What is the next country to invade because they have WMD?

[fwtong]

Now that Iraq has fallen, what is the next country to preemptively invade because they have WMD and could be a potential threat to national security?

Who's next?

 

[NFS4]

Syria

 

[Alistar7]

Well let's see, NK has agreed to multilateral talks, Iran has extended an olive branch and has also agreed to not interfere in Iraq with support for an Islamic rule, SA already agreed to democratic reform before the war (yes that was the US's doing), so that's what is actually happeing in those cases, but you can keep on believing whatever you need to in order to bash the US.

Who else do you suggest? Any of the nations you list ever used WMD on their own people? Ever used them on people from another country? Are their leaders guilty of genocide by use of WMD? Do they harbor, aid, or assist terrorist groups? Have they attacked and invaded two of their sovereign neighboors?


Or, as in North Korea's case, at the war's outcome. According to South Korea (news - web sites)'s chief security adviser, the North Korean government realized that with Iraq neutralized, there was no tactical advantage in continuing to resist global pressure for inspections of weapons facilities.

Notice they said GLOBAL pressure, not US.

 

[Czar]

do as I say not as I do, brilliant way to win the hearts and minds of the people in the world

 

[fwtong]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Well let's see, NK has agreed to multilateral talks, Iran has extended an olive branch and has also agreed to not interfere in Iraq with support for an Islamic rule, SA already agreed to democratic reform before the war (yes that was the US's doing), so that's what is actually happeing in those cases, but you can keep on believing whatever you need to in order to bash the US.

Who else do you suggest? Any of the nations you list ever used WMD on their own people? Ever used them on people from another country? Are their leaders guilty of genocide by use of WMD? Do they harbor, aid, or assist terrorist groups? Have they attacked and invaded two of their sovereign neighboors?

I believe in neo-Imperialism because no one can stop us from doing what we want to do and where we want to do it. Might makes right, and if anyone is a threat to our national security, they should be taken down now, before they have a chance to try anything.

 

[Alistar7]

Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

 

[fwtong]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

 

[Ornery]

Obviously, whoever the next target is, gets to dick us and the UN around for 12 years before anything happens. That's the current precedent, right?

 

[elzmaddy]

Clearly, the United States must dismantle all of its weapons of mass destruction and production facilities. Or otherwise, we woudl look extremely hypocritical.

 

[Alistar7]

Clearly the US bashers can't tell the difference between Saddam and America, go figure.

You are correct in stating countries that aid, abet, or harbor terrorists are doing so at their own risk though, WMD by themselves do not qualify for a pre-emptive strike.

 

[Spyro]

What is the next country to invade because they have WMD?

What, you mean after Syria, Iran, Russia, China, NK, etc. Oh well, that would be America.

 

[Napalm]

I'd say Canada - we have hockey sticks that will do more damage than the crap you have all found in Iraq...

N

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

Countries can do a lot to us. Have you ever heard of boycotting? What if 90% of the world boycotted American goods because they no longer trusted us? Could you imagine what that would do to our economy? We had better watch it, because we are going to isolate ourselves from most of the world if our behavior continues.

I guess you don't understand international politics...

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: fwtong
Now that Iraq has fallen, what is the next country to preemptively invade because they have WMD and could be a potential threat to national security?

Who's next?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64349-2003Apr9.html

Ramy Khoury, editor of the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon writes that "a realistic reading of the policy must conclude that the sacking of Baghdad is designed to send signals to all other Middle Eastern and Asian regimes that the U.S. finds annoying, threatening, distasteful, worrisome, or even just a little strange.

Khoury explicated what he said are "the new rules of the game now being explained to the world through the televised display of Mesopotamian show-and-tell."

"If Washington merely suspects that terrorists may one day emerge from your land, or that you might in future threaten your neighbors, you have only two options: You change course and shape up, or you are finished as a governing regime. If you behave as Baghdad behaved, defying the new rules of the game, you suffer the same fate as Baghdad is suffering."

As the above article demonstrates the rules for the new game of nations have been handed out and the consequences for non-compliance with those rules have been demonstrated. There are quite a few nations that should be afraid and they should wake up and smell the coffee before it's burning their laps.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Obviously, whoever the next target is, gets to dick us and the UN around for 12 years before anything happens. That's the current precedent, right?

LOL.

