Who's next on Shrubby's hitlist?

[Enlightenment]

Now that the imperial monster is chewing on Iraq, who of the five remaining 'axis of evil' states will be the next target for Shrubby's continous revolution in world affairs?

Remeber that he's going to have to pick a pushover if he wants to ride the war patriotism boost into election day 2004.

EDIT: only referring to military operations. Diplomacy wins no votes.

[Joe]

N. Korea. However, given the fact that the U.S. will soon be reducing it's military presence in Korea, I think it will be dealt with diplomatically.

[Cal Wright]

Well, unfortunately, it won't be you. However, it's going to be a tough call if they even decide to press forward with any other hostilities. N. Korea will more than likely be diplomatic if at all. It seems the gov't is content for the time being to let S.K., Japan, and might as well toss China in there too, deal with it. Iran shouldn't even be an option though. From what I pick up, is they're hoping, given time of course, that the pressure of having a U.S. presence in the middle east and on all sides of the country, will sort of 'influence' the citizens into over throwing their own gov't. If they're getting punked and tossing out the head hanchos is in thier favor, then I'm all for it. To me it's hard to see were this is going to go from here.

[Joe]

I don't see why any of those countries other than N.K. (and even that is suspect) should even be considered. The U.S. doesn't need to attack Iran, Syria, or Libya, and would be better off just waiting for ol' Fidel to finally choke on his communist vomit.

[Enlightenment]

I don't see why any of those countries other than N.K. (and even that is suspect) should even be considered. The U.S. doesn't need to attack Iran, Syria, or Libya, and would be better off just waiting for ol' Fidel to finally choke on his communist vomit.

Don't blame me for the choices. The potential targets were taken directly from the official 'axis of evil.'

[Shinova]

All that's really left is to find Osama Bin Laden, it seems. The other countries don't really merit military action of any kind.

[Enlightenment]

Both Iran and NK have far more developed nuclear progams than Iraq had. If the Big Lie justification was good enough to knock over Iraq then functioning reactors should be more than enough justification to invade Iran and the DPRK. This is, of course, if the standards are applied evenly and the decision-makers don't engage in blatent hypocracy....

[SirNitram]

Both Iran and NK have far more developed nuclear progams than Iraq had. If the Big Lie justification was good enough to knock over Iraq then functioning reactors should be more than enough justification to invade Iran and the DPRK. This is, of course, if the standards are applied evenly and the decision-makers don't engage in blatent hypocracy....

Far too much credit. It will end with Iraq.

[Joe]

I don't see why any of those countries other than N.K. (and even that is suspect) should even be considered. The U.S. doesn't need to attack Iran, Syria, or Libya, and would be better off just waiting for ol' Fidel to finally choke on his communist vomit.

Don't blame me for the choices. The potential targets were taken directly from the official 'axis of evil.'

If there were any talk in recent months of any of these countries being attacked it would be a more reasonable assumption. But there has been none; the focus has been primarily on Iraq and on North Korea to a much lesser extent. Iraq and N. Korea are really the only places that the U.S. is pinned down. After all, wiping out al-Qaeda is the priority.

Both Iran and NK have far more developed nuclear progams than Iraq had. If the Big Lie justification was good enough to knock over Iraq then functioning reactors should be more than enough justification to invade Iran and the DPRK. This is, of course, if the standards are applied evenly and the decision-makers don't engage in blatent hypocracy...

Iran is liberalizing slowly. And we have no reason to go into Korea, guns blazing, and deal with the regime there instantly with military force. The surrounding nations, China especially, have an interest in seeing a nuclear-free peninsula, and will likely be willing to work with the U.S. to handle the problem without military action.

[Vympel]

Well, the uber-hawks behind this war want a reshaping of the Middle East. I'd say Syria, Libya, or Iran perhaps.

It may just as well end here though. The US doesn't have the troops to enforce a 'regime change' anywhere else until after this is over. And the occupation forces required will be interesting.

[Enlightenment]

Far too much credit. It will end with Iraq.

Oh, right, yeah. Iran et el didn't try to kill Shrubby's daddy. <cough>

So much for making the world a safer place.

[Enlightenment]

It may just as well end here though. The US doesn't have the troops to enforce a 'regime change' anywhere else until after this is over. And the occupation forces required will be interesting.

The Pentagon estimates it'll need "hundreds of thousands" of occupation troops to manage Iraq. This sounds a little strange given that they're planning to take the country with <200,000 troops. Naturally, troops put in place to occupy Iraq will be in a very convinent position to reach out and clobber Libya or Iran. 150,000 to occupy Iraq and a few hundred thousand more to go on another adventure? Time will tell.


Want a nightmare scenario? Israel and Iraq-based US forces invading Syria in a giant pincer attack. Bin Laden would be driving off potential recruits with a machinegun.

[Joe]

Well, the uber-hawks behind this war want a reshaping of the Middle East. I'd say Syria, Libya, or Iran perhaps.

It may just as well end here though. The US doesn't have the troops to enforce a 'regime change' anywhere else until after this is over. And the occupation forces required will be interesting.

