Log in

View Full Version : Americas Next Victim?


10fingers
April 4th, 2003, 12:27 AM
Well, it looks like Iraq is just about a done deal. The Iraqis are dancing in the streets and wondering when they're going to get a McDonalds. We've been listening to the media hype and political rhetoric for a year now and the war looks like it will be over less than 3 weeks. The war was less painful than the hype.
Anyway, this war wasn't much of a test for the US military, but as long as we're warmed up maybe we should keep on going. So I'm taking a poll on which country us warmongering, imperialistic Americans should invade next. Here's a few suggestions;
1. France. They're arrogant little pricks and besides that they have WMDs. We can take all their wine too.
2. North Korea. This would be a real test, those little asian fellows know how to fight. Hmmm, if they really want a nuclear weapon maybe we should give them one, fully armed.
3. Mexico. It's close, they have oil too but the problem is what to do with all those Mexicans. Maybe if Mexico was the 51st state, (sorry Britain), they would quit coming up here.
4. Canada. It's got a lot of good places to go fishing. I think they have oil too.
Anymore suggestions?

Energy84
April 4th, 2003, 01:23 AM
Awww don't even bother with our fishing holes. At the current rate, the indians will have them all cleaned out in the next ten years. :rolleyes: But if you'd like to declare a war on the aboriginals, be my guest! They're gobbling up over $2Billon annually (Canadian dollars mind you)!
Next up I think will be either N. Korea or some other poor Arabic country who has oil.
France is unlikely. They don't have oil. Canada's oil reserves are getting exhausted. The only oil left is way up north (think polar ice cap) under the frozen tundra. There are also the oil sands, which are a bitch to extract oil out of...
Hell, maybe if the US was serious about their war on drugs, they'd go bomb the shit out of the Columbian mountainsides, just like in Afghanistan!

frogfot
April 4th, 2003, 01:40 AM
How about establishing democracy in Sibiria? theres alot of oil.. :rolleyes:

Anthony
April 4th, 2003, 12:46 PM
Wales, I hope :D

N. Korea probably.

France probably wouldn't be hard (but a lot harder than Iraq), but the UK and other European countries would no doubt ally with them. It'd put Twatty Blair in an interesting pickle though :)

Not much oil in Mechico AFAIK.

"$2Billon annually (Canadian dollars mind you)!" So about $39.95 then :D J/K <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Anyway, Iraq isn't a done deal! This morning allied forces were still 50 miles from Baghdad. A week ago (or more) they were 70 miles away saying it was a cake-walk, not good progress. Plus the national guard are falling back into the city(ies) preparing for urban warfare. Which is an excellent idea.

They'll be enough ammo, food, water and other supplies stockpiled in Iraq to last plenty of time. Seiging Baghdad will be a mistake, it may be possible to win, but the casualty rate will be high.

That article that Arkangel linked to really opened my eyes on this. Stalingrad all over again. Same size and weighted forces, 400 mile supply line, bad weather. Plus all the civies that'll be sent out for humanitarian reasons. The allies will have enough trouble feeding themselves for weeks, let alone 2 million civies!

Sun Tzu didn't think it wasa good idea either :)

VasiaPupkin
April 4th, 2003, 01:08 PM
My reply is also connected with "Next Superpower" topic.
I notify that this is ONLY MY OPINION. And it has no common things with mass media in my country. Therefore "please dont say that its a propaganda from "Cold War" times".
Be sure this opinion is based on some analytical sources.
First source - for example <a href="http://bombist.by.ru/dr.htm" target="_blank">http://bombist.by.ru/dr.htm</a> - its only a copy of original article "America prepare for attack... aganist Russia". This article dated by 2002 end.
My reply is based on this article mainly...
I used another useful sites:
<a href="http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/rus/publications/adem0204.htm" target="_blank">http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/rus/publications/adem0204.htm</a>
<a href="http://burkina-faso.narod.ru/kara/oro_1.htm" target="_blank">http://burkina-faso.narod.ru/kara/oro_1.htm</a>
<a href="http://pravda.ru/abroad/2002/07/29/44838.html" target="_blank">http://pravda.ru/abroad/2002/07/29/44838.html</a>
<a href="http://nvo.ng.ru/polemic/2002-08-16/4_polemic.html" target="_blank">http://nvo.ng.ru/polemic/2002-08-16/4_polemic.html</a>
Its all on Russian sure.

