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.

 

Who are we going after next?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Heres a better idea. We don't attack anyone. We try to colonize Mars. Start a new USA there, no immigration so that terror cells can't come in and start #. I can dream can't I!




posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
They will go after Iran or Syria because those nations are relatively defenseless. Why do you think they keep avoiding NK?



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I love how much of the population of the U.S. is now polarized into believing that we actually have to invade entire countries to keep terrorism at bay and that many people (not exactly on this board, mind you), actually are thinking "who's next?" every day. Its this type of thinking that I am absolutely baffled by.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
They will go after Iran or Syria because those nations are relatively defenseless. Why do you think they keep avoiding NK?


Defenseless like Iraq?

I doubt either of those countries would be "easy targets"
It's hard to conquer a country when the general populace would rather die
than let you take what's theirs.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
The Merovingian - You might have been on to something if not for the fact that Afghanistan has a relatively miniscule amount of oil.


[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Xenophon]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenophon
The Merovingian - You might have been on to something if not for the fact that Afghanistan has a relatively miniscule amount of oil.


[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Xenophon]


If you will recall, The Administration first pointed the finger at Iraq. When further information became available pointing blame at Osama and his Taliban protectors in Afghanistan, there was no longer any choise.

Afghanistan is also still vital in the "Big Oil&Gas Picture" as it will be necessary to secure transport of natural gas from the fields to the north in Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. www.american.edu...



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared
If you will recall, The Administration first pointed the finger at Iraq. When further information became available pointing blame at Osama and his Taliban protectors in Afghanistan, there was no longer any choise.

Afghanistan is also still vital in the "Big Oil&Gas Picture" as it will be necessary to secure transport of natural gas from the fields to the north in Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. www.american.edu...

If you are referring to building a pipeline, that would benefit India and Pakistan more than any other country. And in your own article, of the three possible routes for exporting oil out of Turkmenistan, a route through Afghanistan is not one of them.

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Xenophon]

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Strategically speaking,Afghanistan is critical. That was my point.


Q

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   
My money's on Iran. While Syria has been a major pain in the craw, Iran has been and will continue to be the bigger source of problems with us in Iraq. I believe their vision is a larger Iran, with most of Iraq either integrated with them or Syria. Split down the middle more or less, with neither claiming control of the Kurdish north. (Go Kurds!)

And what with all this flap about the Iranian submarines here lately, things aren't looking too good for them. Our troops are getting tired of playing policemen in Iraq, I think they'd be happier cut loose for some wanton destruction on a country whose goal has been eradication of the US for several decades now.

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by Q]



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Xenophon - I do agree with you that the oil reserves in Afghanistan are more or less irrelevant. It is however, the proposed pipeline routes from the north that Unocal wanted to build through Afghanistan. Unfortunately the Taliban wanted too much of the pie. Thus, when both parties agreed to disagree, the bombing started. Read 'The Forbidden Truth". An interesting summary of the Bush - Bin Laden family connections and how they all factored into the involvement in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, Afghanistan is a major producer of opium in the world and what better way for the CIA to fund their little sideshows than with illegal drug money. In fact it is interesting to note that since the US has taken over this stone age country, opium production has actually increased significantly. Just a coincedence??

Raphael - I read your comments but they carry no weight! If you disagree with what is posted why not counter with the prodigious insight that you must obviously possess?



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
the economy is getting better...he trys to do good in regards for health care...but congress keeps blocking it...same with education...and as for foreign relations...the only countrys that we have problems with are fair weather friends to begin with...our loyal allies are still our allies...and the rest will come asking for help when they need it...like usual...


HA! The economy is getting better if you live in a freaking cave! The guy is an idiot! He thinks "god wanted him to be president"! His father, no doubt, had something to do with the brainwashing process that got him there. Here's an underachiever, who's secretly wanted nothing more than to finally please daddy.


But anyway, since when is anyone in the world who has nuclear weapons our enemy? This has never been the case until now, apparently. It seems that US policy has taken a frightening turn for the worst. Not only is it ridiculous to call out anyone who has nukes, it's dangerous. And, even in the unlikely event that we succeed in cleansing the world of nukes, what will the rest of the world think when we're the only ones left with them? At one time, nukes were thought of as "peacekeepers". I never did agree with that farce. The real trouble was bound to become an issue sooner or later. God damn war mongers!


[Edited on 5-30-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Bush signaled the plan over a year ago before he got sidetracked in the Iraqi quagmire.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Two new fronts identified in the continued Americanization of the globe included African continent "humanitarian" efforts and "policing" efforts in Thailand/southern Asian sex slavery.

Both footholds in the "war on terror" and strategic jumping off points for creating new consumers of Wal-Mart's cheap chinese labor.

Anyone that's ever played RISK knows you can't take the middle east without owning the African continent. And you don't land in North Korea, you move in next door.

Iran, Syria, etc....are low on the list IMO. More of a cold war approach.

SIDENOTE: I find the priorities interesting that the ruling Republicans of the 80's wouldn't spend dime one on AIDS prevention for Americans, but are now willing to spend hundreds of millions on it in African to buy their "foothold".

