It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
77

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   
1) North Korea is the supplier. www.fas.org...
While hitting Kanggye with a cobalt core silo buster hit the oil fields to the North East with several large LNG bombs. But the navy should be armed with all of these bombs and tactical nuclear missiles without any of Ted Kennedy goons knowing of it. In fact see if Marine Sniper Ray "Bellioni" can send a student to take out one more sorry waste of skin with the last name of Kennedy first.
This attack would be unexpected and effective in stopping the production of Gas as well as nuclear weapons by Korea. Unfortunately holding air space without a particle beam reactor in orbit will be impossible (I count 9,000 migs in N.K. and another 9,000 ready to go over the gulf in China) so we would have to retreat just prior to the attack.
2) Fly our supplies and personnel to South Turkey, rename it Kurdistan if Turkey again does not help and start a three front campaign against Iran. The first should be a hit on the assembly facility in the south for those 5,000kilometer range missiles. Next
3) Take everyone up through Syria and Lebanon then bring our troops home. Give the green light to Israel to level the dome of the rock and that entire illegal group that claim to be "Palestinians" and let Israel deal with Libya and Algeria.
That should pretty much keep things cool through the next generation, Preventing World War Thee.
Russia has the answer to China. Two big 500 megaton war.s with huge payloads of a new fungal agent with a dioxin base.

But we won't do the above even when that new gas weapon is used north of India. We will set on our over fed asses in astonishment. By the time we react to the threat of North Korea we will have to leave Israel in a well stirred hornets nest and the gas will have been used on the US along with a future terrorist hit on the boarder of Nevada and California (water lines). Then we will find that a certain Senator that all liberals know is of the blood line of God (if they believed in God) had sold out our nuclear program and we will be helpless against N. Korea and will have to retreat anyway but this will allow World War Three with the use of high fallout nukes by the Terrorist nations causing a saturation point in the northern hemisphere and the total destruction of all civilization outside of Moscow. That is the most optimistic picture that I see.




posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
lol, where are you going to get all the soldiers to do Iran and N. Korea when you need more soliders in Afghanistan and Iraq??? Are all the war mongering americans on this forum willing to enlist and serve their country in yet another war of aggression, oops, yet another war for peace and liberty and freedom?


Nox

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I wouldn't put anything past Bush, but I don't think we'd attack North Korea.

Frankly, I don't see the incentive.

I know that Iraq was and North Korea is ruled by a dictatorship, but the incentive for attacking Iraq was much greater.

We didn't have enough influence in the Middle Eastern front, whereas we already have a lot of influence on the Asian front via Japan and probably Taiwan and South Korea too. China is slowly following in suite.

Japan is perhaps one of America's closest and most powerful allies in Asia. Enough of our culture, values, and consumerism is being promoted in Asia through them.

We didn't have a "Japan" in the Middle East promoting our values. Israel is like an "anti-Japan" antagonizing the Middle East to our values. Iraq was hence, more important to us.

North Korea is not as important. The fact that it has nuclear weapons makes it even less likely that we'd attack it. We'll just have to rely on the assumption that North Korea will implode like the USSR did. (Judging from what my South Korean friends have told me, it won't take long).



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I know alot of people think the U.S went into Iraq for the oil but is it even possible for the U.S to get there money back from the war?I mean hasn't the war cost over 200 billion and rising ,I don't know if they could make that much money back?



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
I know alot of people think the U.S went into Iraq for the oil but is it even possible for the U.S to get there money back from the war?I mean hasn't the war cost over 200 billion and rising ,I don't know if they could make that much money back?


The country was billed for 200 millions, of that 200 million, a big chunk went into the pockets of bush collaborators. Good money. Destroy and rebuild. Destroy and rebuild. Didn't Halliburton just go past the 10 billion mark in contracts?

With money like that involved, why not invade 3 or 4 more countries before his term is up?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
North Korea has a very potent millitary and could inflict huge losses on any American invasion force... so no it would be political suicide to attack NK.