1. Nowadays and next 10-15 years USA has a unique opportunity not only to be main superpower but to remain a only superpower in the world.
This situation is possible almost only by active military actions. First one of the most great actions: America would defeat Russia somewhere in 2010. China and India will be defeated some later.
Crazy? Sure its sounds crazy now. But it will be a great reality in 2008- 2012. Especially if Russia will have no intensive actions with own army and economy.
Now Russian army reformation is a very slow process. Soviet weapon are mainly out of date and theres not so much money for building new systems. Army receives a new weapon only in single speciments.
In 2008-2012 Russia will have a lowest point of nuclear forces state. All heavy ICBM's resouce will be expiried by ~2008 and new rocket population remained unnumerous.
Russia will have approx. 100-150 single warehead ICBM. (now Russia has ~150 heavy ICBM and 30 single warehead ICBM and little quantity of submarine launched turbo jet missiles)
Almost all short and medium range nuclear ballistic missiles destroyed by dimilitarisation program.
Up to 2010-2012 US will finish to building own National Anti Missile System and global influence system.

2. What is ability on US global influence system and how it would work?
First of all it will base on turbo jet rockets with satellite and AVACS automatic guidance system.
This system will have ability for momentary great action. It will be possible to launch a few thousand rockets simultaneously and without visible preparing.
Nuclear turbo-jet missiles with high-penetrated warehead will destroy all nuclear silos. Non-nuclear turbo-jet missiles will destroy a mobile ICBM because
US satellite group will have ability to controle mobile ICBM position and make a high-precision missile point in real time.
There are admite only 2-5% chance for ICBM launching.
This 2-5% is a aim for NAMS developed up to 2010-2012. NAMS dont works on numerous launching.
But this few single warehead would not be a difficult target.
When all ICBM and SAM will be destroyed, aviation attack would be there in some time.
After "war" RF would be occupated and turn into confederation with tame goverments.
Dont think its would be only Russia. Next aim is a China, India etc.

3. Reason for agression. Hmmm. Its not so difficult to invent a reason. How do you feel: "CIA director said that Bin Laden discovered in Kremlin's basement by space intelligence"
Without joking: For example a nuclear explosion on any US aircraft carrier. Its a real reason for war.
Who make this explosing and when - before or after agression? Was it Russian submarine, or US gov's (ohhh! How common American civilians can suspect that it might be own goverment)?
But mainly it would be not so important. The global influence system will work immideately.
And on CNN we will see something like "Russian submarine attacked a US aircraft carrier. Carrier with 1000 peoples is destroyed. We all in sorrow. US president have decided to activate the newest national global influence system. etc"
Sure after attacking Russia will have to activate ICBM system which is still in service.
To make this "play" is more reliable NAMS even can to "miss" a one-two warehead aimed to some silos in Alaska or California.
Sure US has another numerous arsenal for non military influence - economic, capital movement control, propaganda, globalisation, decreasaing a UNN role in the world, new NATO members etc.

4. Ok. Lets assume that US will be able to do that.
Fourth is the MAIN questions - why America will have to do that?

In middle-end 19-x UN experts calculated that world resources is sufficed only for 1 bln people comfort live.
But US energetic and natural resource requirement will rise according to its own economic development.
According to prognosis Russia will be able "restore" own army and science potencial somewhere by 2015-2020 especially for favourable oil's cost.
Provided with own great natural resource with own industry RF will be able to turn from natural resource suplier to own resources consumer.
Oil's cost would rise becase oil quantity in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is not absolute. We all know that there will be a time when all oil sources would exhausted.
It would be a deepest economic collaps in the world.

