Iraq, Iran, who's next?

bug

I was watching David Dimbleby interview Rumsfeldt a few nights ago on BBC and the interview gave me chills. Dimbleby asked if the USA would go into Iran his reply intimated that this could be the case

there are a number of places in the Middle East where those terrorists are finding havens. Iran is one of the countries

The transcript of the interview is here on the bbc website. I know Iranians here who are travelling home to get their families out. What I would like to know is where's next after Iraq? Are they going in to "stabilise", as they like to call it, the entire middle East. If so are we on the brink of WW3?

What I would like to know is where's next after Iraq?

Iran, N.Korea, and african state. take your pick. Although it'll prob be Iran, followed with the invasion of Lichtenstein (u never know where terrorism might have its roots)

And i'm sure the US would like more garrisons in Europe.

Are they going in to "stabilise", as they like to call it, the entire middle East.

Definetly. Why stop when they're on a roll? Especially when they can make a tidy profit on the side.

If so are we on the brink of WW3?

Doubtful. theres nobody big enough for them to have a war with.

bug

Doubtful. theres nobody big enough for them to have a war with.

I get your point, but WW3 could be a different kind of war, the islamic east against the christian west. Possibly the most dangerous war because now people believe that God is on their side. It may not neccessarily involve nation against nation.

in which case it wouldn't be a world war. The arab nations would never totally declare war/jihad. (simply cause the US would bomb the crap out of em, since none of them could resist for long) They'll just support "terrorist" (black-op) activities. But yes, i can forsee the middle east blowing up whereby the western nations cities & military become targets by all groups of arabs.

DapperGent

Hopefully Zimbabwe.

Hopefully Texas.

it would be nice if they dealt with their own internal problems with guns, before they try limitating other nations. Hell, nobody ever comments as to what would happen if one of their extremist groups got their hands on a few nukes. Might be more terrifying than if Iraq had em.

bug

Do we have an aspiring military strategists in the audience who could give some opinions on where they think would be next if we base this so called "war on terrorism" purely on monetary gain which is in my opinion a much more logical reason for whats goin' on.

Paddy Power should do spread bets on this.

mike65

I think Iran is safe enough actually I saw some of that interview with Rumsfeld and he sounded like he thought change would come from within, he noted dissatisfaction with the clerics by the young and women.
He sounded quite relaxed about how things might pan out there.

If I were to nominate a country that requires regime change it would be Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is a 100% tyrant and well worth toppling, South Africa should be willing to take a lead but such is the cowardice of African leaders in the face of Mugabes black v white/Africa v Europe politicing they wont do anything. Meanwhile millions are heading into starvation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2818297.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2678557.stm

Mike.

claidheamh

Firstly, please do not think most people in the US are likeminded with the President. With that, I think it is hard to tell where a target might be, as who knows what he is thinking (or what he's saying, half the time-I keep getting the image of Henry Higgins telling GW, "No George its not-theee raeeen eeun spaeeen fawls...")

Unfortunately guns aren't the biggest problem facing the US. They have gone down an avenue by where gun ownership is necessary in many parts of the US. One cannot rely on police protection, when confronted with armed adversaries. Also the ideal of gun ownership was centered around private citizens' right to protect themselves from any future oppressive government. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would mean violating other Amendments of the Constitution to get that done.

The people, especially the young Americans need to be held accountable for their actions. It is well known criminal punishment in the US is weak. Over 90% of incarcerated criminals are repeat offenders, which lends to the idea that reformation is nonexistent.

I do agree however that the US Government should concern itself with larger domestic issues (education, social security, healthcare...). The list is boundless.

There are far more people (US) opposed to the idea of war than the media fairly portrays, even in Texas. GW's own church publicly opposes his plan of military force in Iraq.
Not everyone in Texas belongs to an extremist organization. I live there. I'm not an extremist. Texas is not so bad-nice weather, beaches, mountains... The media has not been good to us...(Texas Republic, David Koresh, 2 Bushes). Regular-old peace loving, happy folk don't sell newspapers. Anyone is welcome to stop by my house, and I'll be glad to show them around...We've even put strangers up for a couple of days while their visiting.

