How Many Countries Will The US Attack Before China or Russia Steps In?

Ok, so now it's on to Iran or Syria. Maybe North Korea next? So at what point does China or Russia say "enough, we cannot allow this to continue" and step in and seriously threaten or attack the US or its interests? For surely they must be thinking they could be next, once Bush has run out of countries to attack. I mean really. Why stop at those smaller countries?

I'll bet you the upcoming joint military exercises between China and Russia are a precursor to something larger. They sense it. If this administration continues unchecked, there is no telling who they might attack next. In WWII, the US watched as Germany invaded country after country, but there was a point where we said enough, and got involved. Now what makes you think that the other two superpowers will not do the same? I think they will. The question is, when.

www.cnn.com...

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia..."

[edit on 17-1-2005 by TrueAmerican]

I think your analogies are not unreasonable, but why do you cast Russia or China in the role of US watchdogs?

If the world's current military superpower were (hypothetically of course) brought under the control of a criminal cartel with an agenda to invade and control sovereign countries for the cartel's own purposes, then I think you would see Allied Forces rise against this plan when negotiations failed.

Bush labels an "Axis Of Evil" along with his misguided and divisive "You're either with us or against us" statements to the world about dealing with terrorism. By that analysis the world is predominantly against Bush.

So it may not be powers like China or Russia acting in isolation to in some way protect their interests. It would be more than likely an alliance of a scale not seen before that pushes the invading empirical force back into the land from which it emanated, with a program to restructure that country into a decent global citizen once more. Hypothetically speaking once more, of course.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I think your analogies are not unreasonable, but why do you cast Russia or China in the role of US watchdogs?

Well MA, who else has the capacity to stop us? No one, is the answer to that. Just as if China or Russia were to start attacking and/or invading country after country, the US would at some point step in. Now granted, the reasons are different compared to Hitler's in WWII. But still, the US can only be allowed to get so strong, before the global balance of power is completely out of whack, and becomes irretrievable. I think China and Russia both sense this, and MUST form an alliance to counter the ever increasing US strength.

10 countries in the Middle East. Hmm, ok. So let's fast forward 10 years. The US now controls a huge portion of the middle east, and consequently, most of the oil. Do you really think China and Russia will just idly sit by and watch this happen? How could they afford to? I don't think they will, for they surely see the potential damage of that to their national energy interests alone, not to mention the other potential consequences of a US-controlled Middle East.

I think they said "enough" sometime between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Russia, China, and India have been increasing their cooperation for some time. They are also reaching with support to Iran, Brazil and Venezuela. But it is all defensive along with covert support for the Iraqi insurgents. That is the correct strategy. The US is getting weaker as it pushes further militarily. I don't see them ever looking for a direct confrontation with the US when they can buy time and bleed away US strength.

Iran, breaking it's UN-watched treaty, is developing nukes. let me say it again in case you're too dim. THEY ARE DEVELOPING NUKES. do you actually think it's ok for a country like iran to have nuclear capability? the question is not who can stop us, but why aren't others taking steps to end nuclear proliferation among more countries?

Well we see reports like this from the NY Times, and it really makes me wonder, astroblade:

Chines e Firms being punished for aiding Iran missile ballistics

Maybe because they need all the help they can get against us.

Neither China or Russia has either the capability or the will to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to unless they really start threatening their own countries or puppet regimes. They wouldn't allow Syria or Iran to get them into a war with the U.S.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Neither China or Russia has either the capability or the will to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to unless they really start threatening their own countries or puppet regimes. They wouldn't allow Syria or Iran to get them into a war with the U.S.

Well, I'm glad you're so sure, dj. Interesting you didn't mention North Korea in your reply there.

Originally posted by astroblade
do you actually think it's ok for a country like iran to have nuclear capability?

I personally don't think it's ok for a country like Iran to have nuclear weapons. Or the USA, Russia, China, North Korea, Brazil, France, India, Pakistan or Sierra Leone for that matter.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Neither China or Russia has either the capability or the will to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to unless they really start threatening their own countries or puppet regimes. They wouldn't allow Syria or Iran to get them into a war with the U.S.

Well, I'm glad you're so sure, dj. Interesting you didn't mention North Korea in your reply there.

The North Korean issue is easy, the U.S. will tell China that they have to get NK under control themselves or we will. I'm sure China will take care of the problem.