In addition China would develop into economic and military superpower somewhere by 2020-2030.
Chinese and Indian potencial for resource consuming is a dangerous for US in future.

Now America has a little economic crisis.
How to provide oneself with energetic resources for futher economic and military development and at the same to stop Russian economic and military development?
I give a little prompt - now Russia lives mainly for oil export
After IRAQ occupation the oil's cost expects on 6-10USD/barrel level.

5. Sure you can say: "Its only propaganda to distract people from internal problems etc".
But lets try to seeing the facts:

5.1 First of all - greatest US military budjet with futher rising perspective. Nowadays US military budjet much more than in Cold War times.
5.2 New US strategic conception propose "non-nuclear and semi-nuclear war" - war without risk of "Nuclear Winter" or large nature pollution.
5.3 Approx. 60% CIA budget is connected with intelligence aganist Russia now.
5.4 The program of newest submarines "seawolf"- high effective submarine destroyers (building stopped after Cold war's end but renewaled in 1997)
Russian 2010's NAVY will have only a few submarines in ready.
5.5 US plans to place approx. 100000 aero-jet rockets with low and medium range to 2010. Its looks much more than weapon aganist terrorism.
According to calculation not more than 20000 rockets with common and low power nuclear wareheads is enough to destroy all Russian military objects, industry, silos with nuclear missiles.
Approx. analogous quantity is enough to destroy Chinese force.
Dont need to overrate Cheneese force. China will be a great economic power in 2010. But its military technologies would be still so poor.
Prognising a situation 2010's Cheneese nuclear potencial will be not much higher than Russian in 2010.
And modern war with only AK and RPG aganist bombs or guided and high precision rockets is a foolish.
5.6 Building more B-2 aircrafts and plan to rise up to 30% (into overal aicraft population) small dimentional non-human operated aircraft equipped for "distanced war" and intelligence.
5.7 Building a huge NAMS complexes - first stage - Alaska (aganist Russian ICBM). Second stage - CA (aganist Chinese (Indian) ICBM).
5.8 Building a "climate" weapon on Alaska. A few microwawe units in test there (legenda - athmoshere research).
Its not all sure.

6. What signs will be able to confirm it in the near future?
First - continuing with all this programs.
Second - next US agressions with final repetition for attack aganist Russia somewhere in 2007:
It would be a high-precision, microwawe and electronic weapon testing and testing measures aganist modern SAM with Russian origin.
I think It would be a Saudi Arabia or Iran. Simpliest way to accuse for terrorism or Chem. weapon preparing.
Now Saudi Arabia is American friend, but lets dont forget that Saddam is also was American friend in 1980-x.
Time is changes, time is changes. But US gov's propaganda always works very effective.
Third - world's global economic crisis (directly before agression on Russia).
Probably this crisis will be organised by US.
Fourth - Mass propaganda aganist Russians to prepare "world community" for US operation.
I think it may be based on assusation for mass destruction weapon building or some "bad" regime supported by Russia. All traditional things that you can seeing on CNN.
Fifth - Agression probably will be in summer because US submarine will be able to launch missiles from large arctic areas in summer.

Its not bad scenario for "Terminator 4" for example. But theres so much coincidences with reality. :/
There a interesting saying "First coincidence is coincidence, second coincidience - is a reason for reflection, third - its not coincidience, its a system"
World's global dictatorship system of the most "democratic" country in the world. Sounds great.

Is there anybody who assume this position or who has opposite arguments?
Please think about it without emotions and answer.

<small>[ April 08, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: VasiaPupkin ]</small>

rikkitikkitavi
April 7th, 2003, 04:40 PM
pretty please, with sugar added, go for France.

They are just a big obstacle for the rest of us in EU. And way to much of our taxmoney goes to the farmers over there.

Seriously, next thing will probably be preventive strikes at various iranian facilities for manufacturing of WOM.