Who is probably next? I'd have to guess NK. The image of selling nuclear material to other countries, is liable to ruffle feathers. With that, I think it is also hard to foresee, as reliable information/rationale is unavailable.

Cork

Not everyone in Texas belongs to an extremist organization. I live there

We know. Only for US investment - many Irish would be without jobs. Without American tourists - Killarney would not be the Las Vagas of Ireland. Without US TV programmes - RTE (Our public service broadcaster) whould have big blanks in their schedule.

There is very little Anti American sentiment in Ireland. It is confined largely to hippies, communists & socialists.

They are a small group in Ireland of socialists that barely get into double figures with regards to % points at election time.

Some of them have yet to get over the fall of communisim.

Who is probably next? I'd have to guess NK. The image of selling nuclear material to other countries, is liable to ruffle feathers. With that, I think it is also hard to foresee, as reliable information/rationale is unavailable.

I think that after Iraq - North Korea needs to be disarmed.

Originally posted by claidheamh
Who is probably next? I'd have to guess NK. The image of selling nuclear material to other countries, is liable to ruffle feathers. With that, I think it is also hard to foresee, as reliable information/rationale is unavailable.

I disagree,there will only be diplomatic and UN pressure put on NK.
There will be no invasion of a country bordering China.
Besides, the current difficulty, there has mainly been caused by a post 9-11 GWB fervour in having no time for rogue states.
The Bush administration have been over zealous, on NK and haven't gone enough down the road thay have with Iraq to justify being too mad with NK yet.
NK needs the U.S and wants to talk to them-so no crisis yet, there that merits a war.
mm

The Gopher

North Korea would be the most likely next target.I think they will leave Iran alone-perhaps because they have had an unhindered weapons programme for 20 years now and so would have even more advanced weaponry than Iraq,whose illegtal weapons are largely left over from before the Gulf War.
The USA is attacking Iraq because it knows it will win.Iraq has no nukes,a limited amount of bio weapons and a poorly equipped army.The weapons programme has been damaged by the inspections before 1998.The USA knows it will win the Iraq war,probably with relative ease seeing as the Iraqis have few decent heavy weaponry.
But Iran has a potentially huge army if conscription during war was introduced as it has a population of over 60 million.

Apart from N.Korea,other places that were consdiered likely included Somalia.In fact once Afghanistan was over many thought Somalia and not Iraq would be the next place to be attacked.

But of course Somalia has few oil supplies,making it rather irrelevant.

Originally posted by The Gopher
The USA is attacking Iraq because it knows it will win.Iraq has no nukes,a limited amount of bio weapons and a poorly equipped army.The weapons programme has been damaged by the inspections before 1998.The USA knows it will win the Iraq war,probably with relative ease seeing as the Iraqis have few decent heavy weaponry.

That part, I can see, but again I think NK an unlikely invasion target on china's door step, She simply is too big a foe to mess with.
It would be more in the States economic interests to co-operate with china to solve their issues with NK.

If post Gulf War two, the U.S and the UK are to regain or shore up their moral higher ground, then yes there are lots of targets for pure humanitarian reasons that would merit their attention.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by bug
Do we have an aspiring military strategists in the audience who could give some opinions on where they think would be next if we base this so called "war on terrorism" purely on monetary gain which is in my opinion a much more logical reason for whats goin' on.

OK...I wouldnt base this on monetary gain....but here's my thoughts.

The US has four major options that I see :

1) Keep on rolling....Dubya could try and win the next election on the back of multiple victories, and on the US still being "under threat". Personally, I dont favour this idea, but if it is the plan, then Iran will be next in all likelihood. The najor downer here is that the US will never get the international backing quickly enough to just keep on rolling.

2) Give Korea what I am beginning to think of as "The Iraqi Treatment". In other words, spend the next 10 years villifying anything and everything about the nation. Spending time and money on various different avenues to slowly turn most of the world against the nation, and to make its allies (e.g. China) distance themselves slightly (trade can be a big stick in times of peace - the US will suck up to China for 4 or 5 years, and then look for "payback" once China has become somewhat more dependant on US trade - either financially or just in terms of keeping the populace happy.) Then, when the time is right (probably in about a decade), if Korea is still hanging on to its hard-man stance, start a "Times Up, Over, Pow" action like we see today.

