Opinions about N. Korea, Lybia, Syria, Iran

What do you think? Do they 'deserve' to be invaded?
imho it's part of Bush's plan to create a US-puppet government in the middle East, which will effectively give him a choke hold on the rest of the world..
And N. Korea, i'm not quite sure about...

imho it's part of Bush's plan to create a US-puppet government in the middle East, which will effectively give him a choke hold on the rest of the world..

Hasn't this already been achieved with the demise of Afghanistan and Iraq?

N.Korea.....has major internal issues needing resolved and waving the "I have a nuke and not afraid to use it" flag is not gpin to help matters one bit!

Syria has been "controversially" been reported to have chemical and biological weapons. This results in a 'delicate' situation. Israel can handle this, if necessary.

Libya......I'm not sweating nor is the US government at this time.....Kaddaffi (sp) has a pretty good memory for things that go "BOOM."

Iran.....another 'delicate' subject. Also having internal issue's. A democracy type government may well be in it's future. The issue of Iran is currently being waged in in the UN confines.

regards
seekerof

Also........found this in one of my files in 'favorites':

Link:
www.sundayherald.com...
(Link may or may not work..didn't check it)

Article:
"Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President"
By Neil Mackay
The Sunday Herald - UK
9-15-2002

"A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and
his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime
change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a
'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president),
Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy),
George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of
staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies,
Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by
the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century
(PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United
States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf
regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence
in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US
pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and
interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future
as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and
decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core
mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the
new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document
written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a
larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:
* refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient
means of exercising American global leadership';

* describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

* reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

* says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf
regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large
a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

* spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the
presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to
'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of
democratisation in China';

* calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the
total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against
the US;

* hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons
of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons --
which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of
attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely
available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space,
cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of
biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

* and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and
says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide
command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the
leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from
right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never
seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like
Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their
making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to
control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister
should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing."


regards
seekerof

Blimey!
IMHO it isnt fair that the US and Russia are the only REAL countries with nuclear deterrants...
not saying that everyone should have one so that they can go around and at the slightest whim cause a nuclear war, but the elite club of seven (?) nations that do have nuclear weapons is just ridiculous.
Anyway, what happened in Lybia? just out of interest...
Amusing, about the US Space Force, Russia and America signed a treaty a couple decades back saying that Space will not be used for military purposes.. not that it isnt already, and not that Bush is known for keeping his treaties...

Anyway, I think for a TRUE puppet middle East, literally the whole place, from Egypt's borders to Pakistan's borders will be needed under 'control' spanning up to perhaps Chechnya (spelling)...
Anyone got any decent info on Afghanistan current, to do with the law (or lack of), and implementing of government?

Browha: Here's a good article on Afghanistan:

www.counterpunch.org...

"Of the 87 billion dollars that President Bush just requested from Congress, only 800 million is allocated to Afghan reconstruction. This, even with the yet unfulfilled summer pledge of one billion dollars, is nothing compared to the need, the amount spent to bomb it, and the amount currently being spent in Iraq.

In an eerie repeat of the late 1980s / early 1990s, when the first Gulf War followed on the heels of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and marked the West's shift of attention from Afghanistan to Iraq and elsewhere, our attention has again largely swung from Afghanistan to Iraq, Iran, North Korea & Liberia. Like impatient TV viewers, we are a nation channel surfing through foreign policy, not pausing to see one program to its end before we start another. ...

Everything I saw mirrors the Human Right Watch report: crime is on the rise and criminal warlords are terrorizing people countrywide; voices in favor of freedom, democracy and human rights, such as RAWA and nascent democratic political parties, are being kept underground through threats, arrest, and violence; harassment, intimidation, kidnapping, and rape make many girls and women fearful to leave their homes, thus rendering them unable to take advantage of the ostensible freedom to attend work or school; governmental office workers and teachers haven't been paid for months; rebuilding is first and foremost benefiting warlords, elites, foreign firms and NGOs; the newly drafted constitution has yet to be released to the public thus making the promised public comment period a fraud; and armed factional fighting between warlords continues to undermine security as well as any hope for free and fair elections. The handover of ISAF command to NATO will change little if, despite the repeated requests of Afghans themselves, US resistance continues to keep the 5000 person force insufficiently small and limited to Kabul alone. "

Even better news, they're talking with the Taliban now! Sounds like capitulation to me.

www.atimes.com...

As for N Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran, no effin way. The US is NOT getting out of Iraq, they have troops spread all over the Middle East, and are vulnerable.

North Korea would kick American ass (hey who won the Korean War anyway?). Libya, Syria and Iran would totally roll over and then once the occupiers were entrenched, they'd start using guerrilla tactics to kill the occupiers.

