Targeted for Termination: who's next in the War on Terror?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-07 02:10pm

So who's next? Which of the 3 countries is next in line to get a forced injection of freedom and liberty from Bush? Thank GOD Bush is "guided" by God to deliver us from EEEEVIIIIILLLL, those motherfuckers who only want to destroy everything we stand for, because foreign policy ever since WW2 has got nothing to do with it!!

GEORGE W. BUSH PRAAAAAISE THE LOOOOORD!!!!!

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 02:15pm

None of them. The USA does not have the military means to do it by force. All their forces are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq. They may be able to affect "regime change" by fostering internal rebellion, but the use of force is impossible.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-07 02:15pm

Bush hasn't got the balls to invade a nation that can competently fight back. Look at what a mess we've made of Iraq post-hostilities ending. You think we'd even get that far with the other nations? Pish posh.

Besides, you win the War on Terror (if even the thing was winnable in the first place) by intelligence, not war machines and troops on the ground.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 02:16pm

America gets a dose of the same first, and then Bush goes even more insane and does all of those three at once...

And you forgot to list Cuba.

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2004-11-07 02:21pm

I don't think it will happen because of what Cpl Kendall mentioned above. But I think in happy Bushworld, we invade Iran next because we've got troops stationed in a position to make such a move. Sure it'd be the epitomy of idiocy to launch an invasion from such an unstable support base, but I think Bush believes we can pull it off. That's why I voted Iran.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-11-07 02:27pm

We won't pick a fight with an enemy who could actually fight a real war against us: Syria. Plus that effects his whole "suck Israeli cock" goal.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-07 02:32pm

Sokartawi wrote:America gets a dose of the same first, and then Bush goes even more insane and does all of those three at once...

And you forgot to list Cuba.

Cuba's not a terrorist nation. Syria or Iran will be next on the US hit list, as soon as Iraq is secure.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-11-07 02:38pm

Germany. They'll never see it coming.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-11-07 02:38pm

Airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-07 02:43pm

RedImperator wrote:Germany. They'll never see it coming.

Yeesss! Strike them now, while they're weak from pondering over their penis measurements.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-11-07 02:44pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:America gets a dose of the same first, and then Bush goes even more insane and does all of those three at once...

And you forgot to list Cuba.
Cuba's not a terrorist nation. Syria or Iran will be next on the US hit list, as soon as Iraq is secure.

Normally, I would agree with you. But then we have to take into account Bush's urges to Flordia GOP members the night before the Election:

"We will not rest — we will not rest, we will keep the pressure on until the Cuban people enjoy the same freedoms in Havana they receive here in America," Bush said to cries of "Viva Bush!"

Then, in a direct reference to Castro, Bush said, "I strongly believe the people of Cuba should be free from the tyrant."

While I highly doubt that Bush will actually keep such a promise, when one takes into account his actions over the last four years, I just don't know...

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2004-11-07 02:49pm

Syria as '06 surprise.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-07 02:49pm

JME2 wrote:While I highly doubt that Bush will actually keep such a promise, when one takes into account his actions over the last four years, I just don't know...

No. Like other people have said, Bush can't invade jack shit anymore; he doesn't have the resources.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-07 02:53pm

I doubt any of them.

N-Korea is not that high a priority, it is to geographicaly confined and economicaly crippled to cause much trouble. Even with nukes little Kim's options are limited and the moment he uses a nuke his regime is doomed.

Iran is to big with a nasty Afghan style terrain. The Iranians despise their Ayatollahs and an invasion would only risk rallying the nation against the US. The Iranin nukes are a problem but the US can let the Israeli deal with that problem like they dealt with the simillar Iraqi nukes.

Syria is now completly surrounded by hostiles and I seriously doubt the Syrians are insane enough to give their enemies a reason to strike, not with the example of their fellow Baathists right on their doorstep.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 02:56pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Cuba's not a terrorist nation.

When Bush wants to hear it, suddendly overwhelming evidence will turn up showing that Cuba's been supporting Al Qaida for years now and Castro is spontaneously manufactoring WMD as well to sell them to terrorist organisations.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-07 03:01pm

Isn't Cuba a terrorist state according to the US Government?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-11-07 03:04pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
JME2 wrote:While I highly doubt that Bush will actually keep such a promise, when one takes into account his actions over the last four years, I just don't know...
No. Like other people have said, Bush can't invade jack shit anymore; he doesn't have the resources.

Wrong, he still has resources, just not the invading kind, the go the fuck in and bomb everything resources are still aviable and have had a few month rest

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-07 03:04pm

Mr Bean wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
JME2 wrote:While I highly doubt that Bush will actually keep such a promise, when one takes into account his actions over the last four years, I just don't know...
No. Like other people have said, Bush can't invade jack shit anymore; he doesn't have the resources.
Wrong, he still has resources, just not the invading kind, the go the fuck in and bomb everything resources are still aviable and have had a few month rest

Yeah right like bombing a couple of asprin factories will achieve anything.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-11-07 03:07pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: No. Like other people have said, Bush can't invade jack shit anymore; he doesn't have the resources.
Wrong, he still has resources, just not the invading kind, the go the fuck in and bomb everything resources are still aviable and have had a few month rest
Yeah right like bombing a couple of asprin factories will achieve anything.

It will if the "asprin" factorys in question are the parlment buildings of country and/or their nuclear facilites(see Isreal)

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-11-07 03:07pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: No. Like other people have said, Bush can't invade jack shit anymore; he doesn't have the resources.
Wrong, he still has resources, just not the invading kind, the go the fuck in and bomb everything resources are still aviable and have had a few month rest
Yeah right like bombing a couple of asprin factories will achieve anything.

"Asprin helps terrorists clear their heads and find more inventive and dangerous ways of terroizing free countries."

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-07 03:14pm

Mr Bean wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Mr Bean wrote: Wrong, he still has resources, just not the invading kind, the go the fuck in and bomb everything resources are still aviable and have had a few month rest
Yeah right like bombing a couple of asprin factories will achieve anything.
It will if the "asprin" factorys in question are the parlment buildings of country and/or their nuclear facilites(see Isreal)

How is "bombing" anything remotely compariable to the word "invading"?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-07 03:30pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:We won't pick a fight with an enemy who could actually fight a real war against us: Syria.

Syria is worthless. They've never shown any competence in anything
unless they're being led around by Soviet "Advisors".

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-11-07 11:18pm

None. We don't have enough troops and North Korea is the only country of the three for which we have a pretext as good as Iraq's noncompliance with the peace treaty. And with N. Korea, Seoul will be leveled, unless maybe those bunker busting nukes are developed first. Unless maybe we invaded through Russia... but thats silly.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-11-07 11:30pm

Symmetry wrote:None. We don't have enough troops and North Korea is the only country of the three for which we have a pretext as good as Iraq's noncompliance with the peace treaty. And with N. Korea, Seoul will be leveled, unless maybe those bunker busting nukes are developed first. Unless maybe we invaded through Russia... but thats silly.

N. Korea only has a border with China and S. Korea. We can't really do anything about N. Korea until we figure out a way to prevent a terminal case of steel rain on Seoul. We don't know exactly where the guns are, so we can't take them out beforehand.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-07 11:44pm

Don't they have a km or two of Russian border at the extreme northern tip?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Targeted for Termination: who's next in the War on Terror?

Pick one

Targeted for Termination: who's next in the War on Terror?