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.

 

With Enemies Like These, Who Needs Allies?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I think I've found interesting evidence of what's next in the war on terror, and it seems to indicate that "Bin Laden" either in his own right, or by false statements attributed to him, is being used as a pawn for American policy interests. I saw this coming, and I saw it coming at America's initiative, not at Bin Laden's, but Bin Laden has jumpstarted it.
Stand by gents. The show doesn't end in Iran. When Bush says World War, he means it, and to make that point, he's planning to take the ground campaign of the war on terror onto a second continent: AFRICA.

For a long time I doubted Bush's approach to starting wars. I mean, sooner or later, I thought surely we wouldn't be able to make a strike we really needed to make, because we wouldn't have the credibility to do it without someone stepping in and saying "enough". True, we may not need our friends to beat up a bunch of third world nothings, but will everyone, American voters included, really let us keep doing this without so much as a "by your leave"?

Well, the answer is yes, thanks to Al Qaida: the obliging adversary.

Al Qaida is HELPING US come and get them. They open the diplomatic door for our army to come rushing through, just when you'd think nobody would ever stand by and watch us kick that door in.

Who in their right mind would whistle a happy tune for a return to Somalia? Who would fall in line and follow orders for another big camel hunt, this time in Sudan? Who would vote for that? Even the most hawkish hawk would ask why.

So, Osama Bin Laden explained to American voters why they must embrace America's plans to continue our expansion, this time into Africa.

Recently, Osama released a new audio tape. At least I think it was Osama... I swear it sounds a lot like Steve Bridges, and I think I hear Rumsfeld snickering in the background.

In this tape he says

We will continue, God willing, to fight you and your allies everywhere," he said, "in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Somalia and Sudan until we waste all your money and kill your men
BBC


This is very interesting to me. Fight us in Somalia and Sudan? Who says we'd go there? Of all the places to threaten to fight us, why Sudan and Somalia. There ARE, afterall, places we actually give a dang about to consider. Threaten to fight us if we go to Iran? Threaten to take down our puppet Musharaff and get those nukes?
But no... he threatens Sudan (oil supplier mainly to China), and Somalia (as far as I know, useless to anyone who isn't interested in shipping goods between India and East Africa).

I've been warning about this. I've been saying for a while that the American people would soon be conditioned for a return to Somalia. I wasn't reading Bin Laden's mind when I said this, I was reading the PNAC's. Make of that what you will.

August 2004: I proposed that Northern Africa, mainly Sudan and Ethiopia, would be targeted in the war on terror to give us the same benefits that control of the Suez would via control of the Red Sea, and also to create airbases that could be used in the event of trouble with Saudi or Egypt. Here

In February 2005, I began to suspect the economic potential of East Africa. It was a tangent point mentioned in New World Economics, Colonialism, and UN Influence. (4th paragraph)

By July 2005, I was putting this together into a semi-coherent vision of what we may be trying to do, and was seeing media attention given to Sudan that didn't make a lot of sense unless we were being conditioned for something. The Vice President of Sudan, a pominent Southern rebel commander, died in a suspicious helicopter accident only days after I put this thread together.


Our interest in Sudan could go one of several ways, but it seems the most likely may to be support the seccession of the 10 automous provinces in the south, as well as their acquisition of the Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces. Blue Nile is home to a hydroelectric grid which supplies more than half of Sudan's power, and Kordofan along with the rest of the South contain significant gas and oil reserves..

Our probable goal seems to be that once the media has drawn sufficient attention to Sudan, there will be a push to change the subject from Darfur to the South, gain independence for the South, and forge an economic community between Southern Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda- hoping that economics will begin to overshadow ethnic rivalries.

Why is Sudan an issue

Helicopter Crash

I had this map made by December 2005:

The Red represents US puppets or acquisitions through the war on terror.

The Orange represents what at the time I assumed would be separate, less overt efforts in Africa. Note that India is Orange because trade between them and Africa seemed likely to be an important motive and facilitator.


Well, I wasn't expecting direct interventions for the most part, but now Bin Laden is calling us out for Sudan and Somalia. Uganda has been in league with Southern Sudan for a while, so they sort of come with the package. Ethiopia is looking at a natural opportunity with newly "stabilized" US puppets to either side, and will want to behave with respect to Somalia (where the Euros are working on a port in Berbera) to curry favor in regards to their border conflict with Eritrea.