Conspiracy? Or just evil SOB's? Nay, it's STRATERGY!


[Edited on 30-5-2004 by RANT]



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
You guys are nuts, we need to call out all the reserves and take over Canada.Why?

1. Lots of land, oil, wood and other natural resources.
2. They have better beer.
3. Most of the population lives within 100 miles of the US border.( We won't have to go far)
4. When we surround Quebec it will piss off the French (bonus.)
5. Since the Lefty Liberals seem to like Northern parts of the country maybe they will all move up further North to the new states. (big bonus)
6. They only have about 47 people in their Army and they are all over seas.
7. Their President is a lefty who has, on many occasions, sided against Bush.

After that we can take on the Iranians.


Variable



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The Bush regime don't look for logical reasons for war. We had no reason to go to war in Iraq. They made up the reasons. Iraq was vulnerable with lots and lots of oil, that was the main reason for this war. Bush seems to think human life can be disposable for his personal interests. He'll go down in history as the worst American president of all time.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
You guys are nuts, we need to call out all the reserves and take over Canada.


I know you're kidding, but I think there have been serious efforts in the past decade or so to significantly weaken the economies of both Canada and Mexico. It's subtle, and the efforts are largely lauded in double speak as strengthening "North America" (thus being good for Canada and Mexico) but in large part are not.

And in some ways it has backfired on America's own labor class.

It's all about Wall Street anyway.


VzH

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
I love how much of the population of the U.S. is now polarized into believing that we actually have to invade entire countries to keep terrorism at bay and that many people (not exactly on this board, mind you), actually are thinking "who's next?" every day. Its this type of thinking that I am absolutely baffled by.





posted on May, 30 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
But anyway, since when is anyone in the world who has nuclear weapons our enemy? This has never been the case until now, apparently.
[Edited on 5-30-2004 by Satyr]


It's not that anyone that has nukes is an enemy-it's when they are our enemy and they have them when it's a problem. Expecially when they can reach our soil.


Originally posted by CazMedia
I think the next target will be the first nation to step out of line.
If any one of them do something bold and aggressive...or if solid intelligence comes out about a link to terrorism....that nations butt will be in the fire, either diplomatically, economic sanctions, or millitary action.
My top pick would be Syria. They could be more easilly isolated.


Nice way of putting things-thats the way things should be looked at.



Originally posted by The Merovingian
Seems they always go after third world wastelands as opposed to civilized industrial countries as this would never fly as reason for their interference.
Can you see them going after Germany or France or Holland? Why don't they go after Israel as they are the biggest terrorist outfit in the game. Oh yeah....I forgot....it is they that run the US!



Do you huff glue or something? Let's try to understand something here-90% of our enemies and our allie's enemies are third world waste lands. Furthermore, the 10% that are civilized industrial countries we can trust not to wake up one day and launch because unlike the third world wastelands they have something too lose-so by nature they are more civil (hence civilized? DUH). Most of the civilized industrial countries are allies or mutual interest countries. Let's see, Germany-Allie, France-who cares I'll invade them by myself, Holland-Mutual interest country/smoke too much weed to invade the US and lets not forget Canada and Mexico. Well, Mexico is invading us because their country blows also notice we haven't attacked that third world waste land. And Canada wouldn't be worth our time and energy.
1. there is nothing there of interest but our sports teams (ok laughable interest)
2. I believe someone pointed out their 45 man army being oversees polishing boots or something
3. Quebec I'll go for because France will be pissed.
4. They embraced Conan O'Brien's show then like idiots, got mad when they realised, "Oh he insults people on his show"
5. John Candy already invaded them



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lythium
It's not that anyone that has nukes is an enemy-it's when they are our enemy and they have them when it's a problem. Expecially when they can reach our soil.


That's just it! They can't! There was absolutely no danger of them bombing us from there, period. So....???



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Heelstone says,
"I love how much of the population of the U.S. is now polarized into believing that we actually have to invade entire countries to keep terrorism at bay and that many people (not exactly on this board, mind you), actually are thinking "who's next?" every day. Its this type of thinking that I am absolutely baffled by."

Im suprised at your bafflement...In an evolutionary stance....watching for preadators seems like a natural responce, and only prudent...more so than living life in "peacful" ignorant bliss. Especially with todays cocerns about secruity/safety.

Why would someone need to be "polarized" into thinking this way...if you acknowledge there is a terorism problem...and upon looking at the ways you could combat this problem...derive that millitary action that seems best course to take....Than it sounds like youve considered both the problem as well as potential actions and reached a conclusion. Polorization only happens to the ignorant or un-uninformed.

The USA has already taken an agressive stance and so looking around with the "who's next" look is also a signal that we are serious, ready, and willing to take actions against threats. Percieved or impending.
Hmm seems like Ghaddifi got the look and understood his place in the "who's next" lineup...
Again declairing "whos next" does exert social dominance, and is nothing new to social scientists....

More old tactics used on the mindless masses....
sort of like linking the idea that if you suport the decision to invade, you must be polarized....isint attempting to imply this idea further polarization?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join