Sound familiar?


jakomo

.

(nod) I see your argument
the $800mil bit is very surprising imho
Would it be fair to say that these wars are diversions from problems at 'home'?

Quote by Jakomo.......
"North Korea would kick American butt (hey who won the Korean War anyway?). Libya, Syria and Iran would totally roll over and then once the occupiers were entrenched, they'd start using guerrilla tactics to kill the occupiers.

Sound familiar?"

Obviously your own speculative opinion Jakomo....I see nothing to back up your opinion on N. Korea! You have commented this on many a topics and have yet, even when asked, to supply anything crediable to 'prove' your opinion correct, again, in respect to N. Korea.

Sound familar? Yes....it sure does.

regards
seekerof

North Korea: Led by a nutcase, but a dangerous nutcase, and one who's friendly with the only nation that could compete militarily with the US...add to that, he can have nukes.

Libya: Led by a retired nutcase. After losing a few close family members to US missile attacks, seems he's lost his stomach for terrorism...and doesn't want the US to have a reason to go there.

Syria: A true threat and menace. The site of numerous terrorist training camps and supporters, wanted terrorists. This would be a prime target to actually do something, but it's proximity to Isreal is a dangerous one...and would certainly be a spark to lead to the whole region erupting in warfare.

Iran: Iran has started on the path of playing ball, but is torn between two factions...much like pre-war (and one could argue post-war) Iraq. Unlike Iraq, there can be a political solution here, but it will take time, and any future invasions of other arab nations by the US, would effectively nullify the chance of a diplomatic solution.

Good question, frankly it doesn't matter what is right or wrong to do in this case.

These nutbar regimes have annoyed not only the US but other first world countries for so long that if someone went over to kick their doors down who would care.

Oh, I forgot, the French would start crying. But who cares they always cry for little or no reason.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Iran.....another 'delicate' subject. Also having internal issue's. A democracy type government may well be in it's future. The issue of Iran is currently being waged in in the UN confines.

regards
seekerof

They have allready in Iran a democratic 'type of gov.'

Iran is Islamic democrazy.

And almost 100% of Iranians are moslems of sort or another.. so.. democratic islamic goverment really isnt a problem to anybody else than US gov. (and Iranian 'mafia' and criminals.. who have to fear for their lives for every second..)

US gov. is just trying to clean up any remainders of past # ups of its own..

Like NK, Afganistan, Iraq and Iran.. (With NK US lost a war, with Afganistan US gave weapons to terrorists to fight soviets (and these same 'freedom fighters' now target US with the same weapons.. isnt it ironic?), In Iraq older Bush didnt topple Saddam when he had the chance and with Iran the problem is that 'hostage' episode (US troops left bodies of their dead comrades at 'desrt one') and the illegel arms sales to Iran during Gulf 1.

*hangs head in shame*....
Yeah Uni/Fulcrum and Jakomo, I tell ya,
Like "NK, Afganistan, Iraq and Iran.. (With NK US lost a war, with Afganistan US gave weapons to terrorists to fight soviets (and these same 'freedom fighters' now target US with the same weapons.. isnt it ironic?)" the US couldn't beat itself out a wet paper bag...sad, very sad....."ironic" indeed.....
We just keep getting "whooped" everywhere and by everyone...anyplace and anyhow...Hell, we would probably get "whooped" by little ole' Finland too....bad....very bad....

The US has nothing when compared to France.....just sad.....
*shambles off to a corner*



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 24-9-2003 by Seekerof]

To be fair, I wouldnt be TOO surprised if Lybia/Syria/Iran/N. Korea launched a first strike attack against US bases in their immediately surrounding areas, such as in Iraq, S. Korea, etc...
this way at least they percieve that they are being given a chance to cause damage before being attacked...
The element of surprise is very formidible, and I'm sure if they tried, US interests in Iraq could be severely diminished resulting in a general public of America demanding full withdrawal (assuming enough casualties are inflicted... See Vietnam), and S. Korea could most likely be easily invaded with the divisions in the UN at the moment..
As we have seen in the past, anyone with nuclear deterrants can influence US actions (Like Cuba, american missiles in turkey were withdrawn), so N. Korea could probably pull an 'under the table' deal which gave them S Korea on the promise of a non-nuclear weapons development theme or something...

If the US continue to openly invade countries whether or not the UN allows them, it will undoubtably screw up the UN royally and probably lead to their disbanding... or just becoming a puppet/useless body ( like the DUMA in russian pre-bolshevik-times).