In short, I have been talking about this for over a year, and dangit I think Bin Laden is helping me prove to be right. The US is going to East Africa, and "Bin Laden's" tape, if it's really him, is leading us there.

Viva la War on Terror!




posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Superb post, Vagabond!
I also think Africa is likely to be targeted in WOT, maybe even before Iran. I knew something about things in Somalia ("unfininished business"), but Sudan? I didn' know a thing about facts you have presented. US intervention in Sudan, wich is mostly China's oil source could trigger some kind of cold war, IMHO


GSA

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Wow thats a really great post Vagabond -

One thing that really interests me is that the china connection you mentioned. This may sound silly but could it be that the way for america to gain dominace is to strangle off chinas oil? thus killing off its economic boom?

Wow is all i can say, because yes i agree with you the world seems to be getting roused into action over refugees and massacres at camps (Bosnian conflict any one?) so all it needs now is us / uk armour and troops to roll in and we have a start of yet another 'war for oil'.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   


You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.





posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Next thing you know, they'll be claiming these countries leaders are linked to terrorism.

oh... right on cue.



news.bbc.co.uk...

Somali leader denies terror claim


Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys

One of Somalia's new Islamist leaders has denied US claims that he is linked to terrorism.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
China is heavily into trade with Africa; Sudan, Nigeria, Congo, South Africa, Liberia, the whoel continent.

Main reason is Oil, another Africa is one of the largest natural resource regions that has not been developed, Copper, Titanium, Tungsten, Manganese, Nickel, etc.

The USA dropped the ball i am afraid, china is stepping into the vacuum that Europe and the US created.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
It aims straight at China, but over a lot more than Sudan's oil. I'll start with the oil though.

Northern Sudan is heavily populated, around 22 million, mostly Arabic-speaking Muslims. The South is closer to 6 million people of several tribes, the largest of which makes up only about 1/6 of the Southern population. The southerners are linguistically and religiously diverse, but mostly indigenous cultures, as opposed to the Arabic/Muslim population to the North.

In the middle are the richest provinces: Blue Nile which has great hydroelectric power, and Kordofan, which has plenty of natural gas and oil. These provinces belong to the North, but border the 10 Southern provinces which gained autonomy in a peace deal over a year ago.

These 10 southern provinces get to vote on independence in 2012, but being divided as they are, and lacking the economic wealth that they could have if they possessed Kordofan and Blue Nile, their future wouldn't be all that bright. Darfur, interestingly enough, flanks that middle ground and straddles the border.

If the South gets the oil, the gas, and the hydroelectric power, while losing any ties to the 22 million people in the North, Sudan's exports can increase dramatically. Furthermore, if the US is the instrument of their liberation, then we have a decent shot of keeping that stuff from China.

That is important. As oil becomes more scarce, and China becomes increasingly able to manipulate prices from the demand side, the only way that America can keep oil prices stable for the next several decades (until we can make Ethanol or other sollutions our primary energy provider) is to cut our providers off from global demand and earmark that oil for ourselves, effectively artificially reducing demand and thus driving down prices for the oil we buy.

The other part
This will not begin immediately, but will come later as circumstances become harsher and tensions flare over oil. It will probably come in the form of us trading more than money, but in return getting EXCLUSIVE rights to a nations entire reserves. For example, in a decade or so we turn to Iraq and Sudan and say "We'll make trade arrangements with you instead of China" or "We'll give you such and such military technology" or "We'll give you naked pictures of Jessica Alba" or whatever "but in return you can't sell your oil to China... and by the way if you don't take the deal we'll bring down your government."

What this will do is undermine China as a manufacturer while giving us new suppliers for merchandise, and at the same time giving us the oil. It's not a 100% bad deal for the nations we make deals with actually. It's basically saying, "If you save the US Economy, you're gonna get a big fat slice of it, not necessarily from the oil itself, but by taking over China's old job of stocking Walmart's shelves with goodies."


Where Sudan figures into the other part
East Africa is a wonderful place to build the kind of friendships we'll need for what I have so eloquently named "that other part" (sorry, couldn't come up with anything catchy).
They've got famines, wars, and they've been getting the high hard one from Western corporations since before they were independent. We can make that all go away. They could do it themselves with a little vision and a lot of firepower, but realistically it will take American firepower and a whole lot of American capital to make it happen.