P.R.O.C is probably a bite to big to chew on, and world economy cant at the current afford to pay for rebuilding South Korea, which most likely will be attacked.

/rickard

Al Koholic
April 7th, 2003, 10:24 PM
I read some kind of Bush statement that was made last Thursday on I think....washington post or some other major news site. Bush was apparently discussing the next move situation in public and mentioned that the U.S. will remain commited to removing the nuclear programs of both Iran and North Korea. He mentioned something along the lines of military action not being out of the question if I recall correctly. I'll be watching out for this because for some reason...I believe every word he said!

10fingers
April 8th, 2003, 06:26 AM
I'm not sure about the Iranian nuclear program, but I would bet that the North Korean program will be gone one way or the other shortly after this war with Iraq is over. North Korea will not be invaded though, it would be much too costly.
Iran is starting to come around, in a few years they may get rid of the ayatollahs on their own. To do anything against them now would only push them backwards. Of course George Bush may not care about this.

Bitter
April 8th, 2003, 10:26 AM
Syria

zaibatsu
April 8th, 2003, 02:42 PM
France would be a good idea - their primary industry is taking all the CAP payments! Britain and Germany are all paying more into CAP than they get out. But they stand up to the US - can't be a bad thing.

The next one on Bush's list has to be either Iran or North Korea. However, if Turkey start to take bits of Iraq it could be pretty interesting!

NoltaiR
April 8th, 2003, 03:12 PM
Well we will probably head for Iran; although as soon as we do we will have a war against all the Muslim states which are very conviently the major sources of oil for the world (now wouldn't that be a coincidence... maybe we all should start investing in oil stock...). Once that is conquered we will turn the middleeast into one large state and 'give them a government of their choice'.. granted their only option to choose from will be to pick a mock-American government and Bush will be their president. And they will have to pay us their taxes in the form of oil.

Then Europe comes into question... we will just annex Britain (this will just be a slap in the face to their tradition because the queen will be set in a rest home and the United Kingdom will just be apart of the United States (the 52nd mind you.. right after the 51rst State of Sand Land--our new name for the conquered middleeast). This will also give us revenge for the revolutionary war. HaHa! Now we will see who is paying who for taxes on tea!

The rest of Europe will keep their countries names... right after we turn France into one giant nuclear testing facility. The only other thing we will change about Europe is that we are going to reprint the Euro dollar.. it will now come with a nice big stamp of Bush on the front. We will annex Mexico and Canada too.... right after we ship all the Mexicans off to Africa (Africa will be a sort of large concentration camp for us.. and the AIDS over there will do the job of population control). The Canadians will be sent over to France to operate the new nuclear factories and testing facilities. And what is canada now will just be added on to Alaska... just so we can say we have our own Siberia.

Anyways just my thoughts!

knowledgehungry
April 8th, 2003, 05:28 PM
Send the mexicans over to africa, Great Idea. Mexico has no value to the US i say we get a better border patrol and anyone attempting to jump into america will be shot on sight. I doubt that the US will attack any more countries while GWB is still in his first term, he wouldnt want to seem like a war monger :D

VasiaPupkin
April 8th, 2003, 07:52 PM
I only tried to say that Iraq is only a second target in long turn for "US democracy export" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .
I dont like that somebody have to count a "tomahawks" and bombs above own head only because US economics require more natural resources.
And I dont like more that I will be able to be that "somebody" somewhere in 2010.

"we ship all the Mexicans off to Africa (Africa will be a sort of large concentration camp for us.. and the AIDS over there will do the job of population control)"
Sounds funny.
But if to be seruous I dont think that Uncle Sam will waste own money for such "amoral" things as to ship all Mexicans :) .
More cheap and safe way is to make a deep crisis for economy.
Economic crisis in that countries is always crisis in medicine service, overall psychological stress and famine. Finaly is the most "humane" way to control the population.
In addition Mexica is not so interesting for US. First of all its almost US state.
Second - They have not so much resources - only little oil (for US scale) and rocks with cactuses.
Also its clear that US can not admit mititary conflicts in neighbour countries.
Telling about China would be more interesting. For example where to put a 1 bln population? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<small>[ April 09, 2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: VasiaPupkin ]</small>

knowledgehungry
April 8th, 2003, 10:44 PM
MEXICO IS NOT ANYTHING LIKE A US STATE! MEXICO IS A CESSPOOL, AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW MEXICO TO BE ONE,EVEN IF THE ASK!

