Who's Next ?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by atawa
although the US invaded a democratic country before (granada

Congratulations atawa! You just won this year's award for "Most stunningly bizarre definition of "democracy"!"

This gives you automatic shortlisting for "Apolyton Clueless Numbnuts of the year".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Have you gone insane? The second that Japan has a remote possibility of building nuclear weapons, every other country in that region will lay down their differences to put a swift end to this. Even Russia may join in.

How absurd; no one can prevent Japan from getting nukes if they really want them. China better lean on North Korea real quick, unless they want a nuclear rival in East Asia...

China has nuclear missiles, Russia has nuclear missiles.

'nuff said.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm waiting for your comment on NK, UR.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
UR, the North Koreans appear to be refusing to speak on serious terms with anyone except the United States -- what do you propose?

I don't understand why the Bush administration has been refusing to speak with DPRK so far. It completely puzzles me.

[The Mad Monk]

What business is it of the United States? So they have thirty thousand troops there. The US has seventy thousand troops in Germany, do you see them discussing German-Polish relations with the Poles? North Korea needs to talk to South Korea, and they need to talk with Japan. Not us.

For our part, I think the Bush administration is waiting until they can give NK their full attention, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

[Proteus_MST]

Re: Who's Next ?

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Not anything to do with Classic Rock; rather a continuing effort to get people to look ahead.

Who next gets the attention of the "sleeping giants", now that they've been awakened ?
BTW, don't be shocked, again.
"Terrorism, wherever it's found". Old news.


Phillipines, it says here.

Countries who don´t manage to get Nuclear weapons in time. So it won´t be NK and probably also not Iran (assuming that the US-Troops will pause a wile after Iraq, on the one hand, because war is expensive, on the other hand to restock their magazines, and so give Iran enough time to get Nuclear weapons).
It also won´t be Pakistan, because they on the one hand have the bomb and on the other hand are allied (although large parts of the population rather support Al Quaeda and the Taliban than the US).
So it´s difficult.
But anyone remembers Libya with President Muhammar al Gaddafi?
He´s been quiet for a long time, but he wanted to build a large Plant for the Production of chemical weapons (and probably has built it) and I think links to terrorist organizations will probably also be found.
So he´s an ideal target for the next war (and he doesn´t have nuclear weapons )

[Guest]

No, It'll be Saudi Arabia next - the source of 9/11.

US just needs a new base in Arabia and Saddam was stupid enough to give them an excuse.

Also, US would know that the Saudi people really hate their leaders, so another Regime Lobotomy could be on the cards.

[The Mad Monk]

With regard to the 'decapitation strike' that kicked this whole thing off -- whether you think it killed Saddam, wounded him, or just shook him up a bit, I think it has made a lasting impression. What effect do you think this reach-out-and-touch-someone ability may have on future diplomacy with personality-cult style authoritarian regimes?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
With regard to the 'decapitation strike' that kicked this whole thing off -- whether you think it killed Saddam, wounded him, or just shook him up a bit, I think it has made a lasting impression. What effect do you think this reach-out-and-touch-someone ability may have on future diplomacy with personality-cult style authoritarian regimes?

Very little. Saddam is undoubtedly in a normal residential house somewhere in the suburbs of Baghdad, moving to a different house every night. Just like he did last time.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Lancer


Iran would be tough I believe. Need alot more divisions for that. Huge expansion of the army. That takes time and political will. I'm impressed to no end at American political will for the fight in Iraq. Would that will waver? I don't know, I wouldn't have guessed this culture could do what it's doing. Who knows what it is capable of?

There's no need for a military option with Iran, they already have a healthy reform movement happening. It will take some time, but eventually they'll be a democratic nation. You'll just be making things worse if you start getting belligerent with them, and turn people from within the reform movement against you, along with the hardliners.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
What business is it of the United States? So they have thirty thousand troops there. The US has seventy thousand troops in Germany, do you see them discussing German-Polish relations with the Poles?

Ahem. Those are rather different situations with no parallels. At any rate, if the US has no business with DPRK, why did GWB called it part of this "Axis of Evil?" Besides, why did GWB screw around with the "Sunshine Policy?"

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
North Korea needs to talk to South Korea, and they need to talk with Japan. Not us.

Not so. The US has a tendency to meddle in things and there are people who need to know how it stand on certain issues.

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
For our part, I think the Bush administration is waiting until they can give NK their full attention, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

Military action is a non-option as I pointed out above. No bombing raids and/or special ops, no full scale attacks.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I don't understand why the Bush administration has been refusing to speak with DPRK so far. It completely puzzles me.

Probably because they realize that N. Korea is just having a temper tantrum and trying to get attention. If a child does that, you leave it alone in a room for awhile until it calms down. Their regime is on it's last legs, and they're just hoping at this point they can delay the inevitable. The best thing to do is just let S. Korea handle it, the North will eventually come around. They have to.

[chequita guevara]

We're already in the Philippines. We've been there since shortly after Afganistan. Though, officially at first we weren't supposed to be involved in combat, we have been. Since a month or so ago, we've officially been involved in combat against Abu-Sayeff, the Moro Islamic Front, and may go after the Huks in the north as well.

I don't know if who we're going to invade next, but if the Bushies don't deal with the crisis on the Korean Peninsula things are going to go seriously downhill.

If I had to make a wild guess at the next target for massive military intervention, I'd have to say Columbia. Things have been escelating there recently.

[Willem]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We're already in the Philippines. We've been there since shortly after Afganistan. Though, officially at first we weren't supposed to be involved in combat, we have been. Since a month or so ago, we've officially been involved in combat against Abu-Sayeff, the Moro Islamic Front, and may go after the Huks in the north as well.

But thats not overthrowing a government, it doesn't count. These warmongers won't be happy unless they get to topple someone. They just want to view international cooperation as a nuisance.

[chequita guevara]

Syria would be easiest, then, since we'll have the troops right there and it's a weak country that supports terrorism against Americans.