Who to "Liberate" Next?

[melon]

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

[Man Inside The Child]

syria and iran will be "liberated"

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

[melon]

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

[anitram]

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...

[melon]

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

[anitram]

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.

[melon]

The concept of "coalition" is a facade anyway, a weak attempt at making the U.S. look multilateral.

Melon

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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]

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.

[Tech]

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.

[Dreadsox]

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

[verte76]

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!!

[Klaus]

Iran, Syria (allready verbaly attacked) after that Saudi Arabia maybe? this would complete the "Arabic coup"

Klaus

[Man Inside The Child]

Basically, any enemy of capitalism and or Israel will be attacked or "liberated"...

[Gickies Gageeze]

Originally posted by melon
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.

Melon

i know your a smart man, melon, so im surprised you actually said this.

the kurds were not his own people. they controlled the northern part of iraq, and saddam had nothing to do with them.

ofcourse, he did gas them, and im certainly not making any excuses for him.

but to say he gased his own people, at least when talking about the kurds, is incorrect.

[melon]

Ah, but you forget something, dearest Gagickies. That was before the no-fly zone that allowed the Kurds to be de-facto autonomous. By "own people," I define that as people within the political boundaries of Iraq.

War wrangling aside, to somehow excuse away the Kurds as insignificant compared to his "own people" (Sunni Muslims?) is kind of disturbing.

Melon

[deep]

That always frustrates me, too.


When people repeat propaganda sound bites.


Did the US slaughter it's own people, i. e. the so-called American Indians, the Mexicans etc.



As for who is next?

It is a coin toss, Syria or Iran,

Whichever one the American people will believe was responsible for 9-11.


�There is a direct link�

�He gassed his own people�

�Weapons of mass destruction�

�Precision bombing�

Blah blah blah

[deep]

Melon,

Were not the people he gassed Shia who sided with Iran during that war?

[melon]

While reprehensible, those occurred over 100+ years ago, and those responsible have long since been deceased. The world operated under different philosophical paradigms, and, while regrettable, we cannot go back in time and stop it. Almost every nation has a bloody past, whether that be in the Western world or otherwise.

Thankfully, we live in a world where genocide should be intolerable, and, while we will all disagree as to the methods of Saddam's removal, I think we can agree that such genocide is intolerable in the modern world.

This "it's okay because everyone does it" argument does not fly here, and I would expect better from you than to regurgitate leftist propaganda.

Melon