I refer back to the map I posted. Actually, first let me ammend that map by suggesting that the Democratic Republic of Congo may be orange too, as might Tanzania (the two large nations to the south of the orange area).

With some big investments in military security, irrigation, and transportation, Southern Sudan, Uganda, and DRC can feed that area and then some.

Sudan and Ethiopia can provide electricity for the area, and then some.

Kenya and Tanzania have large populations engaged in subsistence farming that would be liberated for industrial activity if the food and the power and the transportation infrastructure were there. There are also tremendous mineral resources throughout the orange area and beyond in the form of metal and rock.

If we get them fed, safe, and employed, they will be our best friends, foraking all others. Between them and India, we can eventually replace China, which if we do it in a subtle and non-aggressively, will allow us to completely cut China's economic balls off without ever raising a serious alarm. Economics IS war. You can make, break, and even own a nation without ever firing a shot if you play the economic game right. China understands this actually, and I don't think them stupid, but what are they going to do, cut their nose off to spite their face just because we're making friends in other places? They'd still have a lot of leverage over us, and probably think it safe, but with a safety net in the form of Africa and India, we would be better positioned to survive the economic crisis that would result from a severance of all economic relations between China and the USA.


If it comes to blows
There's another great thing about Africa from a "war for oil" point of view. What if it came to blows 20 or 30 years from now between China, Russia, and the USA? China's logical moves are in the Sea of Japan, Indonesia, and Siberia, not lucrative and ultimately a very bad idea because it involves slugging it out with Russia.

Russia's logical move is on the Middle East, and alone they'd lose out to us.

So they'd probably have to work together.
Russia would move through the Caucasus and Turkey, taking the Caspian Sea, accessing Iraq and Iran, and most importantly, forcing America to fight in the Med before they could even think about getting the mid-east back, and when the oil is cut off, you either win fast or you can't win at all, so a large gain up front is very important.

They can't overextend themselves by actually taking the Mid East though, so they'll need Chinese manopwer coming in through Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Southern Iran, all the way to North-East Saudi. Easier siad than done- that's a lot of terrain with bad transportation infrastructure, and flanked by India and Pakistan. With India and Pakistan onboard, the moving is easier and they are strategically safe. Without them, it's ugly.

Africa does two things.
1. Through economic ties to India (India being a top trading partner for many East African nations already) a US-friendly Africa makes for a more US friendly India, especially when it is part of a general scheme that involves those two regions helping the US replace China, and when that African supplier paves the way for India to advance beyond poor provider and into first world service economy dependent on the weaker Africans, similar to the relationship China and America or India and China currently have. (I'm deriving conclusions from economic assertions made my the Goldman Sach's BRIC Thesis here).

2. It's a military base from which to project power through Israel and across the Red Sea into Saudi Arabia, ensuring that we're not fighting a war starting in Europe or the Med but that we're actually in theater in in striking range of the advancing Russians if that war played out. (on the military end I'm drawing a lot of my models loosely from Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising and from discussions of Russian and Chinese procurement of airbases in Central Asia, as well as slightly from the role of Chinese rail infrastructure in the Sino-Indian wars)

*** Please note on the military end I'm not suggesting a Sin-Russian empire spanning all of Asia. I'm talking about being able to pressure nations who are "in the way" into allowing passage, and even helping them build the transpo infrastructure years ahead of time for the "just in case". Don't be shocked to see

China making some low level gestures towards Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan in the near future, along with Iran if Iran should go nuclear and avoid US attack.
Also look out for Iran to make trouble for Pakistan in that event, because Iran would probably love to see the infamous pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Karachi to end up going straight from Turkmenistan to Bandar-e-Abbas instead, and would also be under separate and mostly unrelated pressure from China and India to be the hitman for that job. The US is probably the only nation in the region that wants to see Pakistan remain stable- everyone else would like them to implode and see their nuclear program quickly seized or destroyed when that happened.


***** Also, please note that I tend to think big. I aspire, and imagine others aspiring, to tasks that would daunt Napoleon and Alexander the Great, because I am convinced that if executed with incredible audacity and genius, they could be accomplished. It is entirely possible that all of this will be significantly less dramatic because 1. The military end isn't a prediction, it's a remote possibility nations must hedge against just a little bit. 2. People make mistakes. They fail to guard against remote possibilities. They miss opportunities. They sell out "big picture" interests and find an easier, less ambitious answer that suits their own more narrowly defined interests.