Paul Wolfowitz, probably the most ardent hawk in the administration, says American troops will be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia - troops whose presence would be required for future intervention elsewhere in the Middle East - after Iraq is dealt with.

[SirNitram]

It may just as well end here though. The US doesn't have the troops to enforce a 'regime change' anywhere else until after this is over. And the occupation forces required will be interesting.

The Pentagon estimates it'll need "hundreds of thousands" of occupation troops to manage Iraq. This sounds a little strange given that they're planning to take the country with <200,000 troops. Naturally, troops put in place to occupy Iraq will be in a very convinent position to reach out and clobber Libya or Iran. 150,000 to occupy Iraq and a few hundred thousand more to go on another adventure? Time will tell.


Want a nightmare scenario? Israel and Iraq-based US forces invading Syria in a giant pincer attack. Bin Laden would be driving off potential recruits with a machinegun.

Enlightenment, have you considered how tough the job of those occupation soldiers will be?

[Enlightenment]

Paul Wolfowitz, probably the most ardent hawk in the administration, says American troops will be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia - troops whose presence would be required for future intervention elsewhere in the Middle East - after Iraq is dealt with.

Saudi's going to go even more fundi sooner rather than later. You people pretty much have to pull out before they throw you out by force of law or force of arms. Disengaging from Saudi is not, however, the same thing as pulling out of the Middle East. Saudi-based support facilities can--and indeed have--been moved elsewhere. Note, for instance, that Gulf War II was controlled from a bunker in Ryadh while Gulf War III is being controlled from Qatar.

I've got a hunch that US logistics and C2 bases currently hosted by Saudi Arabia will be moved into Iraq once the shooting dies down there.

[Enlightenment]

Enlightenment, have you considered how tough the job of those occupation soldiers will be?

Yes, I have. If the Iraqi population is as glad to be invaded--scuse me--liberated as the administration planners seem to assume then the occupation forces won't very busy at all.

[SirNitram]

Enlightenment, have you considered how tough the job of those occupation soldiers will be?

Yes, I have. If the Iraqi population is as glad to be invaded--scuse me--liberated as the administration planners seem to assume then the occupation forces won't very busy at all.

I find it convenient how you decry things as propaganda, then turn around and assume them as right for your crazy conspiracy theories. One might even say.. Ironic.

[Enlightenment]

I find it convenient how you decry things as propaganda, then turn around and assume them as right for your crazy conspiracy theories. One might even say.. Ironic.

Since we're talking about things that the US might be planning to do in the future it only makes sense to assess these possibilities in the context of known, pre-existing, US plans. If the US believes that the Iraqi's will be happy to be invaded then sending, say, 300,000 occupation troops does not make immediate sense and it must be asked what the US intends to do with what it believes will be a surplus of troops.

Put another way, if a madman decides to blow up an orphanage and states that he will need only one truck bomb to do it, in the event he builds two truck bombs it becomes desirable to investigate the intended use of the other bomb.

Make sense?

[SirNitram]

I find it convenient how you decry things as propaganda, then turn around and assume them as right for your crazy conspiracy theories. One might even say.. Ironic.

Since we're talking about things that the US might be planning to do in the future it only makes sense to assess these possibilities in the context of known, pre-existing, US plans. If the US believes that the Iraqi's will be happy to be invaded then sending, say, 300,000 occupation troops does not make immediate sense and it must be asked what the US intends to do with what it believes will be a surplus of troops.

Make sense?

You are making the primary blunder of assuming a government for some reason believes it's own propaganda.

[Enlightenment]

You are making the primary blunder of assuming a government for some reason believes it's own propaganda.

If one thing can be said about Shrubby's administration it is that it believes its own PR. That is what makes it dangerous.

[SirNitram]

You are making the primary blunder of assuming a government for some reason believes it's own propaganda.

If one thing can be said about Shrubby's administration it is that it believes its own PR. That is what makes it dangerous.

There is no proof anywhere of this. One can claim Shrub himself is a moron(And be quite right), but that does not equate everyone present there believing the propaganda.

[Vympel]

If one thing can be said about Shrubby's administration it is that it believes its own PR. That is what makes it dangerous.

Lol. My Dad always says: "the problem with Americans as opposed to any other government is that they believe their own bullshit"

[MKSheppard]

Want a nightmare scenario? Israel and Iraq-based US forces invading Syria in a giant pincer attack. Bin Laden would be driving off potential recruits with a machinegun.

OOO, now THAT I'd pay a dollar to see!

[Stormbringer]

Now that the imperial monster is chewing on Iraq, who of the five remaining 'axis of evil' states will be the next target for Shrubby's continous revolution in world affairs?

Remeber that he's going to have to pick a pushover if he wants to ride the war patriotism boost into election day 2004.

EDIT: only referring to military operations. Diplomacy wins no votes.

Did you ever stop to consider the fact that diplomacy failed in this stituation because Saddam had no intention of negotiating in good faith?


I think the next major situation will be North Korea. They're every bit as dangerous as Iraq. Unfortunately they're farther along so it'll probably involved negotiations and political armtwisting far more than military operations.

[Zoink]

A pre-emptive strike on NK = lots of dead SK civilians

I don't think even the Shrub would sink so low.