Which country will we attack next, and when ?

As part of the War on Terror ™, we have already paid a friendly visit to Afghanistan and Iraq. There is surely more to come. This is backed up by official statements which have repeatedly stated that this will be a long war.

Which is the next country which will most likely get a visit by the USA ? I am not asking for somebodys opinion if these are just wars or not. If you feel they are unjust, start your own thread and rant until you are blue in the face. Also, if somebody says none at all, then I will suggest that this is highly unrealistic and not in tune with current events and policies. The USA has practically always been involved in some conflict somewhere, and to suggest that it will not in the future is highly foolish, without any evidence to back it up.

There’s all sorts of of goons that need to be dealt with, but which one is most likely to be next ? Which one is the biggest threat to the USA ?

Will it be Syria, and their support for all sorts of terrorists ? Will it be North Korea, with their nuclear ambitions ? Iran, also with nuclear ambitions ? Will we eventually have to go after the Saudis, or will they straighten their act up ?

Also, when will this happen ? Within 6 months ? More than a year from now ?

Since I came with the OP, I will present my view:

I feel the next place might probably be Syria, which is good news for us, since our troops are in close proximity already, and it will happen not just yet, but perhaps before 24 months has passed. The only way something would happen with Iran in the near future, is if they continued to pursue their nuclear goals. And the Israelis might even take care of them, so we wouldn’t have to bother. I think the North Korea situation might be solved by peaceful means.

So, since this is Great Debates, we shall see how good people are to intelligently speculate the next course of actions in the war on terror. I’m not asking for what you would like to see happen, but what you think will happen in the near future.

So, let’s see how much on the money you are. I have already presented my view, let’s hear yours.

There will be no more wars barring another terrorist attack on US soil. There may be a raid against either Iran or North Korea, but I consider both possibilities to be remote.

More likely, the remainder of Bush’s term in office, assuming he wins in 2004(not a sure thing, but let’s assume) would be to concentrate on the rebuliding of Afghanistan and Iraq and putting political pressure on nations that are still not giving their all in the war on terror.

Of course, as I said before, a terrorist attack on US soil would mean all bets are off. If it was sponsored by Iran or Syria it would set off another war. A nuclear explosion on US soil would kick off WWIII, and it would last all of an hour. But that’s another thread.

I’ll put my money on Venezuela, with its lovely oil reserves (fourth-biggest exporters worldwide).

What, you thought this was about terrorism? Yeah, right, that’s why we went after Saddam Hussein, bosom buddy to Osama bin Laden and holder of 500,000 tons of weaponized anthrax. :rolleyes:

I think Canada should be invaded. After all, Iraq was invaded for no reason, but just because there was a plan to invade it, and th White House is on auto-run. Much easier to invade Canada than to create a democratic political system internally. Otherwise, American people would start voting, and then where would we be?

Regardless, Canada is a huge threat. All of those terrorists are thousands of miles away, and surely disoriented and demoralized by our massive use of force. They’re probably helpless and, in any event, foreign.

Whereas Canada is an immediate threat to the security of the United States. Their Prime Minister simply refuses to lick up cum or contribute either moral support or troops. You would think we weren’t continuing the war against terror by invading Iraq, or whomever.

The border with Canada is hopeless. There is no security there against the Canadians. They continue to amass themselves along that border, possibly for immanent invasion. This is a security risk of the highest order, particularly in view of the fact that they have unquestionable knowledge of nuclear bombs, having more or less invented them. They claim to not have a program, but who knows?

If the U.N. did not have the capacity to get to the bottom of the well-known and obvious Iraqi intercontinential nucleat threat, what assurance do we have about the lack of threat from Canukistan? None, I can calmly and religiously assure you. They have the technology, they have the resources, they could without effort poise nuclear blow-out at the border, and hit any target they wished within 49 of 50 states of the U.S.A. They are an obviously security threat, and their government has not demonstrated it’s compliance to the extent necessary in the arbitrary war against terrorism.

They are also ungodly, worst of all. Marijuana is legal, which is not helpful in our war against crack addicts. They even witness and celebrate marriages between men and men, or women and women. The Bible explicitly forbids shenanigans of that sort.

We have defeated Communism, but now we find it raising its head again right against our back door, across a border that is virtually undefended, against an enemy we have always trusted, but now betrays our trust by setting a good example in this, our time of need and psychosis.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

I will respond to the three replies.

adaher : Yes, I agree that the “terrorist attack wildcard” does play an important role in determining future events. Your scenario sounds plausible.

rjung : I wouldn’t have considered Venezuala to be on top of the list, but you would surely have gotten some great odds and made a lot of money if that “terrorist attack speculation market” idea, which was floating around the pentagon had been put into existance, and your scenario turned out to be true.

Not in Anger : A pathetic attempt at hijacking a thread. You obviously have reading comprehension problems. You have layed out a case as to why the USA should attack Canada. Start your own OP. I am asking which country WILL be attacked next, not which country you would PREFER to see attacked. Of course, if you truly believe that Canada will be the next victim in the war on terror, then your location seems to contradict your opinion. Because, I would surely move, if I held your views.

