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.

 

Next action Bush takes?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 05:47 PM
link   
What will good ol' Bush be up to after we are done in iraq?

N korea? Another middle eastern country? Nothing (doubt it)?




posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I think we will trade tiawan to china for N korea, let them invade to let us invade



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Bushy's personal conquest of killing and looting will most likely continue as long as he is still getting more or less support from the people...generally the more "terrorists" he takes out, the better his ratings. Im guessing he'll do something else to try to boost his chances come next election, then he will most likely win, and after that...only time will tell



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I think Bush sooner or later will have to deal with the growing North Korean Nuke threat. I say the sooner the better



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheButcher
I think Bush sooner or later will have to deal with the growing North Korean Nuke threat. I say the sooner the better


Oh please...what threat? They don't have the capabilities to nuke the United States.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The threat is that they, UNLIKE us, would actually use them first. If they launch at say, South Korea, where we have a lot of troops stationed, it is very much a threat. Yes, we have a much better army, but the thing is, they have a mad man leading them. And they have nukes. and he hates us. sounds like a threat to me.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheButcher
The threat is that they, UNLIKE us, would actually use them first. If they launch at say, South Korea, where we have a lot of troops stationed, it is very much a threat. Yes, we have a much better army, but the thing is, they have a mad man leading them. And they have nukes. and he hates us. sounds like a threat to me.


First of all we dont even know if they do have nukes, they have been working on it but we don't know for sure.

Unlike us they would launch first? The US Nuclear Policy is first strike, which means it is setup for us to launch first. This is different from Russia and China who have pledged to only launch in retaliation.

Even if they develop nuclear warheads, they can't launch them over here yet.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 08:57 PM
link   
i know they cant get them here yet.
they can get nukes, along with thousands of other conventional missles, down over the boarder to s korea, where we have men though. My point is, if they have them (im preatty sure they do - i think i even read somewhere it was confirmed, though i cannot find link) they have one or a few now, but in ten years china or russia may sell them missle tech then we are in for another missle crises. Therefor, i think it better to deal with it now while they CANT get them here then put it off and wait for them to be able to hit us.

As for the US first strike policy, I am confident we would not strike first unless 100% sure of an unavoidable nuclear war. This means russia and China. The US would not launch at Korea unless they launched first because of the political backlash we would get.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 09:15 PM
link   
At any point in time during Bush's waking day, the two most probable answers are:

1. smirk
2. pick his nose.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Well, North Korea is saying they want to settle it peacefully...and we have NOT confirmed that they have any weapons, it is all just assumptions made for propaganda. Anyway, what gives us the right to go blow people away simply because we think they might do something in the future? Bush hasn't even been cooperative in talking with N Korea at all, but we don't care about them anyway because they don't have the oil!



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 01:22 AM
link   
This isn't an easy question. It seems to me he doesn't have to do anything. I think he'll play it coo until he's re-elected. We won't see much expansion in the wars till the end of 04. Then it's open season on all the things that make america great. Slowly weaking us until we're perfectly prepped for the new world order championed by his father. The things we fear--nuke attacks...blah, blah, blah...nothing compared to the real threat.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I think that the idea to Iraq was to CREATE instability. The more retaliation, the more we can expand our influence because we have to "protect ourselves".

In truth, we could protect ourselves better by staying the hell out of the middle east better, and they know it.

But by doing something huge that causes contention with other nations, we can do what we want in the middle east under the banner of self-preservation and protection.

Think about it. Let's say that now terrorists start hitting our troops in Iraq (cause they'll be there for a while), from Saudi Arabia, then we can take them too. Or Jordan, or Iran.

It seems all a move to normalize the middle east like dominos



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 10:20 AM
link   
What we have really done in the middle east is create a fanatic whacko shooting gallery. In an occupation zone there is no serious repercussions for shooting zealots carrying guns except that they are dead. every crazy whacko muslim for thousands of miles are coming to the Iraqi arcade to get involved. There is no better place than a war zone to deal with these terrorist slime. Better in Iraq than in countries that are otherwise relatively peaceful. You've heard the old suggestion of sending all the wackos to an island and letting them fight it out. Well we have done just that in Iraq except that this island is surrounded by sand and we are picking the whackos off as they show their true colors.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The "secret chiefs" have to see how large the 'anti-bush' vote is going to be before proceeding. If its a fairly close race, I believe that you will a see policie continuations of the last 6 months. If its a landslide for Dean, you will probably see tremendous internal conflict between the branches of goverement untill the next round of congressional elections. The democratic party would be in for a huge shakeup as the centrists will move rapidly to the left to try to ride the wave. I would expect a number of 'famous' incumbent losses on both sides.
If bush wins in a landslide, I would expect for things to move even faster than they did after 9/11. I would expect a quick terrorist strike on American soil in the three months after the election. This will be done to remove and redirect any lingering 'anti-bush/leftist'democratic' anger and opposition.
The next strike will probably be done messy, small tactical nuke...lots of video coverage.
After that it really doesn't matter. The oppostion(s) will move into a more underground position. Recruitment will gain momentum from left/right and libertarian political groups.
More 'home-style' terrorism will be found or manufactured. The bulk of anti-terror efforst will be focused on American citizens...minorities at first (i.e DC snipers), drug dealers, enviromental terrorists and other "socially acceptable" groups. Look for government 'appropriations' of financially struggling industries, such as railroads and airplanes.

More later...as it is time for lunch...

Sleep tight



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 11:18 AM
link   
The "secret chiefs" have to see how large the 'anti-bush' vote is going to be before proceeding. If its a fairly close race, I believe that you will a see the same policy continuations of the last 6 months,m slow and steady.
If its a landslide for Dean, you will probably see tremendous internal conflict between the branches of government untill the next round of congressional elections. The democratic party would be in for a huge shakeup as the centrists will move rapidly to the left to try to ride the wave. I would expect a number of 'famous' incumbent losses on both sides.
If bush wins in a landslide, I would expect for things to move even faster than they did after 9/11. I would expect a quick terrorist strike on American soil in the three months following the election. This will be done to remove and redirect any lingering 'anti-bush/leftist/democratic/independant' anger and opposition.
The next strike will probably be done messy, small tactical nuke...lots of video coverage.
After that it really doesn't matter. The oppostion(s) will have to move into a more underground position. Recruitment will gain momentum from left/right and libertarian political groups.
More 'home-style' terrorism will be found or manufactured. The bulk of anti-terror efforst will be focused on American citizens...minorities at first (i.e DC snipers), drug dealers, enviromental terrorists and other "socially acceptable" groups. Look for government 'appropriations' of financially struggling industries, such as railroads and airplanes.

More later...as it is time for lunch...

Sleep tight



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   
If my next door neighbor has a gun and says he is gonna use his first against me I am gonna kill his azz before he gits a chanch to kill me



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
If my next door neighbor has a gun and says he is gonna use his first against me I am gonna kill his azz before he gits a chanch to kill me


And in our country you would be guilty of murder.



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Nothing until 2005 then all hell's going to break loose.



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   


And in our country you would be guilty of murder


And that is better than being a VICTOM of murder

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



And in our country you would be guilty of murder


And that is better than being a VICTOM of murder

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6


Ok, well this doesn't really relate to the US and Iraq anyway. This is more like a man walking across a school playground to kick some little kid's ass because he has something he wants.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join