I think it's pretty clear that they'll attack somebody - they have the longest record of international aggression in the last 100 years of any country in the world I can't imagine that changing anytime soon.
I'm going to go with Syria. I think Iran is unlikely since they aren't Arabs. Saudi Arabia won't happen with Bush in power since he's good friends with the Saudi royal family. North Korea is unlikely since they probably do have nuclear weapons (at least they claim to have them) and Bush probably doesn't want to start a nuclear war (actually that's a bit optimistic - but I think he has enough advisors who will tell him NO!)
Canada is definitely possible since some Canadians speak French - and clearly France is another likelihood - although they have nukes too so probably won't happen.
Syria is full of Arabs who believe the teachings of Islam and there is oil in the country. I'm sure they've looked into getting weapons of mass destruction in the past (just like Australia looked into it in the 50s and decided against it) and there are refugees from Palestine in the country - some of which can probably be linked to terrorist groups in Israel who can be linked to Al Qaeda. Fuck the country shouldn't be called Syria - it should be called Osama Bin Land!
Also Iraq is going pretty badly now - so just like Afghanistan - it makes sense to create a new war, to take people's attention off the current one(s) and Syria is right next to Iraq. Obviously so is Iran - Iranians aren’t Arabs (as mentioned) and the country is much more mountainous - so it would be even easier for people to fight back. I guess the fact that it's also next to Afghanistan doesn't really help Iran.
I can't really think of any other possibilities. Except maybe any country that isn't predominantly white Christian - and even some of those.
Who will the US attack next
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
Good point - perhaps he'll attack the USA next - they have a lot of fairly active terrorist going by what I hear in the news!carl winslow wrote:I think Iran,
Bush did say he would go after anyone that harbored terrorists, al queda is in over 60 countries...
edit: Or CUBA!!! Apparantly they have a whole camp full of terrorists disguised as carrots!!! - And it looks like Bush is into restarting the wars of previous Presidents too!
-
hacksterbator
- Washed-Up Child Star
- Posts: 4141
- Joined: 12 Jul 2003 18:33
- Location: Winterpeg, Manisnowba
- Contact:
i doubt they will attack cuba, but when fidel passes on, i'm sure they will try to get a political grip on the country like they did with batista.
canada is certainly possible. although i doubt it would be a military attack. some type of attack on the economy or some thing, like blocking some other canadian agricultural product, which seems to be all the rage in the u.s. right now.
canada is certainly possible. although i doubt it would be a military attack. some type of attack on the economy or some thing, like blocking some other canadian agricultural product, which seems to be all the rage in the u.s. right now.
A.G.
I forgot two countries!!
Turkey is pretty likely I think. Now that Iraq has been invaded - it's the only secular country left in the middle east. Surely a fundamentalist religious country like The US can't be a fan of secularism - If they don't knock out Turkey now - secularism could spread across into Asia and Europe - like a row of domino's being knocked over - the world would be swamped by people believing in a seperation between church and state and the freedom of a nation to force religion onto it's citizens would be destroyed in the way for a dictationship of religious tolerance!
New Zealand - Compared with the US, New Zealand is a heavily communist country. And when they say six - it sounds like sex - which is a SIN!!! - The war on terror is failing - it might be better to return to the war on communism!
Turkey is pretty likely I think. Now that Iraq has been invaded - it's the only secular country left in the middle east. Surely a fundamentalist religious country like The US can't be a fan of secularism - If they don't knock out Turkey now - secularism could spread across into Asia and Europe - like a row of domino's being knocked over - the world would be swamped by people believing in a seperation between church and state and the freedom of a nation to force religion onto it's citizens would be destroyed in the way for a dictationship of religious tolerance!
New Zealand - Compared with the US, New Zealand is a heavily communist country. And when they say six - it sounds like sex - which is a SIN!!! - The war on terror is failing - it might be better to return to the war on communism!
