What next?

Kell

I was reading through Dev's weekly (ahem) updated site and one of the comments brought me back to thinking about other conversations I have had about same over the last couple of weeks. Dev's question on his site was "Does anyone consider that the fabric of society is being ripped apart" or something along those lines.

Anyways, I'll cut to the chase. I have been speaking to some about the situation in Iraq and impending war etc and some of the quieter non opinionated ones have proferred the opinion that what going on is seriously bad ass shít and could be the end of everything as we know it. Is that such a ludicrous point of view I ask?

What happens after the US take their war to Iraq, bomb the bejaysus out of them without UN approval? Exactly what are the UN supposed to do about a militant dictator (Bush) who has obviously lost the plot and is hell bent on killing off anyone who poses a threat to the oil rigs? Military reprisal? I think not. We all know that the rest of the world combined hasnt the same arsenal of weapons that the US have so what then? US and UK vs the rest of the world and if you say otherwise we'll bomb your ass?

Thinking conspiracy theories, I cant help but be flabbergasted at how few people got killed on 9/11. 3,000 odd vs the quotes of "there should have been 25,000 in those buildings at the time". Who's to say that it wasnt a US engineered plot to give themselves a passport to point a whimsical finger at bespots and wage war on "terrorism" wherever they so choose? I'd love to see that finger being pointed to the North. Now that would make me laugh.

What are your thoughts on what happens next? Are we going to see a US led planet with no-one to argue otherwise or is somebody going to plot to take this príck (Bush) out?

mike65

Thinking conspiracy theories, I cant help but be flabbergasted at how few people got killed on 9/11. 3,000 odd vs the quotes of "there should have been 25,000 in those buildings at the time". Who's to say that it wasnt a US engineered plot to give themselves a passport to point a whimsical finger at bespots and wage war on "terrorism" wherever they so choose?

Jesus Christ, If I see this fiction put about one more time...if the USA wanted to go to war against rogue states it would'nt need to blow up thousands of its own ppl to do so.

You only need to think of the fall-out if such a conspiracy happened and was then discovered.

Kell, go and get a "reality check" :mad:

Mike.

Kell

Mike- thanks for bringing me back to earth, however I really dont recall saying that I supported that theory, I just threw it out there. And besides, if you're that confident that it couldent be a maybe, where do you get your infallible proof from?

Snowball

After all that I have read and all that I have heard I would no longer put anything pass the US gov and military

Ivan

yes some people are of the mind that Bush A) Knew about the attack on the WtC and that it was the FBI or some other covert agency which organised it. Highly ludicrous, perhaps.

However I think you'll find that the EU is more than a match for the US and if you were to throw Russia and China into the mix, well...I think you'd find the US on the end of a very large number of missiles. However, god help us all if it ever came to that.

Jesus Christ, If I see this fiction put about one more time...if the USA wanted to go to war against rogue states it would'nt need to blow up thousands of its own ppl to do so.

I actually would support the idea that if the US wanted to go to war against Iraq this would be the best way to go about it. I'm not even remotely suggesting thats what happened, merely that it would theoretically be the best method of going about it.

Ivan

darthmise

Originally posted by Ivan
....merely that it would theoretically be the best method of going about it.

Ivan

To cripple their economy, kill 3000 people, allow an attack on the pentagon...??

when they could drop a bomb somewhere harmless with 'property of saddam and osama' written on it??


It's not likely, though i can see where the thought would come from, especially after the Oklahoma bombing and the knowledge the ATF had of what was going to happen.

Ivan

A) I thought it was 6,000?
When the exact number came out I heard a report which said that on average approx 6,000 people die on american cities due to violent crimes a day (it may be a week I'm not sure).
C) which is more believable? - Scenario A Osama Bin Laden uses his Cia training to hijack a number of planes and crash 2 into the World Trade centre and attempt to crash a plane into the pentagon Or Scenario B, Osama drops a bomb with his large "Property of Osama" sticker on it in the middle of nowhere?

During world war 2 the american economy went from being in a depression to becoming one of the most stable in the world.

Alot of economists have/had predicted a depression lately, what better way to avoid this, and thus result in being re-elected than by starting a war they can "easily" win, pump billions into the war industry which again increases votes and all for what? 3,000-> 6,000 lives?

allow an attack on the pentagon...??

Failed attack on the pentagon?

Note it was failed on the pentagon and succeeded in hitting two extremely large buildings in the CENTRE of New York, caught live on camera for all the news channels to replay to death for the next 10 years?

And absolutely no one could have predicted the cataclysmic result that followed from the planes crashing into the trade centre.

