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.

 

Which Country Will The US Invade Next With The War On Terrorism?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
iran? syria? canada?


personally i'd like to see saudi arabia invaded, but we all know that's not going to happen...

take from - www.msnbc.msn.com...


Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons.)




posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Iran, Seria, Australia, oh wait, we have already got Australia



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
My money is on Iran, but first we'll need a terrorist attack on our soil...



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
so when does bush start another campaign? i'm guessing he will have to at least get some sort of puppet government installed in iraq and reinstate the draft before it would be feasible to start another invasion. will he wait for another 'terrorist' attack here at home, maybe this time the mastermind will be from syria or iran? another round of hide the WMD?



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by keke
My money is on Iran, but first we'll need a terrorist attack on our soil...


ahhh, you beat me to it!



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I have hard time imagining what kind of occupying force will be needed to hold all those countries in the Middle East. That's quite insane.

half a million force?




posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by keke
My money is on Iran, but first we'll need a terrorist attack on our soil...


iran has just come to a deal with the european union ( in exchange for trade )



The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said the deal was very tentative but he hoped it would lead to the suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran.

Javier Solana, foreign policy chief for the European Union, said an agreement with Iran seemed "pretty close".

Diplomats have said sticking points may be over the scope of the suspension.

Details of the accord reached in Paris at the weekend have not been released.

Hossein Mousavian, head of the Iranian delegation in Paris, earlier said fundamental principles had been agreed in the talks.


link



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
This is going to sound snyde......Bush apparently doesnt need a real reason to invade, one will just be fabricated to meet his needs. And yes, it will be Iran. Our number one "threat" (thanks to GWB) is Islamic nations and Iran on the verge of having nukes gets top billing.

Here is my prediction:

-We will still have a massive pressence in Iraq for the next 2-5 years.
-In that time GWB will push a massive "enlistment" campeign, I.e. a new creative type of draft, something that skirts the law and public opinion.
-Once we have amassed enough trained, equiped force the invasion of Iran will commence.

I figure by the time GWB is about to leaves office, we will be the most hated nation on earth (if thats not the case already).

But on a possitive note: If you have olive skin and say the words "praise Allah" from time to time your probably dead by now (that last statement is sarcasm picking on GWB's policy on terror)

Dont get me wrong, some of this war on terror is mandatory, but man look at the dolt we have in charge of it....



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
*spins the Wheel of Evil*

*SPIN....SPIN...SPIN....*

*click...click...click*

"IRAN! Congratulations! You're the next contestant in..."The War on Terror"!


With its resurfaced zeal in obtaining nuclear weapons, expect to see such facilities bathed in the light of dropping bombs on a television near you! Back to you Bob.....



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by keke
My money is on Iran, but first we'll need a terrorist attack on our soil...


iran has just come to a deal with the european union ( in exchange for trade )



The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said the deal was very tentative but he hoped it would lead to the suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran.

Javier Solana, foreign policy chief for the European Union, said an agreement with Iran seemed "pretty close".

Diplomats have said sticking points may be over the scope of the suspension.

Details of the accord reached in Paris at the weekend have not been released.

Hossein Mousavian, head of the Iranian delegation in Paris, earlier said fundamental principles had been agreed in the talks.


link




Iran denies U.S. accusations that it is developing nuclear weapons. It says uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel in atomic power plants or in weapons, is a sovereign right that it will never abandon.


story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20041106/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc

depending on what article you read, they've made some progress but iran will not stop their production of uranium...and even if the US is successful in getting the matter sent to the UN security council, china's foreign minister has already made it clear beijing would veto any proposed sanctions against tehran.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I think that if and when Bush invades Iran, there will be a big international unease... it could make relationships with friendly Arab countries like Jordan or Egypt pretty awkward. Not to mention that this time, Western Europe (France, Germany, Spain, Italy) might stand united against military action.

Of course, if France assumes once again the role of voice of the opposition, the anti-French sentiment in the US will grow, and I would not be surprised if diplomatic ties between the two countries were severely compromised.