The UN should take action against America and should do it decisively (No sanctions crud, perhaps forcing US military bases in Iraq to close down, or banning exports/imports to USA to a much larger degree than sanctions)...

This would show the US why there is nothing bigger than the planet.

However, the main flaw would be that the US is the biggest financial supplier to the UN......

Thoughts?

To be fair, I wouldnt be TOO surprised if Lybia/Syria/Iran/N. Korea launched a first strike attack against US bases in their immediately surrounding areas, such as in Iraq, S. Korea, etc...
this way at least they percieve that they are being given a chance to cause damage before being attacked...
The element of surprise is very formidible, and I'm sure if they tried, US interests in Iraq could be severely diminished resulting in a general public of America demanding full withdrawal (assuming enough casualties are inflicted... See Vietnam), and S. Korea could most likely be easily invaded with the divisions in the UN at the moment..
As we have seen in the past, anyone with nuclear deterrants can influence US actions (Like Cuba, american missiles in turkey were withdrawn), so N. Korea could probably pull an 'under the table' deal which gave them S Korea on the promise of a non-nuclear weapons development theme or something...

If the US continue to openly invade countries whether or not the UN allows them, it will undoubtably screw up the UN royally and probably lead to their disbanding... or just becoming a puppet/useless body ( like the DUMA in russian pre-bolshevik-times).

The UN should take action against America and should do it decisively (No sanctions crud, perhaps forcing US military bases in Iraq to close down, or banning exports/imports to USA to a much larger degree than sanctions)...

This would show the US why there is nothing bigger than the planet.

However, the main flaw would be that the US is the biggest financial supplier to the UN......

Thoughts?

Seeker: Yes, North Korea WOULD kick the US army's sorry butt.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Check it out yourself.

How many troops does the US now have AVAILABLE (discounting all those in Afghanistan and Iraq). Let's say 80,000 (if they called up every last reservist left in the US not currently deployed).

North Korea has 2 million reservists (not counting the regulars in the Armed Forces). They would be fighting IN DEFENSE OF THEIR COUNTRY. They would KNOW THE TERRITORY.

The US would lose, no doubt at all. I mean, what was the last war that the US fought against a country WITH AN AIR FORCE?





jakomo

Originally posted by Seekerof

Hell, we would probably get "whooped" by little ole' Finland too....bad....very bad....

regards
seekerof

Seekerof,

You would.. if you invaded us.. but again.. at 'goverment level' US and Finland are like US and Israel.. (as both US and Finland are true nations of 'free') even during ww2 US didnt declare war on Finland.. even when the UK did.

And.. in here there are swarms of US lovers.. as there is in US swarms of Finland lovers.. so im kinda out numbered here..

Our nations are infact first class friends.

Which kinda makes me mad.. but what can i do..

Nothing..

Even during cold war FDF gave west a 'look' at all the new Soviet systems we bought.. and i do also think that from finland US had its first and detailed info about anvanced Russian SAMs like Iglas and Gadflys..



So..

Either way,
Invade Iran/Syria/Lybia/N. Korea, yes or no?

i think they all should invade the europe and US. that the best solution i have use for all the good ways

With only the smallest of magnifying glasses...

one can 'see' that G.W. Bushs' 'born-again' philosophy is the tail waggin the dog, all over again...

the 'crusader' mindset, the 'divine' inspiration, the 'calling'...
someones' ROADMAP, is made from the scriptures like Eziekiel,Revelations,Daniel...(all them Apocalypse books of the King James Bible_)......all the countries mentioned are there; iran/iraq/syria/libyia--then ADD: LEBANON,
EGYPT, ARABIA...along with the other 'Kings Of East'

you might be interested to know that Jack Van Impe,
the prophecy televangelist, is sending 'reports' to the White House....(Twilight Zone theme played here !)

adios...s/ riff raff

R U kidding, those four rejects would have to invade in order to get fed!

The old ploy of the socialists and dictatorial regimes is lots of useless bodies.

One of our guys will take down on average 10 of theirs.

this whole thread is a lil too judgemental for my taste. i'm for america for americans and some seem to think that means america for the middle east. we are constantly told that war will boost our economy. okay where is the boost??? I'm still waiting for the boost. maybe that was true for past wars but not for this economy. we are slowly moving toward corporate rule. all the jobs are exported to create bigger profit margins and none of those margins are used here at home to build up our economy as the bushies have been promising. the top 3% has become 3 billion dollars richer during this past year while the rest of us are seeing job insecurity, new hire freezes, massive downsizing, layoffs, and plant closures/relocation.

for these reasons i say no to invading anymore countries with my tax dollars. until you fix american damn fixing the world. PNAC, just another word for zionist and zionist supporters.