I'm not predicting WWIII, I'm just going into the various considerations which will go into considerably less dramatic actions, if the powers that be are thinking on the same scale that I am.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by toolman
The USA dropped the ball i am afraid, china is stepping into the vacuum that Europe and the US created.


Don't be so sure. We created that vacuum at the end of the age of imperialism. Why did we create it? Because vacuums don't conduct heat and thus are great for keeping things on ice.

We've been saving Africa while we fried the bigger fish, and we ARE going back in. We still can and in my mind probably will beat China back to Africa, and we're going to be in league with India just to make sure. That is my guess.


Edit to add in response to the dude with the neat devil avatar...

Yeah, i forgot to get specific about the things that have been raising my suspicions. The pirate attack on the cruise ship really made the war hairs on the back of my neck stand straight up, and then the word that we were channeling cash to certain warlords, being condemned for that by the government, and then accusing the government of terrorism really put this old theory back in the front of my mind again and again recently. It hasn't been a slow boil by any standard in the last 6 months or so.

[edit on 1-7-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Somali Islamists accuse Ethiopia of occupying Somali territory

Gee, has anybody noticed Ethiopia kinda... not getting along with neighbors lately. They almost came to blows with Eritrea again, now this.


The Islamists have accused Ethiopia of sending troops into Somalia in support of the weak interim government, based in Baidoa, 200km from Mogadishu.



Ethiopia helped Somalia's now interim president, Abdullahi Yusuf, defeat al-Itihaad in the 1990s.



June 28th, Somali Islamic Courts talk with US in Khartoum
Same Islamists discussed above are criticizing US backing of certain warlords.

Wikipedia on the Somalis US is backing

ETHIOPIA AGAIN! Believe it or not, after the ARPCT was driven out of Mogadishu by the ICU (the bad guys), some of them have apparently found refuge in good old Ethiopia.

Also, a few of the ARPCT leaders are ministers in the interim government which has been "condemning" our funding of ARPCT.

Others as well as the transitional government itself, are hiding out in yet another member of my orange gang... Kenya.

Seems to me that Ethiopia and Kenya are on board and are making sure that the Somali ports are there to tie them in with India when the time comes.

Meanwhile, the US is resisting calls for peacekeepers in Somalia. We wouldn't want the African Union or UN meddling in our sandbox.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Vagabond I've been watching these developments for quite awhile now albeit from the western side of the continent where AQ set up shop after their base in Afganistan was overun.

Operations in Africa whether you believe a plan for hegamony or WOT are certainly way off most peoples radar.

Al Qaeda Shifting Focus

[edit on 1-7-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Great thread Vagabond



You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Ever since the secret-backing of the warlords by the US was made public, I started to check on what Somalia exactly has to offer for the government to interfer.

And turns out, Somalia has huge unexplored areas that experts say could yield vast amounts of oil and natural gas;


That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the U.S.-led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation.

According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there.



"It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said Thomas E. O'Connor, the principal petroleum engineer for the World Bank, who headed an in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia's northern coast.

"You don't know until you study a lot further just how much is there," O'Connor said. "But it has commercial potential. It's got high potential . . . once the Somalis get their act together."

O'Connor, a professional geologist, based his conclusion on the findings of some of the world's top petroleum geologists. In a 1991 World Bank-coordinated study, intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations, the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.


Source


I'm a Somalian myself and visit the north quite frequently in the past 7 years and I personally believe things have been improving ever since the courts got in power with a few downfalls.. But implementing strict Sharia law in Somalia will unfortunatly delay the progression of the country and if the interim government and the courts dont come to an agreement.

If the US moves into Somalia and manages to win over the people and help get the country out of anarchy by getting the southern part upto standards then Im all for it but Americans still are despised in many parts of Somalia and going in guns blazing is just gonna make things alot worse for the US gov't. I don't know how they're gonna handle this situation but hopefully the US has learned from Iraq and will use an different strategy to control that country.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Careful guys, if you keep WATSing me I might get my hopes up, and we all know that they're never gonna give me that medal, for fear of damaging ATS' reputation.

Interesting about Somali oil. To be honest it never occurred to me, but in a way it would make sense. Seems like shallow water always is a good bed. Gulf of Mexico, Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea... why not the Red Sea coasts?