 

[steell]

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

Countries can do a lot to us. Have you ever heard of boycotting? What if 90% of the world boycotted American goods because they no longer trusted us? Could you imagine what that would do to our economy? We had better watch it, because we are going to isolate ourselves from most of the world if our behavior continues.

I guess you don't understand international politics...

Maybe you don't either? Try checking out the Balance of Trade figures

Here

And then tell me what would happen if 90% of the world boycotted the US

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Any of the nations you list ever used WMD on their own people?

Maybe, maybe not, but did Iraq? From a pentagon report:

<< Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds ? in Turkey where they had gone for asylum ? failed to discover any. >>

Ever used them on people from another country?

Egypt:

<< During the Yemen War of 1963 through 1967, Egypt evidently used mustard bombs in support of South Yemen against royalist troops in North Yemen. >>

...

<< For sevarl years prior to the 1991 Gulf War, Egypt was believed to have been working with Iraq on the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons. >> !!!

Are their leaders guilty of genocide by use of WMD?

Again, see the first question...1400 (alleged, unconfirmed by human rights/relief groups) deaths is hardly a genocide.

Do they harbor, aid, or assist terrorist groups?

Again, does Iraq? The best evidence of Iraq aiding and abetting terrorists has come from zealots who claim "They hate the US and so does bin Laden, so they are CLEARLY on the same side."

Have they attacked and invaded two of their sovereign neighboors?

Egypt? Yep. Israel? Yep.

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: steell

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

Countries can do a lot to us. Have you ever heard of boycotting? What if 90% of the world boycotted American goods because they no longer trusted us? Could you imagine what that would do to our economy? We had better watch it, because we are going to isolate ourselves from most of the world if our behavior continues.

I guess you don't understand international politics...

Maybe you don't either? Try checking out the Balance of Trade figures

Here

And then tell me what would happen if 90% of the world boycotted the US

That's a very naive position and arrogance like that is what is gonna cost this country one day. Just because you have large negative trade balances doesn't mean isolating yourself is economically ok. If war continues and we continue invading other countries, the rest of the world will perceive the US as a riskier place to invest. Just look at the stock market and the value of the dollar ever since it was known that Iraq was a potential target. How do you think we pay for those large negative trade balances? We are able to import so much because foreigners are willing to invest in the US, as we are perceived as having the best investment opportunities and best economic growth in the world. That perception could easily change.

 

[fwtong]

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: steell

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

Countries can do a lot to us. Have you ever heard of boycotting? What if 90% of the world boycotted American goods because they no longer trusted us? Could you imagine what that would do to our economy? We had better watch it, because we are going to isolate ourselves from most of the world if our behavior continues.

I guess you don't understand international politics...

Maybe you don't either? Try checking out the Balance of Trade figures

Here

And then tell me what would happen if 90% of the world boycotted the US

That's a very naive position and arrogance like that is what is gonna cost this country one day. Just because you have large negative trade balances doesn't mean isolating yourself is economically ok. If war continues and we continue invading other countries, the rest of the world will perceive the US as a riskier place to invest. Just look at the stock market and the value of the dollar ever since it was known that Iraq was a potential target. How do you think we pay for those large negative trade balances? We are able to import so much because foreigners are willing to invest in the US, as we are perceived as having the best investment opportunities and best economic growth in the world. That perception could easily change.

Well, if they boycott, bombs drop, then invade... leading to no more boycott.

But, on a more serious note, Bush's neo-conservatism has already put us on a steady course towards isolationism. Especially if a trade war between the US and Europe heats up. Congressmen are already tripping over each other trying to get their industries into Iraq, and keeping foreign industries out. For example, the Congressman from San Diego is trying to get Qualcomm to build the new wireless network in Iraq, despite the fact that the whole region uses the other standard, I think GSM. Bush's neo-con hawks want him to take action against Syria and Iran. And Bush's attitude towards foreign policy (You're with us, or against us) is not exactly the best way to build up foreign relations. Aside from the unilateral action against a non-aggressor nation, "highlights" or Bush foreign policy includes: withdrawing from the Kyoto accords (I particularly like his denial about the existence of global warming), refusal to join the World Court (unless US is granted special immunities that no other nation gets) and refusal to enter into treaties regarding land mines and other weapons of mass destruction. The real test regarding foreign policy and getting out of the rut of isolationism is if Bush can repair foreign relations, get out of Iraq ASAP and rebuild the domestic economy. The latter is probably the most important, because if it's election time, and the economy is in the dumps, Syria and Iran had better watch out. Invading and occupying Iraq drove Bush's approval rating very high, and, come election time, if his approval rating is low because he has done jack with the economy, I can see him issuing another 72 hour ultimatum to Iran and Syria, to drive up his approval rating and secure re-election.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: steell

