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.

 

US will invade Burma and Nepal next (High probability)

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Contrary to popular belief I believe that Burma and Nepal will come under US rule next, instead of Iran and North Korea as is widely believed. Iran and North Korea are a pump fake. Why invade a country that is expected to put up a fight, when you can invade a weaker and unsuspecting opponant with little to no resistance?

If we control the majority the minority will fall by default.

I had heard that Afghanistan was the poorest country in the world so I did a little fact checking and what I came up with is Afghanistan is the poorest Non-African country in the world.

This is according to the IMF, The World Bank and the CIA.

Source

So according to the tables it looks like Burma and Nepal may be the next countries that America invades and occupies.

I believe that we intend on leaving Africa entirely to the Chinese.

Why you ask?

Well the answer is simple.

The Chinese have mastered the art of total population control.

I believe that the NWO intends on enslaving Africa using entirely Chinese masters. All previous attempts by the West to conquor Africa, under direct western rule, have proved a fail, except for South Africa, which also appears to be a partial fail.



[edit on 15-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I have no problem with this plan. I just wish it were true



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Hmmm... Burma, maybe, but Nepal?

I think America will turn a blind eye to Nepal, because America doesn't have an adequate force for another War, unless they left either Iran or Afghanistan, or redirects forces to that area, and America is trying to keep peace with China, one of her largest trading partners.

I think it will be India who tries to take over Nepal (to protect or otherwise), as there are preexisting tensions between India and China. It will be hands off for America, IMO.

Invading North Korea and Iran would probably fail for the United States, these countries are too powerful- but Burma... hmmm... Now, during the 2004 Tsunami, America tried to enter Burma under the banner of humanitarian missions since 230,000 people died in Burma, but the military Junta rejected the offer. Note that also, Cyclone Nargis directly and indirectly killed about 250,000 people in 2008 going into 2010. The junta is a brutal regime, but would America intervene... Who knows.

Burma is on America's sh!tlist, that's for sure but would anything come out of it? Americans are tired of war, and another war will be a hard sell, harder even with a draft.

Edit: casualty figures mistake- 500,000 to 250,000

[edit on 15-6-2010 by star in a jar]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
We already got Haiti, however it is not in Africa so it doesn't appear to count.

Maybe this thread should be in the predictions or the planning forum?



[edit on 15-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar

Hmmm... Burma, maybe ...


The thing about Burma is it's right next to Thailand, which the US and UK are currently undermining.

We usually take neighboring countries first as a basecamp.

Afghanistan and Burma aren't that far of a jump to Nepal.

Something strange about the Jammu and Kashmir region, in India, near the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I can't quite put my finger on what it is yet though.



[edit on 15-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
You might have read this- it's on Nepal and US interests in that region.

www.fas.org...

If the US goes into Nepal, it will be because of either the Maoists or the Royalists, IMO. China will be displeased, as China considers Nepal part of their territory. It is because of this that I'm unsure if America will actually go into Nepal, and not ask the Indians to be the ones going into Nepal, as India and Nepal have better relations than Nepal and China, and it would be in India's strategic interest to take over Nepal. China will be very upset though, and I'm sure either side wants to risk anything (at this moment)

War does not seem very likely, even though I have a tendency towards doomage and gloomage
I don't know why- something's telling me a war is far easier said than done, although I know the US needs a distraction, and perhaps a war is the distraction, but when, is the question. The US will really be scraping the barrel on the next war, and that might be her downfall.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust


Something strange about the Jammu and Kashmir region, in India, near the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I can't quite put my finger on what it is yet though.


I'm not sure what you're referring to but I do remember a situation where someone found out that a mountain range was copied over and pasted with an similar mountain range on Google Earth... I think the suspicion was that it was a secret Chinese military base that was being covered up.

Unnerving times.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by star in a jar]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar


... America doesn't have an adequate force for another War ... America is trying to keep peace with China


We have more than enough forces to war with smaller nation states. It's true that a longer drawn out, resouce draining war, with a determined opponant like Iran and North Korea could prove to be a strain. That's why we should just stategically nuke Iran and North Korea and be done with them.