Got a map of Sudan that I colored in with my crayolas a while back.



The blue line represents the present border of Autonomous Southern Sudan. The bright red line represents what I think the powers that be want the border to be. Then Darfur is outlined in dark Red.

It is however possible that I'm wrong on this border projection. See that little outcrop of blue that goes farther North than everything else? They might go for just the provinces immediately East and West of that. The one to the East would be nothing doing with Ethiopian help, but the one to the West could be trickier unless you were tied in with a US effort in Darfur.

My guess is basically that we'll change the subject from Darfur to Kordofan by "partitioning" darfur along with the North-South divide coming up in 2012 and making the case that support for fighting in Darfur is coming through Kordofan and thus Kordofan needs to be secured as well.

I doubt it'll ever really be "our" war. We'll probably stir the pot enough to get the fighting started again, drop peacekeepers into Darfur operating on a major shoe-string and not getting much done, and use that as a cover for covert ops and of course plenty of intelligence gathering to make sure that the South wins Kordofan and Blue Nile when the fighting flares back up.

I wouldn't be completely shocked if we helped Chad make some progress in their cute little almost-war with Sudan in the near future, although we may not since there just isn't much to work with there and the time isn't right for the South to start making moves. That's really more likely if Sudan starts leaning on Ethiopia in regards to their involvement with Somalia's ARPCT.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Recently, Osama released a new audio tape. At least I think it was Osama... I swear it sounds a lot like Steve Bridges, and I think I hear Rumsfeld snickering in the background.

Now we are getting Somewhere!





posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Oh God, Souljah doesn't disagree with me. I don't know if I can cope. Somebody ban me!
Just kidding Souljah, I'm just not in the habbit of you not having any bones to pick with my views. I will note that I'm note saying Bin Laden is a myth though; I'm just saying I'm not so sure THIS TAPE was Bin Laden.
Even still, even if Bin Laden is as real as you or me and honest to God isn't the least bit on our team, the fact that we could spin him that way would be a serious conflict of interest for those who are supposedly doing everything in their power to catch him for us.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
With all do respect to the The Vagabond anybody who isnt caught up in the partisan craze that Iraq has become can see that Africa is the next battle ground although to be fair most people dont have the same amount of knowledge The Vagabond has.

In terms of problems Africa is an extension of the Middle East and it looks like that the US will make the same mistakes. Backing corrupt regimes today because they suit a political purpose can only lead to disaster tomorrow. If Africas underlying problems are to be solved the borders need to be redrawn to reflect tribal rather then political boundries.

Meddling in Africa is a waste of time while the home front is still unsercue.
Heres another example of security homefront being overlooked



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
If Africas underlying problems are to be solved the borders need to be redrawn to reflect tribal rather then political boundries.


I've been talking about something close to that for a while too. I'm not sure tribal is the bottom line though, although politically incorrect as it may be, the fact of the matter is that you can't stabilize a continent without a genocide or two and Africa would probably be better off if everyone would back out and let them fight.

But since that's not going to happen, the basic rule is that a nations wealth and actual power must compatible.

A nation which possesses immense wealth which does not translate into power will be conquered, or at the very least lose rich land. For instance, having a lots of diamonds and no oil, or lots of food and low population, can be hazardous to safe development.

Africa hasn't gotten there yet, so it's too early to worry about cultural lines. The arbitrary borders left by the colonial powers don't represent nations which are sufficiently powerful to defend their wealth, or in other cases make up nations powerful enough to acquire more wealth, but are stopped from doing so by outsiders.

The organizational efforts I'm speaking about would be a key part of building more logical, functional nations by causing them to essentially integrate on an economic level at least.

Once you've got functioning nations, then you can worry about whose cultural values are incompatible with the needs of the nation and thus need to gain independence or autonomy or exile or extinction.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Stupid Like A Fox


Originally posted by xpert11
In terms of problems Africa is an extension of the Middle East and it looks like that the US will make the same mistakes.

They are only mistakes if they don't lead to a desired outcome.

I see this word used a lot to describe U.S. foreign policy. In fact, one of the most common opinions I see expressed on ATS is that the U.S. doesn't have a clue about what it's doing in the world.

Maybe that's true, or maybe those who think they know what motivates the U.S. actually don't.

