Where is Bush's Next Target?

Korea or Iran are definately not on the menu due to the fact that even Bush isn't stupid enough to invade a country with nuclear (or at least budding nuclear) capabilities.

Question implies that America will be invading another country while it's under the Bush administration and this is something I highly doubt. There is no reason to invade another country and if there even was a reason it would have to be direct hostile action against America or one of America's allies or a UN approved "invasion" (probably called 'Military Intervention') of a country - otherwise congress (or whoever America has to keep tabs on the president) would simply not allow his invasion to go ahead.

 

I do NOT see the residents of the US of A being supportive of another invasion unless that country attacks us or an ally as Abomination has said. Surely Bush, Jr isn't that stupid. Right guys?

 

@Nakia: Really?? Can you be so sure that he isn't that stupid?? Because I thought that he wouldn't be stupid enough to attack Iraq when there was obviously no valid reason to do so but...

Anyway, dmc...you just need to evaluate which is the weakest (militarily speaking) country in the world which has some natural resources and wealth that the USA can rape...er...I mean utilise, and voila! You've got our target...

 

I don't understand the whole 'resources for America' argument. As far as I know America did not pillage and plunder Iraq or Afghanistan so where is the basis for this argument?

Wait, didn't Pvt. Johanson of the 103rd steal an old ladies purse? Oh, well that obviously condemns the entire US Invasion Force of pillage and plunder, and since it was an old LADY there was probably rape involved too.

 

Nakia, who cares if we support it or not, he's our king, he can do whatever the hell he wants. Divine Authority and such

Somehow he reminds me of British 15th/16th century leaders...


Thats beside the point though. I agree that he would not invade any place with nukes unless they threatened us. But I think that if anyone threatens us at all, he will use it as an excuse to flex our 'world authority.'

 

Well I remember reading from somewhere that some patriot missile systems have been deployed to Iraq so I expect the US together with Israel might be planning to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. So Iran would be the first possible target, however I do not think that the US will Invade Iran, just bomb the suspected nuclear facilities. It would seriously damage the mission in Iraq though and therefore seems a bit unlikely until some sort of balance in Iraq is achieved. An attack to Syria would seem somewhat strange when Iran is clearly posing a more serious threat to US and its allies.

 

I hope so, but you can never be sure when the subject is Bush's intelligence.

Yes, they can do that and they will eventually succeed. However, if they try to enter Iran with land troops (which is essential to invade a country) they have to kill half of Iran. Moreover; Iranians have the advantage because Iran's geography is horrible, deserts and mountains everywhere. And I think they are very good at guerilla warfare. One more thing, unlike Iraq, they won't be able to find traitors inside Iran. So, they can only bomb Iran, they can't invade it without nukes. Iran is 1000 times tougher than Vietnam.

It is harder than anything US did after WW2.

 

Iran...isolated, and somewhat deniable incursions have been made into Iraq by Iranian military troops, and they have even engaged US troops. It is all being downplayed now as they are small enough that the Iranians would claim that they are individuals and small groups of soldiers who are acting without authorization...but it is only a matter of time before they get a little too bold and engage us in a larger fashion, or we will stage something ala "Wag the Dog" (as those with minds that like conspiracy theories will claim regardless of the truth) and Bush will us it as an excuse to enter Iran, then the balloon will go up.

 

With the massive debt Iraq has left the American government in, I doubt they'll have the resources or public support to got to war in the next couple of decades.

 

I think public support doesn't matter for Bush.

 

Hang on, that sounds like a Civilization IV tactic!

 

@Morgoroth
"Iran is clearly posing a more serious threat to US and its allies."
Says who? Like those mass destruction weapons of Saddam?
Any country with the "cappability" of construct a nuke is already a "threat"?
Take out your maps, boys ´cos there´s a lot countrys like this out there!
@Saber
he will use it as an excuse to flex our 'world authority.'
It´s good to agreed with you!!

 

I seriously doubt that Iran actually wants a war with the United States. All rethoric aside I'd assume them to be intelligent enough to realize that in a head-on war with the United States they will loose.

Both the United States and EU are worried about the nuclear programme. Iran with nukes would greatly shift the balance of power in middle east and give Iran much more capability to deal serious mischief in the area, not to mention that it with North Korea is telling all the dictators in the third world countries that building a nuclear capability and getting away with it is not that difficult. I for one do not want a nuclear arms race in the third world and every dictator to have their own little stockpile of nuclear weapons, terrorists will get their hands on them too eventually. With North Korea setting an example was difficult for many reasons but the international community can not sit idly and let Iran get nuclear weapons, that would be big mistake with fatal longterm consequences.

 

Interestingly enough the whole world can agree on what countries are 'bad' we just can't agree on how to spank them.

 

This is carried over from the thread "Regional Conflicts:"

Thank you, LNT - I think you answered my question. And since I agree with you, that may be what Bush is planning. He has ordered another carrier group to the Persian Gulf this week, and listening to Hadley on MtP this morning made me even more sure that this is where we are headed. The transcript is not online yet, but Hadley mentioned several times that Iran is supplying and aiding the "militias and terrorists" in Iraq. I may be mistaken but it sounds very much like the rhetoric that was used before Nixon invaded Cambodia during the Vietnam years.

For those of you who think that America would have a tough time with Iran: consider that Iraq and Iran fought for years and hundreds of thousands of Iranians perished in the war, and neither side gained an advantage. It took Amercia about 3 weeks to defeat Iraq in a head-to-head war, and accomplish what Iran could not do over several years. America nor Israel have any need to occupy Iran. It will be a quick strike (with lots of war planes and cruise missiles) to warn Iran not to mess with Israel, which is the real Iranian desire anyway.

[ January 15, 2007, 02:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Please. Bush already has more than he can handle with Iraq. He's not picking out any other targets, and he's got to know that the public (and our new democrat majority Congress) would never support such a move.

 

What?

Most of Iraq said welcome and they clapped the collapsing of Saddam's statue. Did you call it a head-to-head war? They can't find a single Iranian to clap them.

That wasn't Iranians' home. Defending your homeland is very different.

US can kill millions of Iranians but I think they won't give up. Iranians are not less stubborn than Japanese when it comes to defending their homeland. If a country could survive the past 3000 years nearly without any interruption, it means its people know how to defend the homeland.

 

A lot of my friends who have served in the war and were fired at during the invasion of Iraq, would probably disagree with you.

What? I'm not sure if you are familiar with this war, since it was Iraq that actually invaded Iranian territory:

Here's more on what happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

You said:

They say:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16603072/from/RS.4/

[ January 15, 2007, 04:18: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Didn't Saddam refuse to allow the UN to check for nuclear weapons and the like about 17(+) times in a row. Without intervention that number would be in the thirties now and messages would be going out to all the extremeist dictators saying...

HAVE FUN!!!