Not in Anger: what an insightful and interesting post…

…Under the bridge downtown…

09/03 :rolleyes:

[wild speculation] I vote for Iran. We seem to be laying the psychological framework for it already with our titterings about nuclear facilities. I keep thinking I’m in a timewarp and they are talking about Iraq. We all know where that went.

Plus, it’s pretty convient.

With Iran under our belts, we’d have friendly governments and rights to put bases etc. throughout a good chunk of the Middle East. And it’d be one more country we don’t have to worry about. It might turn the political (although probably not social) Middle Eastern tide.

As for the real trouble, I predict that will come from Southeast Asia. But we arn’t ready to deal with that round yet. If we can get the big players with big money in the Middle East out of our hair, then we can keep that region from turning against us and becomeing the problem area of the next few decades.

Since the USA has now become the Number 1 terrorist country in the world, and no country is safe from its aggression, then I suppose USA is the next logical country which will most likely get a visit.

Here is how it could happen.

There are those in the USA that have access to nuclear shelters with their fingers on the bomb. They are among he “haves”, and obviously Daisy Cutter is not among them.

As the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” widens further in the USA, there will be an uprising against the state of Capitalism. Unlike the uprising in the Soviet Union that toppled Communism, when the anti-capitalist uprising starts in the US, those with shelters, fingers on the bomb and Daisy Cutter mentality, will unleash the nuclear bombs against the “have nots” in this very country.

Unfortunately when that happens, our poor little Daisy Cutter will be among the first ones that will vaporize before having a chance to say “Oh, S***”.

Okey-dokey. That came straight out of Chomskyville.

Capitalism has shrunk the gap between the haves and the have-nots better than any other system, so the idea that there will be a rebellion against it on that basis is stupid.

And the US a terrorist nation? I’d love to hear the definition of terrorist that makes the US the biggest terrorist state in the world.

“Capitalism has shrunk the gap between the haves and the have-nots better than any other system, so the idea that there will be a rebellion against it on that basis is stupid.”

errr are you sure

whats the difference between a bloke on minimum wage and bill gates or a peasant and a queen

that gap still seems awfully large

Daisy Cutter, if you don’t want this thread to be hijacked or take a turn down a rights-and-wrongs dead end, then don’t give them any ammo. Insights into your pro views and including terms like “we have already paid a friendly visit”, “there’s all sorts of of goons that need to be dealt with” and “this is good for us” only encourage them. Keep it factual if you want a decent debate.

Turning to the OP, I find myself agreeing almost totally with Adaher which is nice for a change. Bush will concentrate on re-election unless he is given no choice, having concluded that further military action is unlikely to win him any votes he does not have already and carries too high a risk of rebound on his administation. He will concentrate on trying to swallow what he has already bitten off in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am not sure what a nuclear explosion would kick off, not just in the US but in Russia, Japan or Europe too. WWIII would be a tough call to make. I would guess any response would be conventional rather than provoke a nuclear exchange, particularly if it was terrorist delivered. Russia might nuke Chetchnya as the most likely wild card of those possibilities…

Looking past the election, assuming the neo-cons are re-elected (lets not discuss that please!), I would guess next might be Syria given Iran is going to do enough to avoid being a target with the support of the Europeans. I would put the chances of a US-sponsored coup in Venezuela at pretty high too though, possibily involving direct US military “aid” if required.

You mean it would be one more country like Iraq, that we don’t have to worry about anymore? Friendly governments? Sadly the US has lost it’s once excellent skills in nation-building. As a matter of fact, the more countries you invade, the more countries you have to worry about.
Can G.W. Bush afford another war? Financially and politically (both internal and foreign)? Not at the moment, and he knows it.
So I disagree, Daisy Cutter, there will be no war in the near future.
OK, call it wishful thinking…

Cite? You didn’t think you were going to get that one by without one did you?

Invading countries without international agreement? Covert funding of terrorist organisations in actions against legitimate governments? Any of this ringing a bell ?

Whether you agree with the term or not, you can’t argue that these things don’t happen. Only that you choose to ignore them.

**whats the difference between a bloke on minimum wage and bill gates or a peasant and a queen

that gap still seems awfully large

Yes, it is a large gap, but it’s worse in non-capitalist countries. CIA World Factbook, as well as some other sources, has data on income distribution.

If Bush is reelected, he’s still going to have his hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq. This does not preclude covert action or the occasional raid against other nations, of course, as those don’t require massive money or troops to pull off. As for Venezuela, a coup will not be necessary unless Chavez completely abandons any pretense of democracy. He’s skating dangerously close to the point. If he does, the US will probably do whatever it can to restore democratic rule as soon as possible. That could very well mean a coup.

However, with three years still remaining in his term, the US will probably be content to wait him out. Bush can always order a coup attempt in 2006 if Chavez does something like cancel the election.