Iran is less heavily defended and would not require the entire US millitary armada to invade... so it is the more likely option, though it will not be as easy as iraq



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
When Bush invades NK,China will invade Taiwan.I think something like the 50' Korean war would happen,China would help Korea.In Iran,China would help Iran covertly (weapons etc).After all,Iran is a big customer of China's military equipment.However,Iran will fall to the USA,but due to Iran's geographical position the war will cost USA lots of money,a move into Iraq and they have almost all of the world's oil.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
North Korea has a very potent millitary and could inflict huge losses on any American invasion force... so no it would be political suicide to attack NK.

Iran is less heavily defended and would not require the entire US millitary armada to invade... so it is the more likely option, though it will not be as easy as iraq


I don't know about that, Iran has a population of about 70 million people and is larger than the state of Texas,North Korea on the other hand has a population of 20 million and is only about the size of New brunswick,Yeah they have an army of a million and they would do alot of damage at the beginning of a war but they don't have the resources for a long war and with South Korea and Japan's help it could be controled and occupied alot easier then Iran with alot fewer troops.(Of couse this is if north korea doesn't use nukes and if China doesn't get involved)



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
USA wouldnt attack North Korea. They would try put China against North Korea. USA needs China stable and not against them.

Out,
Russian



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
USA wouldnt attack North Korea. They would try put China against North Korea. USA needs China stable and not against them.

Out,
Russian


Just like USA and Taiwan eh?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by thecry

I don't know about that, Iran has a population of about 70 million people and is larger than the state of Texas,North Korea on the other hand has a population of 20 million and is only about the size of New brunswick,Yeah they have an army of a million and they would do alot of damage at the beginning of a war but they don't have the resources for a long war and with South Korea and Japan's help it could be controled and occupied alot easier then Iran with alot fewer troops.(Of couse this is if north korea doesn't use nukes and if China doesn't get involved)


North Korea is a special case, considering it's low population it still has the worlds 4th largest army... spending around 40% of it's GDP on defence

It has a considerable amount of short and medium range missiles which pose a severe threat to any naval units... and what's to stop a desperate regime like that using nuclear weapons as a last straw?

My case rests on the fact NK has been geared for war ever since the line was drawn at the 38th parallel. It has hundreds of thousands of atrillery pointed at seoul alone... which no doubt would be flattened in the event of an invasion.

Iran has a more open society in is a much richer country... being more trade orientated and has paid less desperate attention to it's millitary over the years.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by Russian
USA wouldnt attack North Korea. They would try put China against North Korea. USA needs China stable and not against them.

Out,
Russian


Just like USA and Taiwan eh?


USA will go agianst Tawian if they try and gain independance. USA needs a stable China. They will not let Tawian ruin it.

Out,
Russian



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
If the U.S. goes to war with either country, the U.S. is going for the country that actually has something useful to America. That country is Iran. I have no idea what America will ever get or accomplish by fighting North Korea. Why do you think the U.S. foreign policy eventually comes back to the Middle East? Because the Middle East has everything the U.S. wants!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I doubt that the U.S. will be inclined to invade either unless the administration feels it's hand is forced. Their main concerns regarding these two nations right now is the growing threat of nuclear proliferation and support for terrorism. The U.S. has obviously been trying to handle the situation diplomatically and will undoubtably continue to do so.

The only things which might trigger an attack would be the irrefutable evidence that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, openly sponsoring terrorism, that N. Korea is attempting to sell Nukes, Nuke Technology, or openly supporting terrorism. Even then I feel they bring matter before the U.N. Security Council first.

If such a thing occurs, and the U.N. Security Council failed to take measures to stop it, then you might see the threat of military action. I do believe the U.S. would exhaust diplomatic alternatives first though.

However... I would not be suprised to see an Israeli airstrike at the location of suspected Iranian Nuclear Weapon Development if they are, and continue to develop nuclear weapons. They've done such things before.

On a side note... some arguments I keep seeing here and elsewhere in the forum that I disagree with:

1) I've seen a lot of arguments in various threads stating the reason the U.S. won't or doesn't take military action is due to being stretched too thin already. I disagree. The military commanders in Iraq have stated repeatidly that they have enough troops (aprox. 125, 000). The U.S. has a total of 1.4 million available troops and though the army and marines may have a significant amount of equipment and troops deployed in Iraq right now, the Airforce's and Navy's resources in the area are relatively free to redeploy.