-
shreddaily
- Flower Child
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003 16:56
Hold on a second. Look at how close the last two elections were. If Canada, or almost any part of Canada, became part of the US, that would almost certainly tip the electoral college in favor of the half of the country which doesn`t support Bush. The last elections were so close, that the LAST thing Bush would want is an influx of liberal voters who actually bother to vote.Slipknut wrote:Most likely Canada. Rumor has it Bush is looking for a 51st state.
On a serious note, I really don`t think the US army is strong enough to attack another country and start another war. Since the US is still using a volunteer army, and since Rumsfeld wanted to run the `war on terror` as cheaply as possible, the US military is already stretched too thinly in Iraq, and is tied down there for the foreseeable future. If a true threat to America DOES emerge (Iraq was never a threat to America until we turned it into a terrorist breeding ground), the US will have a major problem on its hands.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Countries Bombed by the US since the end of World War 2C-Fan wrote:On a serious note, I really don`t think the US army is strong enough to attack another country and start another war. Since the US is still using a volunteer army, and since Rumsfeld wanted to run the `war on terror` as cheaply as possible, the US military is already stretched too thinly in Iraq, and is tied down there for the foreseeable future. If a true threat to America DOES emerge (Iraq was never a threat to America until we turned it into a terrorist breeding ground), the US will have a major problem on its hands.
China 1945-46
Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73 (Vietnam War)
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Kuwait 1991 (Iraqi Targets)
Iraq 1991-
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995 (Bosnian Serb Targets)
Sudan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
That's 26 countries in about 60 years - or a new country bombed every 2 and a half years (just less than even). I'm fairly confident that that trend won't suddenly stop. Obviously they are bombing two countries at the moment - on of which they've been bombing for over 10 years - but I'm pretty confident we'll be able to add another nation to that list in the not too distant future.
Nate - Considering I don't support the war on terrorism - and am thus - according to Bush - A terrorist - And there are lots of people who also don't support the war on terrorism - and are thus terrorists - in Tasmania - who knows how Bush will deal with these terrorists.
As the great man himself once said:
George W Bush Junior wrote:People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history.
-
shreddaily
- Flower Child
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003 16:56
Yeah I think North Korea is pretty unlikely. Although I doubt the North Korean's would launch a nuclear attack in retaliation - I don't think it's a risk any administration would take.
Although HighdemonSlayer raised a good point. The US might just completely wipe out the whole country - give the world somewhere to dump our nuclear waste etc. Yes they would kill over 20,000,000 people - of which about 19,999,000 would be completely innocent and probably not even know if that their country has Nuclear weapons or not - and they would be condemned by the rest of world to such a degree that they would probably be forced to also wipe out all of Europe (Except Poland) and most of Asia (except Malyasia), Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Central and South America and Africa. But after that everything would be good in the world (Thanks America).
In all honesty I doubt even the US would be willing to possibily start a nuclear war. Obviously they have been more than prepared to drop nuclear weapons on non military civilian targets in the past - but that was before anyone else had a nuclear weapon.
Although HighdemonSlayer raised a good point. The US might just completely wipe out the whole country - give the world somewhere to dump our nuclear waste etc. Yes they would kill over 20,000,000 people - of which about 19,999,000 would be completely innocent and probably not even know if that their country has Nuclear weapons or not - and they would be condemned by the rest of world to such a degree that they would probably be forced to also wipe out all of Europe (Except Poland) and most of Asia (except Malyasia), Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Central and South America and Africa. But after that everything would be good in the world (Thanks America).
In all honesty I doubt even the US would be willing to possibily start a nuclear war. Obviously they have been more than prepared to drop nuclear weapons on non military civilian targets in the past - but that was before anyone else had a nuclear weapon.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I'll break this into 2 parts:
I think you are exaggerating the extent that Europe, for example, would condemn a nuclear strike on N. Korea, under any circumstances.
They would dutifully file a grievance at the United Nations, who would then undertake a 6-month study to determine if we did , in fact, used a nuclear weapon.