Bitter
April 9th, 2003, 10:06 AM
...then Jesus turned to the Mexicans and said :

"Don't do anything until I get back."

:D

VasiaPupkin
April 9th, 2003, 05:06 PM
Well. Sure America is not going to annex Mexico. Oh!. May be because US has own great Mexican population <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Anyway America will not annex somebody because it has no advantages.
I meant only that Mexico economics extremely depend on US. Its plays only a buffer role for US borders.
...I'll try to specify: Mexico is a cesspool for US?! And I always said that US means to turn the world in own cesspools :)
Differences is only: Somewhere smells more but somewhere less.

stanfield
April 9th, 2003, 05:54 PM
When you'll attack France, warn me plz so I could have time to get out of there...
No ! Korsica ! we have lots of terrorist there ! A few days ago, they blow a "police station" with 60Kg of explosive ! muhahahaha !
France, lot harder than Irak ? let me laugh ! the army there is a piece of shit ! the Famas assault rifle is as fragile as glass... hehe, when you drop down an AK-47, it keeps running. When you drop down a Famas, you'll have to entirely take it down and wind it up to make it run (work?) again ! (what a long english sentence ! probably full of mistakes...sorry)

bye.

<small>[ April 09, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: stanfield ]</small>

zaibatsu
April 9th, 2003, 06:23 PM
The FAMAS is better than the SA80 - at least you can change the bullpup configuration to allow it to eject to either side to allow for lefties.

megalomania
April 9th, 2003, 06:39 PM
Have we learned nothing from Command and Conquer: Red alert 2? The French will simply turn their Eiffel tower into a powerful lightning weapon when a few tesla troops man it. If American troops couldn’t stand it in the game what makes you think they will in real life?

chemwarrior
April 9th, 2003, 09:45 PM
Lol, I would love to see that Mega!
Americans will buy French goods and destroy them while the French use the money from the goods to obtain more and better weapons. Also, with us Americans and our thinking that we are supperior to ever other country, the French are going to kick the living hell out of us. Course, I dont much think that the US will go after France next. Likely the next stop for the US will be North Korea.

NoltaiR
April 10th, 2003, 01:56 AM
What would be a rather humerous move would be for the US to give the the iraqi land and people over to the isreali government (or to some other anti-muslim country) and see if we can spark WWIII...

And to vasias comment on the FAMAS... while there is always a weaker weapon, there is always a much stronger one as well.

By-the-way I am still waiting for the last group of (former) iraqi leaders to secretly bond together and detonate a few nukes to get back at allthe iraqi population that has been rejoicing in the defeat...

Charlie Workman
April 10th, 2003, 03:34 AM
Chemwarrior, you have got to be kidding. The last war the French won by themselves was against other Frenchmen. Luckily, we had a more than adequate replacement for both the French and German armies- a couple of hundred hard-ass Aussies and 56 Poles. These guys were magnificent. Anyway, who would want to invade France? It's full of French people. At least at the moment. If they keep their immigration policies going the way they have, it won't be French for long. Then it might be interesting. As far as who's next? I would of bet Iran, but Syria had to go and fuck up sending equipment to Saddam. I don't think North Korea is on the short list. The only one's who think they're such badasses is their leader, Wan Fat Puta, or whatever his name is. I can't believe no one in that country has iced that silly bastard themselves. Oh, and by the way, we ARE invincible!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Goodbye Banner. You're a fierce fighter when the troll is upon you".
-Mighty Thor