And one has to take into account that Tony Blair has to fight for a third term next year. I don't know what the Leader of the Opposition and would-be Prime Minister's take on the alliance with the US will be...

Bush's second term will indeed see a lot of movement internationally, so that alliances become unclear. Consider:

- Tony Blair is up for re-election in 2005
- Sylvio Berlusconi might have to resign because of the current legal actions against him
- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is ageing (he's 76) and after 23 years of power, people are losing patience with him. Expect some change there.
- Jacques Chirac is due to retire in 2007. However, no matter who the next President is (Chirac's heir Nicolas Sarcoszy or whoever the Socialist party notimates) is unlikely to change France's stance towards the US and the Arab world.
- German Chancellor Gerhard Schrder is due for reelection in 2006. If he loses, the Christian Democratic party, which seems a bit more to the right, could move closer to the US.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
A big international unease, hell yes. America will be totally out on its own, with a VERY angry China, Russia and Europe.

It would not surprise me if the rest of the world does a bit more than just stand by silently and watch. America is looking more like a rogue nation totally out of control every day.

America will not be allowed to take over the worlds major oil fields and cut off the oil flow to Europe, and China, but that looks like the plan. If either tried to cut the US off from its oil, America would go nuclear in an instant to defend itself. If America tries it, expect a similar reaction from the rest of the world.

Eventually America is going to drive one of the big nuclear powers to defend itself economically, or militarily. Sadly many Americans will say "bring it on buddy". There is now no way out for America that I can see apart from nuclear war with the rest of the world, this has all gone much too far already.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed

America will not be allowed to take over theworlds major oil fields and cut off the oil flow to Europe, and China, but that looks like the plan. If either tried to cut the US off from its oil, America would go nuclear in an instant to defend itself. If America tries it, expect a similar reaction from the rest of the world.



americas not that stupid to go nuclear because it knows that they would get the same response from other nuclear powers and we all can get ready for a very cold cold living if anyone survives



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
A big international unease, hell yes. America will be totally out on its own, with a VERY angry China, Russia and Europe.

It would not surprise me if the rest of the world does a bit more than just stand by silently and watch. America is looking more like a rogue nation totally out of control every day.

America will not be allowed to take over the worlds major oil fields and cut off the oil flow to Europe, and China, but that looks like the plan. If either tried to cut the US off from its oil, America would go nuclear in an instant to defend itself. If America tries it, expect a similar reaction from the rest of the world.

Eventually America is going to drive one of the big nuclear powers to defend itself economically, or militarily. Sadly many Americans will say "bring it on buddy". There is now no way out for America that I can see apart from nuclear war with the rest of the world, this has all gone much too far already.




Funny, the US didn't 'go nuclear in an instant' in 1991. Unless I missed something. It won't go nuclear in an instant if anything similar ever happened again. Because again you're not just cutting off US oil, you're cutting off the world's oil, in which case you'd have a repeat of the 1991 coalition to restore status quo. The US isn't going to cut off the world's oil, because as much as everyone (including Americans) tries to deny it the world economy is as important to the US economy as vice-versa. As someone obviously familiar with corporate conspiracy, you should be well aware that US corporations are in on everyone and everything. Crash their economies, you crash the US's. Remember the 'Great Depression'? It started in Germany, not the US. Problem is, we're even more intertwined now than way back then. I don't think anyone here can honestly make a good assessment of what the 'next target' will be on the anti-terror hit-list. I'm certainly not willing to make a choice...yet.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I doubt America will be attacking any other countries anytime soon. The Yanks dont have the Manpower to secure Iraq little alone attack Iran or North Korea.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Could be North Korea.

times.hankooki.com...


USFK Relocation Aimed at Surgical Strikes on NK: Rep. Roh


By Yoon Won-sup
Staff Reporter

Rep. Roh Hoe-chan of the progressive Democratic Labor Party (DLP) claimed Thursday the planned realignment of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) is based on a U.S. plan to launch surgical strikes against North Korea.