Lol, MA, well yeah, high five. But now let's come back to reality. It brings us back to the age old question: Why is it ok for any country to have them while some others are not allowed? Because the 1rst world countries are more stable? And less likely to use them? Ha HA. So instead we just develop tactical nukes and depleted uranium shells. Oh no, we'd NEVER use nukes, unless we were nuked. In its essence, it is indeed not fair for any country to disallow another country from having the same weapons as any other country. And I have NEVER seen an adequate reply to THAT.

In the Middle East, China and Russia are getting exactly what they want and need from the US, and all for free. Basically, US soldiers are doing their dirty work for them. And they know the Boys will go back to the States when they are finished. What, you say? Remember that Russia and China (and India and Spain and Germany and Poland and Africa) have been fighting off Islamic invasions for over a thousand years- and are fighting against active Islamic insurgencies today. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' equals to 'let the yanks fight them for now'.

I think they would 'step in' if we started to lose- and I don't think they would be shooting at us.

I respect the thoughts and interpretations of others and in no way wish to offend anyone. These are just some thoughts to think about.
Since the American and foreign media are the largest view ports spread around the world into what is going on in countries mentioned in this thread, i believe that many are only seeing things one sided. The media tends to report primarly on deaths, mistakes and protesters. In which many tend to think that America has turned into a conquering empire and just going country to country killing and conquering people. If this was the case, wouldn't we own many countries by now? But instead what you have are world class economies like Germany, Japan which tend on their own and actually compete with us. The thought that America is going on rampage and trying to attack country after country is nothing but a fallacy. I would agree that America's administration isn't perfect and doesn't always make the best decisions, but I assure you their purpose is not to conquer the world. American public won't allow our administration to go further than what we tend to do which is get those few terrorist countries back on track. The US will withdrawl and in 10-15 years those countries will be thriving and the world will be much better off. America is in a very difficult position as a world leader. If we make decisions and take action not everyone will be pleased. If we make decisions and don't take action people would still complain that the US didn't do anything. A big problem is that we didn't spend enough time gaining world support educating people, and planning for the situation. I think we all would have seen a much more efficient and successful campain that would have been viewed much better by the world.

First, Mr Carburetor, it's a DAMN pleasure to make your acquaintance! More rational thinking like yours is needed on some of these boards.

Second, I think we can all agree the ultimate purpose is the total elimination of nuclear weaponry from all countries control. But until that day, not one more country should be allowed to develop them. To justify Iran or N. Korea's attempts to procure nuclear capability by pointing to the U.S. or other countries that already have them is a truly childish argument (well he has a cracker so I deserve one too!!!) and has no place in a discussion about the most dangerous weapon in existence.

Why would China care about how many Muslim coutries we invade? The US is it's largest trading partner. Why would Russia care? The US is working to build them up economically. The power is in the dollar and the capability to back it up.

The real threat to world peace depends on what the Israel decides to do. If they continue to get attacked by suicide bombers or if a radical Islamic country goes nuts watch out. This is far greater a threat to world peace than the US aggresiveness to terrorism.

What happens if China attacks Taiwan? Ouch....

Iran and Syria must go. China needs to cool down North Korea. Russia needs to stablize it's region.

As many as it takes until U.S. is no longer a target for all these barbarian nations.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Bush labels an "Axis Of Evil" along with his misguided and divisive "You're either with us or against us" statements to the world about dealing with terrorism. By that analysis the world is predominantly against Bush.

What makes you think everyone across the globe are totally against America? Oh, the world government. What about the people, was there a poll to include all, or part? I would say the same thing as Bush since the world government sat on their thumbs. How can it be misguided when he made this statement, we were going in. The UN council was stalling and America was fed up with the BS. Iraq Pres had enough time to come clean. Who do you support?

Be ironic if the rest of the world put trade sanctions on the US in protest!
out of curiosity, how much US product does US use? rather, How much domestic products and foods does US import?

Havent read all the post yet but id say they step in somewhere between Iran and N. Korea. That is if Iran doesnt kick our butts.

Originally posted by astroblade
Iran, breaking it's UN-watched treaty, is developing nukes. let me say it again in case you're too dim. THEY ARE DEVELOPING NUKES. do you actually think it's ok for a country like iran to have nuclear capability? the question is not who can stop us, but why aren't others taking steps to end nuclear proliferation among more countries?

Before you suggest that people may be dim for not excepting your imaginations, you may want to rely on facts.

Iran is not breaking anythin. There is NO evidence they are creating NUclear armament. NONE.