Spaced Monkey 2002
April 10th, 2003, 07:36 AM
Israel! Because:
1 They have WMDs
2 They have terrorists in their country
3 They have killed lots of their own civilians
4 the only way to settle the problems is to evict both parties from the country

metafractal
April 10th, 2003, 10:12 AM
Oh come on Space Monkey! You've got to be kidding me! Israel is the country that the US would be least likeley to invade!
&gt;&gt;They have WMDs
According to GWB, thats only 'rogue states'(aka countries that America dont like) who arent allowed to defend themselves... America is right snuggled up to Israel.
&gt;&gt;They have terrorists in their country
Are you refering to the kikes or the arabs? The kike terrorists happend to be terrorists with badges, so officially they are not. And the Arabs? Well, if they really wanted to irradicate(sp?) the palestinians they could have sent in troops to do it long ago. This, however, would have been unwise as it would have upset tensions in the reigion enough to trigger a world war. It also would have revealed how close the ties between America and Israel are- which they dont want to show. Finally, it is in no way against their interests of the leaders of America or Israel to have the conflict there. It provides a scapegoat to villify, and an excuse to keep the military-industrial complex going.
&gt;&gt;They have killed lots of their own civillians
What are you on about? To be a cidizen of Israel you have to be a Jew, and they dont often go around killing Jews. If your refering to the Palestinians, well, they are not even portrayed as human let alone cidizens. They are all just 'terrorists', and killing them is 'securing freedom and democracy, and saving innocent lives'. Even if theres some conspiracy in which they have killed lots of the thier own Jew-cidizens that you know about that I dont, its not common knowledge and so nobody cares (=no public support for a war).
&gt;&gt;the only way to settle the problems is to evict both parties from the country
I assume, from the vague subtleties of your previous comments, that you are refering to the Palestinians and the Jews, not the two Israeli political parties. Well, like I already said, it is in their interests for a conflict to exist there.

As self destructive as America's actions are atm, they are not stupid enough to invade Israel. Israel is practically an American territory. They have incredible influence over it, because America funds the state obsceneley. How else do you think that a country 1/7th the size of Tasmania can become a rich, first world, country? America is filled with Jews in high places, hence largeley a reason why they chose Israel to have as a puppet. Dont get me wrong, I'm not into all that "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" racism, but it stands as a fact that the Jews have a huge influence in the greatest superpower of the world.
America isnt just going to turn around on their strongest source of influence in the middle east which also happends because of some apparent ideology. It is a controversial topic, but I do not doubt that America is only using the mask of disarming of WMDs etc as a mask to invade the countries of their choice. But anyway, lets not turn this into another topic of America debate like so many already are.

Who will they invade next? I dont think anything too unpredictable is going to happend. Probably North Korea, then maybe Iran. All their recent wars have been just as expected. I also doubt that America will go to war with France, simply because for America to go to war with someone they need to villify that group of people. At the current time, Arabs have been made to look like the bad guys. You cant have too many scapegoats. Villifying a group of people and/or their ideology is a gradual process, and they cant just walk in and invade overnight. Ditto with Britain. Also, with these countries its harder to villify them because they are so westernized (and Britain is English speaking). People can relate to them (=no good for killing them). If they do want to take control of these countries, it will need to be by much more covert means. France's passionate refusal to join the war on Iraq will interestingly sour relations, though.

Oh, and they are not just going to go and 'annex' anywhere like Mexico. Thats not the American way. They're more into installing puppet dictators posing as democrats to do their bidding.

The Russia hypothesis is an interesting one indeed, what I deem to be the most plausable of the outlandish theories brought up so far. It will not happend straight away (2010 sounds about right), and it may not be as explicit as other wars, but I would not be surprised if it did happend. The pending invasion of North Korea is a sort of a "lets clean up all the crumbs left over from the cold war" mentality, and so I would not be surprised if they did the same with Russia (and before anyone says it, yes I know Russia is not still a Communist country. They still do have all the 'crumbs' left in it though. Soviet russia was like an unstable building, and that finally collapsed. The rubble is still on the ground though, and for it to be cleaned up someone needs to go in with a war.)