On the Chinese front, I would think that conceding the entire African continant to the Chinese would be considered an act of peace.

Do you have any idea how many undiscovered natural resources are in Africa?


[edit on 15-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
I don't believe in nuking North Korea and Iran, these people have done absolutely nothing to deserve such fates.

Also, due to the recent discovery of vast natural resources (which ordinary Afghans will never see a penny from it IMO) have been 'discovered' in Afghanistan, in Taliban territory- no less, which means the Americans will continue the war for Afghanistan.

Africa has a lot of natural resources, but a lot of problems too, and the Chinese will have to deal with these problems to get to the natural resources, and the Chinese aren't the only ones exploiting Africa, and not all African countries are on good terms with the Chinese, nor allow them to do much business there.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar

I don't believe in nuking North Korea and Iran, these people have done absolutely nothing to deserve such fates.


It's not about deserving fate. Thier people are not the enemy, only thier leaders and thier way of thinking.

It's about world conquest.

There is a difference between the tactical nuking and strategic nuking of a country.

The tactical nuking of a country such as Iran or North Korea would effectively wipe out thier leadership and thier ability to respond to anything effectively at all, pretty much leaving them castrated and impotent but not powerless.

The strategic nuking of these countries would leave them a virtual wasteland.

Since we like to rebuild and convert our conquored countries to our way of thinking the use of nukes should really be considered a last option.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
They probably won't.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthOut25

They probably won't.


You seem so sure of yourself.

Would you like to offer any evidence to prove otherwise?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
If the U.S government was so concerned about REAL world terrorists and not just ones that are a "thread to the U.S.A" then they'd go right into Burma and liberate the people.

I'm up for a NATO mission for that. 100%



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Truly Bloody Incredible.. You americans are already overextended in 2 illegal / immoral wars.. Supporting a genocidal regime and may end up conned into fighting their wars.. Your economy is in the toilet.. Your rights as citizens are being taken by your own leaders.. And yet you now want to invade Myanmar (Burma) .. Go home.. Sort your own messes the world would be much better off without american aggression .. Your country causes a good 90 percent of the bloodshed in the world between your illegal/immoral wars, supporting genocidal regimes (isreal) along with being the largest arms seller in the world.. We dont need your idea of democrocy .. Lastly u.s aid was turned down because the burmese government didnt and doesnt want to end up a u.s puppet. Aid was accepted from ASEAN nations of which burma is a part. And the people did get help I spent 8 months there helping build houses and providing medical help to the burmese people and saw firsthand who helped and what life is like for the people of burma. The last thing in the world they need is u.s interference.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Expat888]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888

You americans are already overextended in 2 illegal / immoral wars..


We're not over-extended. They haven't begun the draft yet. We have an entire population that could be utilized in the war effort.



Your economy is in the toilet..


An expansion of the war effort into Burma and Nepal will help give our economy the additional boost it needs. It's taken awhile but many Americans have now come to accept that world domination is trully what our destiny is.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
If the U.S government was so concerned about REAL world terrorists and not just ones that are a "thread to the U.S.A" then they'd go right into Burma and liberate the people.

I'm up for a NATO mission for that. 100%


Except for the fact that we are already drilling for oil in Burma, I would think it would make a good aquisition. It would make an excellent strategic base for further expansion into the asian contineant.

If were ever gonna conduct a land war in central asia were gonna need some good land bases.



Foreign companies are lining up to partner with Burma’s military junta and tap into the country’s lucrative resources, particularly oil and gas fields. This foreign investment provides a crucial source of support to the junta, allowing it to ignore demands that it return Burma to civilian rule and end human rights abuses.

The billions of dollars generated by these projects, which involve at least 27 companies from 13 countries, help to fund the military without bringing benefits to ordinary people.

Outside investors in Burma’s oil and gas industry include companies from:

•Australia
•British Virgin Islands
•China
•France
•India
•Japan
•Malaysia
•Netherlands
•Russian Federation
•Singapore
•South Korea
•Thailand
•United States

www.hrw.org...




top topics



 
3

log in

join