Wake Up Call you are not helping keep this thread on track. By the terms of reference of the OP the USA can hardly visit the USA, he was talking clearly about other nations not countering domestic opponents whatever your views. And Adaher , we started so well and now your latest post takes us down a dead end. Oh well if you insist on a definition:

Federal law, 22 U.S.C. §. 2656f(d), defines “terrorism” as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.”

The FBI defines terrorism as, “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

By both definitions, and widely so by the FBI definition, the US does qualify as a significant terrorist state. I think US law would too although it carefully excludes nation states from the definition. That works both ways of course, and should apply to the US attitude to Iran, Syria etc.

If you look US covert and overt military action in Nicaragua, Indonesia, Cuba, Libya and Lebannon to list just a few I think you should be able to see the point. What about the CIA car bomb in Beirut or the US shooting down of the civilian Iranian airliner over the Gulf, if either of those acts had been committed by other nations the US would have been the first to cry “terrorist”.

But how about a truce? I will stay on the OP if you will - happy to discuss if the USA is a terrorist state in another thread if you fancy.

Sorry Daisy Cutter let us go back to the OP which asks for views on which country is next…

:rolleyes: Is this political analysis by video game or something? You don’t happen to be a Bush advisor?

A friendly (by which I assume you mean USA compliant) government has no business existing without a friendly people. Unless you’re advocating a dictatorship? The politics of a country are a product of the society, so the only way you are going to “turn the political tide” of the Middle East to something more agreeable is by leaving it well alone and let it alter itself.

It is never, ever, not even remotely, going to happen through bombing, invasion and having a country ‘under your belt’.

Worked for Japan and Germany.

As for the US being a “terrorist state”, by those standards every major nation is a terrorist state.

You know why you use the past tense.
That’s what I meant by saying: “…the US has lost it’s once excellent skills in nation-building.”

adaher. I totally agree with your post. They all are terrorist states, including the UK (if we are still a major nation :slight_smile: ) but it is a matter of degree as well as principle. The USA may well be the number one only as they have alot more power to project.

The key difference adaher is that not every other major nation is starting a decades long aggresive war on terrorism.

Don’t you see the double standard? What works for the US works for others and so justifies there terrorist actions against the USA. This is what the mainstream Muslim world have against the USA, they do not hate freedom or your values.

I could apply the same allegation towards Russia or Israel, so I am not just having a go at the USA here.

BTW I do not think you can compare the German situation to the developing nations. they had a traditional of democracy and frankly the US ideas of their future were very different from the British which ultimately prevailed. On Japan, you may have a point. I do not know so much about Japan, but as far as I can see they have not taken ultimate responsibility for what they did (the nukes let them off that hook) and we may not have heard the end of Japanese regional aggression given a few more decades. Germany I think is finished with that way of doing things.

Actually what seems “highly foolish” is your assertion, which is misleading and unqualified hand-waving, so I suggest you support or expand your statement into something meaningful and debateable.

What do you consider “some conflict somewhere”? Depending on your absent definition, one might conclude that the US is perpetually in conflict or at war, or that it rarely faces such difficulties. Either way, the supposition of a past pattern of behaviour is not sufficient to infer the future immediacy of a war against North Korea, Syria, Iran, etc., particularly considering that the last attempt has so far gone quite poorly in terms of political capital.

Actually I do think I know about the North Korea option: it’s not likely to happen. I can see no feasible US military solution to subdue the world’s most heavily militarized state and paranoid psychopath, and neighbouring regions will take a very dim view of any action they have not approved. At any rate, Dear Leader seems to be getting some of the guarantees he wants, so soon we may stop worrying about him, and go back to ignoring the vast majority of the 22.5 million inhabitants who live under Kim Jong-il in conditions that are simply horrible.

There are also other factors to consider for a war, particularly a unilateral one. An important question is, “can the US afford it?” Also: “which administration are we talking about, the present one or another one elected next year?” Not to mention “can the people be fooled again in supporting a war if it’s based on piss-poor grounds?” Or, “should we actually do something about terrorism directly this time around?”

Invading Iraq had little to do with the struggle against terrorism – it seems a strange choice to attack one of the leading enemies of al-Qaida in the region while fuelling anti-US PR campaigns and extremist recruitment drives. It seems counterproductive to neglect a hotbed of lawless extremism like Afghanistan considering that Taleban influences still present significant risk, that bin Laden was never caught and is probably plotting something, that US resentment across region runs very high, etc.

You were alluding to “intelligent speculation” earlier; barring any terrorist tragedies like 9/11, my rather uninformed guess is there won’t be a US led attack for at least one year, while the waters calm and the Iraq morass is sorted out. If there is an attack coming it will probably be initiated after Dubya’s re-election – unless Dubya gambles madly on starting a war to rally voter support should his position look shaky (but with his resources the election campaign shouldn’t be hard). If Dubya doesn’t make it next year, I doubt a new president would want to wade into armed conflict at the beginning of term, especially with the possibility of Afghanistan and Iraq weighing him down and the economy to think about. There’s so many variables that it’s difficult to speculate intelligently.