say we go to Iran. Give it 3 more months.