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

Countries can do a lot to us. Have you ever heard of boycotting? What if 90% of the world boycotted American goods because they no longer trusted us? Could you imagine what that would do to our economy? We had better watch it, because we are going to isolate ourselves from most of the world if our behavior continues.

I guess you don't understand international politics...

Maybe you don't either? Try checking out the Balance of Trade figures

Here

And then tell me what would happen if 90% of the world boycotted the US

That's a very naive position and arrogance like that is what is gonna cost this country one day. Just because you have large negative trade balances doesn't mean isolating yourself is economically ok. If war continues and we continue invading other countries, the rest of the world will perceive the US as a riskier place to invest. Just look at the stock market and the value of the dollar ever since it was known that Iraq was a potential target. How do you think we pay for those large negative trade balances? We are able to import so much because foreigners are willing to invest in the US, as we are perceived as having the best investment opportunities and best economic growth in the world. That perception could easily change.

Well, if they boycott, bombs drop, then invade... leading to no more boycott.

But, on a more serious note, Bush's neo-conservatism has already put us on a steady course towards isolationism. Especially if a trade war between the US and Europe heats up. Congressmen are already tripping over each other trying to get their industries into Iraq, and keeping foreign industries out. For example, the Congressman from San Diego is trying to get Qualcomm to build the new wireless network in Iraq, despite the fact that the whole region uses the other standard, I think GSM. Bush's neo-con hawks want him to take action against Syria and Iran. And Bush's attitude towards foreign policy (You're with us, or against us) is not exactly the best way to build up foreign relations. Aside from the unilateral action against a non-aggressor nation, "highlights" or Bush foreign policy includes: withdrawing from the Kyoto accords (I particularly like his denial about the existence of global warming), refusal to join the World Court (unless US is granted special immunities that no other nation gets) and refusal to enter into treaties regarding land mines and other weapons of mass destruction. The real test regarding foreign policy and getting out of the rut of isolationism is if Bush can repair foreign relations, get out of Iraq ASAP and rebuild the domestic economy. The latter is probably the most important, because if it's election time, and the economy is in the dumps, Syria and Iran had better watch out. Invading and occupying Iraq drove Bush's approval rating very high, and, come election time, if his approval rating is low because he has done jack with the economy, I can see him issuing another 72 hour ultimatum to Iran and Syria, to drive up his approval rating and secure re-election.

If that happens then I pray to god that we sustain a good number of casualities, because only then will the American public put pressure on Bush to get the hell out of the middle east.

No problem though... because what you reap is what you sow. And believe me.. this war will effect America negatively in the upcoming years. It may not be any time soon, but in 10 years I believe we will be looking back at the Bush era with disbelief at how an ignorant President could cause so much harm.

just my opinion...

 

[steell]

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: steell

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

Countries can do a lot to us. Have you ever heard of boycotting? What if 90% of the world boycotted American goods because they no longer trusted us? Could you imagine what that would do to our economy? We had better watch it, because we are going to isolate ourselves from most of the world if our behavior continues.

I guess you don't understand international politics...

Maybe you don't either? Try checking out the Balance of Trade figures

Here

And then tell me what would happen if 90% of the world boycotted the US

That's a very naive position and arrogance like that is what is gonna cost this country one day. Just because you have large negative trade balances doesn't mean isolating yourself is economically ok. If war continues and we continue invading other countries, the rest of the world will perceive the US as a riskier place to invest. Just look at the stock market and the value of the dollar ever since it was known that Iraq was a potential target. How do you think we pay for those large negative trade balances? We are able to import so much because foreigners are willing to invest in the US, as we are perceived as having the best investment opportunities and best economic growth in the world. That perception could easily change.

You sure do read a lot into a simple statement! Look again at the figures as a percentage of GDP for each country, and then tell me how many are willing to cut their own throat? They may or may not agree with the political decisions of the US, but I think an economic boycott is "extremely" unlikely.