U.S. Armed Forces:
www.census.gov...


2) I've also seen countless arguments that the U.S. only attacks on the basis of obtaining oil. You know, many people spouted out this nonsense when we fought in Afghanistan. It was much like they forgot all about 9/11. Many people stated that it wasn't about 9/11, it was about obtaining Afghanistan's oil. Well there's no oil in Afghanistan...
www.indexmundi.com...

Then they said Iraq was about oil. Well, Iraq does have oil, but.... we've rushed to help Iraq rebuild, establish a new government, a new military force, and are trying to get the country on it's feet so we can leave. Steps you would not take if you wanted to conquer a nation for it's oil. The preference would be to keep them weak and broken whilst you siphon their wells dry. Our gas prices have risen by almost 75% in my area since the war in Iraq started and have not decreased, which is not a sign that the U.S. has a new surplus of oil. Rather, the opposite.

Therefore I find the argument that the U.S. will only attack when it's after oil also unfounded.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
If any of those 2, NORTH KOREA!!!!! They're creating a Nuke Program, yes, I know, Iran probally is 2, but lets face it, HOW COULD WE ATTACK THEM????? Just west of them, we're having problems in Iraq, NOW GO TO A LARGER COUNTRY, MORE PEOPLE, MORE ANTI-AMERICANS AND NATO?????
NOOOOO WAY!!!! OUR TROOPS WOULD BE SPREAD TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THIN!!!!! AND WE'RE STILL HAVING PROBLEMS WITH NUMBERS IN IRAQ, but, what I think we should be doing, is having some recon teams [ON THE GROUND!!!!!!] in both, just in case [
], but also, North and South Korea are starting to get along better, I mean, they went into Sydney, Australia 4 Summer Olympics under 1 flag, sooooooo..........yea, I'm not saying this is a bad queston, I'm just saying this, if anybody, dunno, but most likely=
North Korea
P.S. Sorry Lucretius, but the Japanese Constitution prohibites military actions[Like what we have done and are doing in Iraq or Aftganastan], so if anything, they MIGHT send their Special Ops, but that's still is a BBBBBBIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGG MMMMMIIIIIGGGGGHHHHTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In other words....
U.S.= Protects them from major threats like North Korea
Japan= POWERFUL TRADING ALLY!!!!!


[edit on 14-12-2004 by SEAL Trident]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by transposed
1) I've seen a lot of arguments in various threads stating the reason the U.S. won't or doesn't take military action is due to being stretched too thin already. I disagree. The military commanders in Iraq have stated repeatidly that they have enough troops (aprox. 125, 000). The U.S. has a total of 1.4 million available troops and though the army and marines may have a significant amount of equipment and troops deployed in Iraq right now, the Airforce's and Navy's resources in the area are relatively free to redeploy.


Do you have any idea what it takes to run a massive invasion operation that would be necessary to overtake Iran? Even if we are not stretched thin, you make it sound like we're not gonna take any casualties from this point on. The whole idea behind superior numbers is not only maximizing combat power, but to also ensure 1,000 dead soldiers is not detrimental.

If you wanna invade Iran, you're gonna need lots of forces all at 100%. The U.S. may not be stretched thin, but their forces certainly are not at 100%. Why do you think it took nearly 1 year to mobilize the U.S. military for offensive operations in Iraq? The U.S. was only in small-scale combat operations in Afghanistan at the time too. It's not just about the number of men, it's also about what condition their equipment is in. Plus there's the issue of cost. It takes a lot of money just to get soldiers into place.

The American public seriously needs to take a seminar on how to conduct war.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
In a stunning and completely unexpected move (but in full compliance to the pro-deception policy) bush will order to flatten Damascus instead


[edit on 15-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
what do you mean?

Syria has always had close connections with the west... their leader was educated in Oxford, England and I very much doubt the UK would go along with any US plans to invade.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Actually i hope for a better president instead of Bush which will attack none of the above.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Bush has been a better president than Clinton was, but he is far from perfect.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join