After 6 months, a resolution would be forwarded, condemning the U.S. for this and that.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Many scenarios are possible under which a theoretical U.S. nuke attack could occur.
Enemy forces are massed within 30 miles(I think) of Seoul.
If defeating the N. Korea forces threatening Seoul were the goal, irradiating the Korean capital would be counter-productive.
I think a nuclear response could only be justified following the destruction of Seoul and invasion of the South by the communists. The advancing forces would have to be stopped before reaching U.S. bases.
And how massive a response would be necessary? Japan won't like lots of fallout.
The size of the attack would be determined by the U.S. strategic interest in keeping a presence on the Asian continent, if possible, right next to
China.
China, rightfully so, would love for the U.S. to pull out of the last outpost on mainland Asia.
The U.S., wisely, is withdrawing forces away from the DMZ.
Why keep U.S. troops there as a symbolic tripwire? Seoul could be wiped out by the North , regardless of troops on the DMZ.
-n
I think you are exaggerating the extent that Europe, for example, would condemn a nuclear strike on N. Korea, under any circumstances.
They would dutifully file a grievance at the United Nations, who would then undertake a 6-month study to determine if we did , in fact, used a nuclear weapon.
After 6 months, a resolution would be forwarded, condemning the U.S. for this and that.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Many scenarios are possible under which a theoretical U.S. nuke attack could occur.
Enemy forces are massed within 30 miles(I think) of Seoul.
If defeating the N. Korea forces threatening Seoul were the goal, irradiating the Korean capital would be counter-productive.
I think a nuclear response could only be justified following the destruction of Seoul and invasion of the South by the communists. The advancing forces would have to be stopped before reaching U.S. bases.
And how massive a response would be necessary? Japan won't like lots of fallout.
The size of the attack would be determined by the U.S. strategic interest in keeping a presence on the Asian continent, if possible, right next to
China.
China, rightfully so, would love for the U.S. to pull out of the last outpost on mainland Asia.
The U.S., wisely, is withdrawing forces away from the DMZ.
Why keep U.S. troops there as a symbolic tripwire? Seoul could be wiped out by the North , regardless of troops on the DMZ.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Jeremy: that quote you attributed to George W. Bush I`ve seen attributed to Dan Quayle like 6 years before Bush was even in any elected office. Be careful with quotes that seem too good to be true, often times they`re bogus.
As for your long list of countries that the US has attacked, all I can say is there is a major MAJOR difference between bombing a country and actually invading it. Bombing a country is very low risk to troops, and relatively cheap (moneywise and politically). Actually sending ground troops into a country to occupy and pacify it is quite a different thing.
At the moment the US has troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does the US still have the capability to bomb other countries? Yes. Does the US have the military capability for a full-fledged war against another country? I would say no. Does the US have the capability for another pre-emptive war against another country? Again, I would say no.
As for your long list of countries that the US has attacked, all I can say is there is a major MAJOR difference between bombing a country and actually invading it. Bombing a country is very low risk to troops, and relatively cheap (moneywise and politically). Actually sending ground troops into a country to occupy and pacify it is quite a different thing.
At the moment the US has troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does the US still have the capability to bomb other countries? Yes. Does the US have the military capability for a full-fledged war against another country? I would say no. Does the US have the capability for another pre-emptive war against another country? Again, I would say no.
Re: Who will the US attack next
are you serious?Jeremy wrote:Canada is definitely possible since some Canadians speak French - and clearly France is another likelihood
these countries are too 'white' for the US to attack.
US leaders culturally identify with these countries leaders much more than in those of the Middle East, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
It's set up like a deck of cards,
theyre sendin us to early graves
for the diamonds
they use a pair of clubs to beat the spades(ratm)
Cloud9-Juan Rangel
theyre sendin us to early graves
for the diamonds
they use a pair of clubs to beat the spades(ratm)
Cloud9-Juan Rangel