I am confident that GWB is goign to fit in as many wars as possible while he is still in office. Or maybe he will burn down the national parliament and blame it on the arabs, then elimenate all opposition and stay in powerr indefinateley (heil! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ).

Oh, and spacemonkey, to save a mod from telling you: your sig is way to long (4 line limit), and the img tag does not work there either. Change it at once or expect some serious HED action comin' your way.

VasiaPupkin
April 10th, 2003, 06:50 PM
If we mean to answer this question seriously we would to analyse all "Yes" and "No".
I do that taking into account that American geopolitics is a highly pragmatic.
Also we should to throw aside all accusations about WMD, tyranny, terrorism etc (independently is this accusations false or truthful).
I think its not so correct to think that Iraq invadering is only GWB's ingerit illness <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Lets recall the Serbia's operation. Its only link of one logical chain - global American military course.
There was even humorous opinion that Klinton did the war only for wander the society from history with Monica.
But lets imagine that "some gov forces" made some blackmail because Klinton didnt going to war. Then some pressure followed.
Uhhhh. I have made this theory myself (C) and I like it. :D
1. Ok. Lets go on. France, Mexico, Canada, Israel etc invadering is only waste money, lifes and negative opinions among "allies". Now its not a time to breaking allies. This time will be later.
American gov looks in a longer distance than own civilians with simple "go fishing" or "to drink a wine".
2. North Korea. Hmm... Take the map and see. I associate NK with a "wasp nest": dont touch it if you're dont like to get into trouble.
This country very isolated. But I know that they have a very little amount of modern weapon. And they have a power ideology to fight. It would not so complex target for US forces but will be much more difficult than Iraq for it. But... First of all its a perspective to make a very worse politic relations with Russia and China.
Even for South Korea it would be a bad idea. America could not allow to invade NK now.
And I think that US will allow them (NK) to continue "build the communism" till ...
Although US will use another non military pressure. First of all - propaganda and economy.
3. Syria is the waste country for US now. Syria has some oil but have not profitable position on the map.
4. Iran. I suppose Iran is a advantageous target for US. And itsn't important are US going to attack Russia or not.
4.1 Iran has strategic position: US can cut muslim world into 3 parts. US will encircle RF and Chineese borders by own bases (for example for quick missile launching).
4.2 Military pressing is also available on this countries (If US will change own mind not to attack).
4.3 Intensification US influence on former Soviet Union members. And to weaken Russian influence in this region (For example making alternative ways for natural resource export passing the Russia).
4.4 Very thruthful weapon testing aganist modern Russian SAMs.
4.5 Finaly Iran has oil stock on third or fourth place in the World.

PS
I tried to forecast this circumstances taking in mind modern world situation.
But world's events is extremelly dynamic even in spite of US plans... Sometimes :rolleyes:

chemwarrior
April 14th, 2003, 11:39 AM
Yeah Charlie, I was being sarcastic;)

Also, with what Ive been hearing lately, Im thinking that we are going to end up going after Syria next. Now THAT fight is likely going to be a major life-taker.

cutefix
April 16th, 2003, 12:59 AM
If America will attack Syria who will support them?They are creating more enemies in the region instead of amassing more friends .
If the main reason is that this country has stockpiles of chemical weapons how about Israel who have more enormous stockpile of WMD?
Why did the allies kept mum about it. Israel should be targeted first ;but it seems Washington is turning a blind eye on these Jewish stockpiles.
That is why the ragheads are ever distrustful to us americans as we are pro israel but likely anti arabs.

stickfigure
May 30th, 2003, 10:02 AM
Cuba! There's another loose end that needs to be tied up. It's going to be small scale actions for the time being. If you follow the pattern from the Civil War/Vietnam to WWI, WWII/Gulf War I, Gulf War II it's on to low media hype, local clean up. After a couple of local mop-ups then that will pave the way for a Korean II reconning and after that Vietnam II. And that should be followed up by an unfinished situation in a somewhat friendly nation... Saudi??? And after that another Cold War with Russia, they win this time and the World will be free of the tyranny of AmeriKa. But I think I will be dead by then and miss Cleo's 900 isn't working anymore.