Speaking in a parliamentary interpellation session on security and foreign affairs, Roh asserted the plan was codenamed ``OPLAN 5027-04, which was first revealed by North Korea in August when it accused the U.S. of preparing to attack the North with high-tech weapons.

``High-tech weapons together with improved C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) of the USFK will bring a huge increase in the potential of `surgical strikes, Roh quoted a senior U.S. official who participated in the ROK-U.S. military talks in April, 2003, as saying.

``A new OPLAN will add a new form of combat capability to the conventional one, which can be expected to improve the capacity to wage war, Roh said, quoting the U.S. official and suggesting the new plan was OPLAN 5027-04. ``The current location of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division is not a proper place for conducting war (against North Korea).



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 05:26 AM
link   
The next country will be Pakistan, at least the area that borders Afghanistan, which harbors Al Qaeda. I do not think anyone will protest the partial invasion of Pakistan. The US does not have to worry about Irans nuclear facility because Israel will take it out if Iran decides to start making nukes. Iran has the US on both sides of her and has world diplomatic pressure coming down on her. The ruling party had large demonstrations against it last year so they are not popular within its own borders and are probably just holding onto power so there time in power is most likely limited. North Korea also has world pressure to stop making nukes and I think they are just trying to negotiate to get something for nothing. The US does not need to invade North Korea the south Koreans can take care of the North by themselves.

If by some small chance that America attacks Iran no one will do anything about it. Russia knows war with the US can only be won if it goes nuclear and they would have to make the first strike and nobody really wins in that scenario. China is busy making money and do not want to wage war with the US, not just yet anyway, they do not yet have the military to win. The US has a large military presence in Germany so they would be unable to do anything. France is the only country to surrender twice during WWII; first to the Germans and then to the US after we took out their Navy off the coast of Morocco I think it was so they do not have the will to fight the US or the military to do so.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 06:24 AM
link   
If America invades more countries there will probably appear a collation of American enemies who will over run her and ultimately destroy her. (china? russia? arab states? etc)



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   


[B]cryptorsa1001
The next country will be Pakistan, at least the area that borders Afghanistan, which harbors Al Qaeda. I do not think anyone will protest the partial invasion of Pakistan.


You forget that Pakistan is a nation with nuclear weapons, I think that Pakistan is a nation that will mind of the partial nation of.. itself...

Pakistan also borders with China... think about that.

My personal oppinion is that the US won't get around to invading anyone else untill they sort out their economy. Everyone know's two fundamentals of the American economy:
1. Oil is MANDATORY
2. They have a multi-trillion doller deficit, which wont go away without some major changes... depression? www.abovetopsecret.com...

With the worlds oil supply drying up, and China's current economic boom (which is now also reliant on oil), I cant see America having either the morale (impending al-queda attack) or economic stability (LOL) to invade another country.

I'm not suggesting the US would not like to invade a few other members of the axis of evil, because they would LOVE to. I may even go as far as to say they will invade possibiliy Sryia, it will just be a failure. I dont think it would be Iran because of China's new oil deal with them... atimes.com...

Interesting topic of conversation though, please continue people!



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Afghanistan borders China also. The Bush administration performed a nuclear posture review when it was thought that Al Qaeda had nukes of some sort during late 2001 and 2002. Part of the update was that we would do anything including surgical destruction of nuclear facilities. It was determined that the US did not have the weapons capabilities in its arsenal so a new round of nuclear testing started to develop precision-guided smallyield nuclear weapons capable of burrowing into the ground to be able to take out these nukes. I saw on another post someone that lives in Nevada showing pics of what may have been a nuclear test. I also saw on a TV show that the B-1 stealth bombers were being equipped to be able to carry 96 small-yield nuclear warheads. Sorry for not having any links to this info. The country that we were or are still most concerned about giving or selling Al Qaeda nukes is Pakistan due to the close cooperation the Pakistan Intelligent Services had with Al Qaeda. So we have the policy in place to nuke Pakistans or any other countries nuclear facilities that we think might fall into the hands of Al Qaeda.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join