Which country will we attack next, and when ?

[T.Mehr]

Good points you make there, Sofa King that lead you to the conclusion:

So yes, one possible response–in fact the most likely response, I think–to another terrorist attack will be to go after the terrorists’ training bases and the country which provided them (like Afghanistan), or use the favorable opportunity to knock off one or more of the countries which sponsor terrorism–or just piss off America (like Iraq).

But after Iraq, will it be possible to just knock off another country you don’t like, without this time providing sound proof of its involvement in terrrorism? I hope not, and I don’t think that Bush will risk it in the near future.

This leaves us with the second likely response: going after the terrorists’ training bases and the country which provided them. Again you need proof. And here is the point I disagree with you: Yes, terrorists require a safe geographical haven to conduct training and indoctrination. But, no, this doesn’t necessarily mean state sponsored terrorism. Look at Pakistan or the Philipines. The governments are (to a certain extent) US-friendly, but it’s still pretty safe for terrorists, simply because they can’t controll their own country. To hit Al Quaeda once more, you’d have to clean Pakistan (an awful word acctually in this context). But then nobody has proposed to attack Pakistan so far…

[flonks]

There is another indication, that Syria and Iran will be next: the Bush administration keeps pointing out, that terrorists are infiltrating into Irak from these countries:

**Mr. Bush is also increasingly concerned about the infiltration of foreign fighters from the Iranian and Syrian borders. Measuring their numbers is nearly impossible, American officials say. But the concern is that they are a source of continuing funds, technology and strength for the pro-Hussein forces.
**

NY Times - needs registration

This might be propaganda - we will never know. Did anybody ever see proof for these “infiltrations”?

[blinx]

The next country that needs to be liberated is ofcouse the Vatican.

They clearly have weapons of mass destruction: The wralth of an angry God
Cruelty to it’s people: The threat of torture, for anyone who do not agree with their ideas, and torture for all eternity, no less.

I realise there is a lack of oil but perhaps that can be worked around with the prospect of acquirering other goods, I’m sure they have lots of values.

[Spoke]

Supposedly, one of the car bombers yesterday had a Syrian passport.

Supposedly.

I think the administration is working very hard to build cases against Syria and Iran, all the while ignoring the festering wound that is Saudi Arabia. (You remember Saudi Arabia-- where the 9/11 terrorists were from?)

And when we invade Syria, I have a feeling terrorists will be coming into Syria from Lebanon.

But never from Saudi Arabia. No, never from there.

[Rashak_Mani]

… then you invade Lebanon and you will have Palestinians coming into Lebanon… somehow this never ending cycle just feeds itself in hatred and blood.

If Bush does invade another country without concrete proof I surely hope americans will wake up.

[Mehitabel]

Uh, guys, one thing about Saudi Arabia is that, although it’s still hard to tell in some cases, the government there is NOT actively supporting or sheltering the terrorists. Al Qaeda is led by a Yemeni-born Saudi who was stripped of his citizenship and disowned by most of his family years ago, and one of its goals is the destruction of the current Saudi government. There’s been several strikes there and Saudis are being killed by terrorists too.

No, I’m not wholly dismissing the more cynical theories and I agree that there’s far more to be investigated about financial ties, etc., but Saudi gummint /= Syrian gummint as far as terrorism goes. I have no love for either one, but the Saudis at least seem to be making efforts to thwart their terrorists.

[RickJay]

In all seriousness, I think the odds are definitely on Venezuela. However, a huge escalation in the Philippines is also a possibility.

[Rashak_Mani]

*Originally posted by RickJay *
**In all seriousness, I think the odds are definitely on Venezuela. However, a huge escalation in the Philippines is also a possibility. **

Why ? Is it getting bad overthere ? I would think conflicts were worse elsewhere… especially since the Philipines being an ex-colony means they get more US attention and resources for fighting terrorism.

[Rashak_Mani]

Mission Accomplished Sign

Seems that the Neo-Con rabble are backpeddaling again ? So how can you invade anything if you don’t know when a mission is accomplished ?

[Mehitabel]

Actually, that was a sign for the guys and gals aboard the Lincoln, who had indeed accomplished their mission and were steaming home to San Diego. I know there’s some confusion and even a Pit thread about this, but I understood it right away when I saw it.