Maybe the U.S. is doing exactly what it wants to do, right down to generating just the right sort of popular sentiment at home and abroad to prepare for the next move.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and the U.S. has managed to establish and maintain its position of prominence through astronomical incompetence and an unlikely series of mistakes.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake would be to assume that the true motives underlying U.S. foreign policy match the declarations of the propaganda -- "pro" or "con" (all ultimately originating from the same sources) -- crafted to support it.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   


Africa hasn't gotten there yet, so it's too early to worry about cultural lines.

The organizational efforts I'm speaking about would be a key part of building more logical, functional nations by causing them to essentially integrate on an economic level at least.

Once you've got functioning nations, then you can worry about whose cultural values are incompatible with the needs of the nation and thus need to gain independence or autonomy or exile or extinction.


How exactly is the US going to help these countries economies ?
Foreign aid has exactly done any these people any favours.
The borders need to be redrawn before any econmic aid is given otherwise the US will just fuel present and new conflicts.

If the US government wants to win friends in Africa they have to put themselvs at ground level. If you give people running water and teach them some basic farming methods you will improve people quality of life 10 fold.




Originally posted by Majic


They are only mistakes if they don't lead to a desired outcome.

It says alot when people are quite happy to solve one problem and not being bothered by the fact five future problems have been created .



I see this word used a lot to describe U.S. foreign policy. In fact, one of the most common opinions I see expressed on ATS is that the U.S. doesn't have a clue about what it's doing in the world.


That is another topic and a gross generalization.




Or maybe I'm wrong, and the U.S. has managed to establish and maintain its position of prominence through astronomical incompetence and an unlikely series of mistakes.


Well you have to wait before you see the results of current U.S. foreign policy I cant say anything else without going off topic.



In my opinion, the biggest mistake would be to assume that the true motives underlying U.S. foreign policy match the declarations of the propaganda -- "pro" or "con" (all ultimately originating from the same sources) -- crafted to support it.
[/


Learning from past mistakes has nothing to do with propaganda.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 3-7-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
"I also think Africa is likely to be targeted in WOT, maybe even before Iran."

America and her allies cannot attack Iran and heres why...

Iran has it's intellegence agents over in Saudi Arabia and they are also the ones controlling the Shiites in Iraq. If so much as one bomb hits their soild they will blow every oil reserve in SA effectivly crippling the US economy bringing everything to a stand still. The Saudi's are well aware of this and are also to blame since they just let the agents in anyway.

America messed up the middle east and they created a monster that they can't even stop. I think that Iran will continue doing what ever it wants and only because America knows the risk. In regards to Africa which is gaining more influence in the media over Iran this will most likely be their next target.

North Korea is preparing for an all out Nuclear assault on their country and Iraq was handed over to the Shiites and when this happened Iraq was givin to Iran.

Africa is peanuts and I doubt troops will be deployed their for a long time. India is a puppet of the US and Syria will be the next country hit in the war on terror. Palestine is no under Isreali control and recent stints with Syria would suggest that they may be a possible target for invasion.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Sudan, DRC, CAR, Ethiopia, maybe parts of chad will most likely fall into western hands within a decade.
If Darfur Crisis escalates back to active fighting we will most likely see an intervention by EU/UN with US support, this will most likely cripple Norths ability to fight and allow south to take the oil rich provinces. Intervention may happen in a forced entry by contesting sudanese army with possibly german or french mechanized units supported by airpower. and all this in the name of humanitarian relief

Anyone else hear this again:
"Heiß über Afrikas Boden die Sonne glüht.
Unsere Panzermotoren singen ihr Lied!
Deutsche Panzer im Sonnenbrand,
Stehen zur Kampf gegen England
Es rasseln die Ketten, es dröhnt der Motor,
Panzer rollen in Afrika vor."

Translation:
Hot over African ground, the sun is glowing.
Our panzer engines sing their song!
German panzers in the blazing sun,
As they stand in battle against England.
The tracks rattle, the engine roars,
Panzers roll in Africa.


Ethiopia will most likely fall in line on it's own, as long as no one does anything about their ethnic clensing in the west.

DRC is allready under UN "control"... and the EU troops are about the best peacekeeping force that UN has ever had. (military wise)

Somalia will probably be a clandestine operation in order to keep it divided, some vital ports may be ceded by UN/US

Chad will be happy to get whatever they can out of the conflicts in neighbouring countries.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join