The major obstacle here will be that the US will have to try and get South Korea on board, who are more interested in building bridges to their northern neighbours then in playing the US game.

3) The US will stir up so muich trouble in the Middle East that it will quite simply not be able to continue its "roll" even if it wanted to, and instead will spend the next decade fighting against more and more mddle-east insurgency,m culminating most probably in the West "losing" Afghanistan from its liberation, but probably holding Iraq.

4) The US will fail to take Iraq, for whatever reason, and will have to step back from belligerence for a while. Depending on how this happens, I would expect plan 2 to follow in an appropriate amount of time, but possibly at a reduced pace.

jc

Chaos-Engine

Lets see

They have:

Bahrain
Quatar
Kuait
Pakistan by the balls
Afghanistan
Uzbekistan
Saudi Arabia

Next on the list:
IRaq
then IRan
maybe then they will make a stronger move on Saudi Arabia
First they would take Yemen and UAE..

Chaos-Engine

Simple...
Make serious connections with a moderate Democrate leader in the states. That coupled with some snubbs of Bush should make alot of those that vote in teh US realise that europe only does business with people that do business with it....

SOmething that worries me though is the fact that the US is getting support from more and more desperate ppl.
Israel(as usual), Bulgaria, Romania, Ex-Commie Central Asia Powers...

Lennoxschips

Yes, not all Americans are pro-Bush. We understand this. Also, not all anti-war people are anti-american.

On a similar note, I would like to point out that the poster with the username Cork absolutely does not represent the mainstream opinion of the people of Cork.

If the USA invades Iraq, Osama bin Laden will be delighted. If the USA invades Iran, Osama bin Laden will be pissing his pants with excitement. Everything is going to plan as far as Al-Qaeda is concernted. Bin Laden may be a ruthless terrorist, but a fool he is not.

War is exactly what Al-Qaeda wants. It will help turn middle-eastern opinion against the US and make it easier for Al-Qaeda to recruit people.

It's incredible that the Bush administration are too stupid to see this. They're playing into Osama's hands.

I would like to point out that the poster with the username Cork absolutely does not represent the mainstream opinion of the people of Cork.

So very true.

We know. Only for US investment - many Irish would be without jobs.

Cork, this has been covered before, but we do not owe America anything for that investment. American corporations have received more than enough for their settlement here, and in most cases they viewed Ireland as a good way of entering the European Market. It was business pure & simple.

There is very little Anti American sentiment in Ireland. It is confined largely to hippies, communists & socialists.

This going to shock everyone, myself included. But i totally agree with Cork on this one. I'm not anti-american, i just don't agree with the current situation. Once this blows over, i daresay most people will go back to being quite supportive.

Some of them have yet to get over the fall of communisim

Lol.

I think that after Iraq - North Korea needs to be disarmed.

Why? Because America views them as a threat? when did we become part of America? N.Korea has the right to the weapons they currently have. The Nukes they're developing should be stopped, but i hate these double standards, since all western powers should also disarm these weapons.

Since everyone is talking about N.Korea possibly selling nuclear weapons, why hasn't it crossed anyones minds that America, Britain, France, or any other nuclear power could do the same? Should we consider asking them to disarm?

There is a mindset developing here, that only the western powers have the right to have weapons. Especially now with the call for total disarmament of Iraq, will the world turn into a place run completely by the west, simply cause we've taken the other country's weapons away>? Whats the bet these countries feeling a wee bit pissed, seriously tactle the idea of producing WMD's?


Personally i think there should be a long pause before any other nation is subjected to the kind of Lynching Iraq is getting. The UN & the US need to think about this, before they cause a world Nuclear war, cause i really don't want to die for some other nations mistakes.

Lennoxschips

Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, so the US is doing as they like there. North Korea does have nuclear weapons, so the US is being very careful with regards to North Korea.

A clear message is being sent out to third world leaders: Get yourself some nukes and we won't mess with you.