Again, this is all fine and well as far as conspiracy theories go, but it has no place in the real world[TM]

Kell

Originally posted by darthmise
To cripple their economy

It's my (limited) understanding that the US economy has been in the toilet for quite some time even before 9/11. As Ivan pointed out, the US economy went from being flat pre WWII to being extremely stable. With a militant nut at the helm of the US war machine who takes a lot of advice from the US Military and also petroleum companies, why not lose x thousand lives for the possibility of revitalising the economy. Again, I dont really support this notion, but as yet there is nothing to prove it completely wrong.

HaVoC

The us military machine had some of the most advanced equipment in the world an no doubt is it the most mobile.

but you invade any country on there home soil miles away from your home country your solider are not going to fight to the death for there country 1,000 mile from home where as the natives will causing massive causalities and fight to the death in Vietnam Ireland .

The current event may be a downward spiral who knows!
world war 3 i tink not but some thing

bonkey

Originally posted by Ivan
pump billions into the war industry which again increases votes and all for what?

Actually, wars tend to have very, very short-term effects on vote-winning. Indeed, one needs only look at Dubya's dad who scored a major win in a war only to lose the next election on economic issues.

Basically, war is good for votes only if its just over or ongoing (but going well). Anything else and its a liability if the rest of your house isnt in order.

jc

Ivan

Yes but history has taught us that wars and economic prosperity go hand in hand. Especially when its the type of war that america is fond of fighting, i.e. over-seas.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Ivan
Especially when its the type of war that america is fond of fighting, i.e. over-seas.

As opposed to fighting wars on their own territory? Who in blue hell would actually relish that????

Originally posted by Kell
With a militant nut at the helm of the US war machine who takes a lot of advice from the US Military and also petroleum companies, why not lose x thousand lives for the possibility of revitalising the economy. Again, I dont really support this notion, but as yet there is nothing to prove it completely wrong.

For someone who doesn't support the notion, you certainly don't mind regurgitating it. The same applies to Ivan.

[i[Originally posted by Ivan [/i]
When the exact number came out I heard a report which said that on average approx 6,000 people die on american cities due to violent crimes a day (it may be a week I'm not sure).

Did you consider doing your sums Ivan? 6,000 per day equates to over 2 million a year. That seem a little far fetched?

[i[Originally posted by Ivan [/i]
Alot of economists have/had predicted a depression lately, what better way to avoid this, and thus result in being re-elected than by starting a war they can "easily" win, pump billions into the war industry which again increases votes and all for what? 3,000-> 6,000 lives?

Have you given any thought to the impact war will have on an already fragile US dominated airline industry? CNBC had an airline representative on today who said that 100,000 job losses in airlines could mean a total of 500,000 jobs going altogether. Thats just one aspect of the economics of war. Then there's the $32 billion aid package offered to Turkey. Hardly small change.

Consider the cost of prosecuting war itself. Smart bombs don't come cheap you know. Add the cost of post-war reconstruction, and also the possible cost of maintaining US forces in Iraq for up to two years, as is currently envisaged. Yes, thats all money in somebody's pocket...taxpayers money, which will come from increased budget defecits, or reduced services. Neither would be an attractive proposition.

Yes, the US economic revival coincided with WW2, but remember, the US was in an awful state in the 30s, much worse than it is today. There really is no comparison.

DeVore

I was reading through Dev's weekly (ahem) updated site

Hey! What do you mean *ahem*...

I was talking about the who hate and violence and general bad shít in the world today... though Iraq also counts.

I think humanity is osscilating out of control now... we have developed the sciences to really seriously hurt ourselves without the wisdom to control them.

We're really seriously fúcking the planet. 2/3rd of us are starving to death and the other third are using up every natural resource available. Some fossil fuels are estimated to run out this century if memory serves (think its Coal but not sure).

As Hudson says "We're in some real pretty shít now!"

DeV.

Kell

Originally posted by DeVore

As Hudson says "We're in some real pretty shít now!"

DeV.

Too true.

daveg

I am personally more concerned with America's interests after Iraq. Namely North Korea. I read on the BBC news website yesterday that they could have seriously underestimated N Korea's ability to produce weapon grade material and could very soon be producing 1 nuclear bomb per week. Now the general concecious is that N Korea could never win a war against the US/S Korea even though it has a huge Army (1 million) but it could inflict huge casualties against S Korea & US troops. The point is if this does escalate into a conflict (the US are using diplomatic efforts at the moment) who is to say China wouldn't be drawn into the fracas. Also it seems there is a good chance N Korea will be testing a ballistic missile in the next few weeks escalating tensions between Japan and North Korea. In my mind this could be very dangerous.

Kell

I too am wondering what N Korea are up to. Over the last couple of weeks they seem to have been intent on irritating people with reasonably benign things such as fly overs in other peoples aerospace and such like. Are they trying to flex a muscle of some description to remind the world that they are there and if so, for what purpose?