Kid Orgo
June 18th, 2003, 07:02 PM
Who gives a shit about Cuba? No one.

stickfigure
June 21st, 2003, 06:24 AM
The same kind of people who gave a shit about it back in the 60's and the same kind of people who gave a shit about Grenada and Panama. These are small scale clean up's and Cuba is at the top of the shit list of those. It won't have the military or economic impact that Iraq did and it would be easy to sweep under the rug. Besides it's been a thorn in America's ass for nearly 50 years and it needs to put plucked.

yt2095
June 21st, 2003, 09:52 AM
France would be my 2`nd choice!
but i somehow suspect it will be Syria or Iran next.
with regards to Korea, i think thats a big can of worms full of unknowns and MANY potential dangers, a tread gently aproach is all i can see dealing with them.

sellected towns and City areas in UK, full of ragheads would be my primary choice tho!

Kid Orgo
June 23rd, 2003, 02:21 AM
A thorn? Not even. A splinter at most.

The communist regime in cuba will eventually collapse. With no real major Commie superpowers supporting it, and Castro nearing nursing home age, i'd say sooner rather than later.


Althouh, you may be right.


I certainly don't give a shit about cuba, tho.

nbk2000
June 23rd, 2003, 04:00 AM
Cuba is going to be a HUGE opportunity for the people who've already got plans in place for the day castro dies and the people of Cuba bend over and beg for a democratic enema! :p

As happens after any repressive regime is overthrown, there's a period of turmoil while everyone goes apeshit with their new found freedom and partys! Then the secrets start coming out, the criminals begin operating in the open, and businesses will do anything to get foreign investors.

Imagine all the things that will have to be imported to bring Cuba up to even 3rd world standards. The place has been stuck in a time warp since the late 50's. Now imagine all the chemicals that would have to be imported to support the new businesses.

Imagine all those same chemicals being diverted to rich norte americano's who pay bribes to corrupt officals so they can blow shit up on their own private island off the coast of cuba. ;)

Imagine all those chemists who've struggled for years with no funds suddenly being financed with state-of-the-art everything...for the minor favor of making certain compounds as may be desired by their patron. Pharmacutical grade whatevers that have names you can't pronounce, very toxic somethings with only two letter names, or energetic whatnots with funny abbreviations. ;)

Law enforcement is whoever gets the most bribed by doing the most head turning.

Women are like video tape rentals at Blockbuster...you have a huge assortment to choose from, you can rent it for a few hours, or keep it for a few days, it's only a couple of dollars, and with no commitment to buy. :p

Naturally, being practically a county of the state of florida, since we have so many cubans there, it's only natural that they'll want to join NATO, just like all the other former soviet vassel states.

Their army will still be ruled by the same commanders who controlled them during castro's reign, which means they are also corrupt bastards who'd be more than happy to sell some of their new NATO toys to some of the same rich norte americano's who like to blow shit up.

Now all that needs to happen is for some forumite to win a huge lottery jackpot and make it happen.

vulture
June 23rd, 2003, 02:20 PM
Now all that needs to happen is for some forumite to win a huge lottery jackpot and make it happen.

Not quite. Remember what you said about the turmoil during the regime change? Criminals operating out in the open? Seems like the perfect period to "collect" some of castros personal funds or to loot anything valuable.

And ofcourse there's the old trick to sell them old and surplus audio-videogear, clothes, gadgets, whatever, by telling them it's very popular in the western world today.

It seems to be a standard reaction of these people that once liberated, they want to look and behave like any westerner.
Highly exploitable.

gliper
July 24th, 2003, 03:45 PM
We should attact russia framing the Chinese and anounce that the French were behind it.