Who to "Liberate" Next? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-13-2003, 01:57 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Who to "Liberate" Next?

Call it a hunch, but I think it is safe to say that Iraq is not the last nation we're going to "liberate." So who will be next? For what "reason"? And when?

It's a tough question, but I think its a toss-up between Syria and North Korea. Syria has kind of jumped to the top of the list in Rumsfeld's tirades, but North Korea is still quite the genuine threat. However, I also think it is likely that North Korea is screaming loudly, waiting for another "diplomatic solution" in its favor, but I doubt we'll negotiate with Syria.

Of course, there is also Iran. Nuclear facilities in a nation we distrust.

But election year is around the corner, and Bush is nothing without a constant state of siege, so it's fairly safe to say that the next "liberation" will be sometime in 2004. It's so tiring building a "New World Order" now isn't it?

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 02:24 PM   #2
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 05:44 PM
syria and iran will be "liberated"
__________________

__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 02:29 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:44 PM
I think Syria is most likely to be Bush's next target. There was an article in today's Observer (http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...935943,00.html) which included a quote from Paul Wolfowitz threating that "things will have to change in Syria" and Richard Perle saying the US would be "compelled to act" against Syria if Iraq had moved weapons to Syria prior to being attacked. Add to the Colin Powell's comments over the last few days about Syria, and I think it's quite clear who the US will next target.

On the subject of Iraq allegedly moving its weapons to Syria, I've always found this interesting. Some people suggest Iraq didn't have WMDs because Saddam would have used them on the US troops since he knew that he had very little time left in power. However, pro-war people usually respond that "he didn't have time to use the weapons" - doesn't that raise the question of how on earth he had time to move his weapons to another country if he didn't have time to actually use them?

Anyway, sorry to have got off topic there, but I do think Syria is likely to be the next target for Bush & co, although clearly North Korea and Iran aren't safe either.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 02:43 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Knowing Saddam's past behavior, I must admit that I doubt Saddam would have actually disarmed. The purpose of having these weapons was not as much to terrorize the U.S. as much as to terrorize his own people from revolting. As you can see, gas was used on the Kurds.

To the question as to whether he would have used them, I think Saddam knew he had more to lose in using them than in not using them. In not using them, he, at least, had global support, and he would probably rather go down as a "martyr" than a liar.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 03:20 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 12:44 PM
My money's on Syria.

As for the reason - do they really need one? Rumsfeld and Bush will start inundating American media with the idea that an attack from those crazy terrorist Syrians is imminent, we're all gonna die in a puff of smoke, and that'll be that.

The question is, how many countries will be liberated before people vote Bush out of office...
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-13-2003, 03:23 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Well, the idea of being in the middle of a war during the presidential election, of course, is because the GOP will try to argue that we cannot change leaders in the middle of a conflict. Seeing how our economy is sputtering, it is all he will have, and since our voting public seems to have the combined intellect of cattle cud, I tend to think that might work.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 03:45 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Aren't reports out of the UK indicating that they would not participate in any Syrian adventure? If they're out, I fully expect Australia to be out, which basically leaves the US with nobody, unless Eritrea and Estonia are going to send troops into the Mediterranean. Perhaps the American public which supported this Iraq war would then start to smell the coffee and decide that no, it really isn't the best idea to go conquerin' abroad.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-13-2003, 03:47 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:44 PM
The concept of "coalition" is a facade anyway, a weak attempt at making the U.S. look multilateral.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 03:49 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Yes, apparently Tony Blair is trying to distance himself from any prospective attacks on Syria. However, I think he is one of the least trustworthy politicians in the world after his behaviour regarding Iraq, so it wouldn't suprise me at all if he were to go back on his word.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 03:52 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The concept of "coalition" is a facade anyway, a weak attempt at making the U.S. look multilateral.

Melon
Exactly. "Coalition" troops? Two countries does not a coalition make. And I'm disgusted that Tony Blair went along with attacking Iraq, since that made it a lot easier for Bush to make it look like a "multi-lateral" attack.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 04:27 PM   #11
War Child
 
Tech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Long Beach, CA USA
Posts: 778
Local Time: 05:44 PM
I really don't know if Bush is stupid enough to try to "liberate" another country. Doesn't he have to get ready for an election next year? Hopefully this will occupy his time.
__________________
Tech is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 04:44 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:44 PM
I do believe that Iran is next. My reasons being the up and coming election. While there were very little links (credible) between Iraq and Al-Qaeda......There apparently are many links between Al-Qaeda and the Iranian Intelligence agencies.

I have no links to provide. Read Bob Gertz Breakdown. He basically states that Iran was in bed with Al-Qaeda.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 04:48 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Yes, Syria is next. Bush and Rumsfeld are accusing them of "harboring terrorists". I just hope that no one else supports an attack on Syria. Without Blair Bush is definitely weaker, much more blatantly unilateral. The Administration would probably botch on an attack on Syria and it might not take place. Look who might not be amused: the neighboring state of Iraq, Arabic and Islamic!!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 05:01 PM   #14
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:44 PM
Iran, Syria (allready verbaly attacked) after that Saudi Arabia maybe? this would complete the "Arabic coup"

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-13-2003, 05:19 PM   #15
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Basically, any enemy of capitalism and or Israel will be attacked or "liberated"...
__________________

__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com