SheroN

It is muscle flexing by N. Korea, probably to show geroge w. he can invade Iraq at his will, but there'll be serious concequences if he tries to do the same thing to N. Korea.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Ivan
Yes but history has taught us that wars and economic prosperity go hand in hand. Especially when its the type of war that america is fond of fighting, i.e. over-seas.

Long term wars do. Short ones do not, actually tend to do the reverse.

As for crippling the economy. The US economy was in the crapper before 9/11. All the 9/11 did was speed up the process and give the airlines an excuse to get government funding. It also totally wiped away any complaints of the stuff the US was getting up to it previously (Industrial Esponage through Echalon, treaties dropped, etc).

As for not knowing the attack was going to happen. I would have to say yes they had no idea that the WTC was going to be attacked in that fashion, but they most certainly did know that something was going to happen (probably a normal hijacking). Actually a lot of people knew something was going to happen.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

popinfresh

Wow, does he US army really have more than the combined rest of the world?? that's some crazy sh*t. But how I see it Hitler had the most powerful military in his time, but edventual bad leadership combined with too many enemy nations is what took him down. Basically I think we're seeing the USA getting cocky. Their military far surpasses any competition. So they are starting to feel that they can do what they like.But if the world really wanted to get rid of the USA it could. And unfortunately if the USA keeps progressing down it's current road it is quite possible that it will come to that . If USA can get away with attacking Iraq, then what's to stop it attacking Iran or Cuba. I'm sure they could cock up some "justified excuse" as they've done with Iraq or any country that looks at them sideways.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

Originally posted by daveirl
No they don't have more man-power but their expenditure is more than the rest of the world's defense budgets combined afaik

This is from memory, but im fairly sure its right. The US spends the same amount on their military as the next 6 "biggest spending on defence" nations. Im guessing that includes the likes of china and the uk.

From the UK MOD:

The US is the most important creator of new defence technology, and there is an increasing disparity between its defence spend and that of Europe. US defence spending this year is forecast to be 2.6 times the total of all EU nations, and this $348 billion is planned to grow to $413 billion by 2005.

From NATO:

Since the end of the Cold War, America's military budget has declined, just as it has in Europe. A decade ago, US defence spending was just short of 5 per cent of GDP. When George Bush took office, it was barely 3 per cent.

Kell

Well we will find out in the coming weeks. I have to say though that for once, something outside the scope of my friends, family work etc the coming war has really made me angry. Really really angry. Anyone else feel the same?

Ivan

Scared is probably a term I would use.

shotamoose

Originally posted by daveg
I am personally more concerned with America's interests after Iraq. Namely North Korea. I read on the BBC news website yesterday that they could have seriously underestimated N Korea's ability to produce weapon grade material and could very soon be producing 1 nuclear bomb per week.

Any country which is even slightly worried about a potential attack or threat of attack from America would now be justified in pursuing with the utmost haste a programme to acquire nuclear weapons. That's the logic of the pre-emptive strike, that's why Iran will probably try to get WMD as soon as possible and that's why the US will probably attack Iran.

And who knows what will probably happen after that. I would suggest moving to a nice desert island except they're all disappearing due to global warming

Kell

Mmmmnnn. Desert islands indeed. A thought that is starting to creep into my mind, albeit a doomsday all fearing sort of thought. Say Saddam *has* nuclear warheads that the inspectors havent found, then whats to stop him from dropping one from either a civilian or military jet say on Sellafield? I am beginning to wonder if tomorrow will actually come.

Hobbes

Originally posted by mike65

You only need to think of the fall-out if such a conspiracy happened and was then discovered.

Yea, imagine if Operation Northwoods went ahead! Of course there were more saner people in the whitehouse during that time.

Clintons Cat

Well we will find out in the coming weeks. I have to say though that for once, something outside the scope of my friends, family work etc the coming war has really made me angry. Really really angry. Anyone else feel the same?

Not angry,Not Outraged,More Resigned.

Yea, imagine if Operation Northwoods went ahead! Of course there were more saner people in the whitehouse during that time

Otto Reich is an interesting character to google.

from the hobbes link

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

How history repeats itself

If you saw the Sun front page when the shuttle came down you might be forgiven for thinking Hamza had something to do with it
Basically it supperimposed a picture of "cap'n hook" himself
over a full page picture of the break up of the shuttle.

Of course hooky provided the required copy to link the two images.

Hamza is a propogandists godsend.With his semitic nose,his physical disabilities and stooped posture and exotic head wear,he is a deadringer for the old charicature of the Hunchbacked and bearded Bolshevic Jew of the thirties.
Still what can you expect from "get those peados now" Stormin Rebekah "der sturmer" Wade?