 

[steell]

Originally posted by: fwtong
Now that Iraq has fallen, what is the next country to preemptively invade because they have WMD and could be a potential threat to national security?

Who's next?

IMNSHO, the message has been sent, and the message has been understood.

And it was a very simple message "It is not a good idea to support those that threaten the US"
There is not going to be another invasion unless we are attacked by terrorists, and we can determine that a nation supported, or allowed to be supported, those attacking us.
Syria has received notice, and I believe they are paying attention (as well they should)

There sure are a lot of US haters in this forum. I don't understand why so many on here automatically assume that other countries are right, and the US is always wrong

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: steell

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: steell

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: fwtong

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look up and read that article.....

If you wish to persist with silly statements like that I will gladly provide some links to many of your other posts that show your true feelings about this action.

I'll admit that I was a little sarcastic before, but the more of what I read about why it was so important to preemptively attack, I realized that it's a good idea. I've heard all the pro-war arguments, and have come to the conclusion that it's important the US seize the momentum now. They accused Syria of having WMD, they're known to dislike America and support terrorism. Ditto with Iran. If we take them down now, they their WMD will not fall into terrorists hands. We need to send a message that countries that are suspected of having WMD and ties to terroism will not be permitted in the new world order.

Countries can do a lot to us. Have you ever heard of boycotting? What if 90% of the world boycotted American goods because they no longer trusted us? Could you imagine what that would do to our economy? We had better watch it, because we are going to isolate ourselves from most of the world if our behavior continues.

I guess you don't understand international politics...

Maybe you don't either? Try checking out the Balance of Trade figures

Here

And then tell me what would happen if 90% of the world boycotted the US

That's a very naive position and arrogance like that is what is gonna cost this country one day. Just because you have large negative trade balances doesn't mean isolating yourself is economically ok. If war continues and we continue invading other countries, the rest of the world will perceive the US as a riskier place to invest. Just look at the stock market and the value of the dollar ever since it was known that Iraq was a potential target. How do you think we pay for those large negative trade balances? We are able to import so much because foreigners are willing to invest in the US, as we are perceived as having the best investment opportunities and best economic growth in the world. That perception could easily change.

You sure do read a lot into a simple statement! Look again at the figures as a percentage of GDP for each country, and then tell me how many are willing to cut their own throat? They may or may not agree with the political decisions of the US, but I think an economic boycott is "extremely" unlikely.

My point is that it is not "cutting their own throat" if the US decides to keep invading other countries. The more countries the US invades, the more people get pissed off at the US. The more people that get pissed off, the more terrorist attacks against the US. The more terrorist attacks, the riskier it will be to invest in the US. Cheney and others have already said that it is not a question of if, but a question of when the next terrorist attack occurs. 9/11 has probably already irreparably damaged the view of American financial markets as a "safehaven" for investment. It is true that we were and still are the number one economy in the world, and foreign investment will continue to flow in as long as this is true. But such a position is easily squandered by carelessly engendering the hatred of those around the globe. We are now at a crucial time where it would be a huge mistake to arrogantly think that the US economy is invincible and that other countries depend on us rather than vice versa.

 

[steell]

I am not going to quote that whole thread!

Just the part I want to address.

My point is that it is not "cutting their own throat" if the US decides to keep invading other countries. The more countries the US invades, the more people get pissed off at the US. The more people that get pissed off, the more terrorist attacks against the US.

So, you are saying that the terrorist attacks against the US have been due to people being pissed off at our actions, correct?
It seems to me, that all the terrorists attacks that have been originated by other than Americans, have been by radical fundamentalist Muslims. Is that not true? According to their own statements (Bin Laden and others), they are attacking us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries (with the permission of their respective goverments) and we are not Muslims, and because we support Israels right to exist, and therefor cannot be Muslims (notice the recurring theme there?).
Those people are not pissed off because of what we do, they are pissed off because we exist.
There is no reasoning with radical fundamentalist Muslims. The only way to keep them from attacking us is to eliminate them. Since that is not likely to happen, the next best thing is to cut off there support and funding, by convincing nations and groups that they are going to severely regret helping anyone that attacks us, and I think that maybe we have just convinced a few.

 

[render]

Originally posted by: fwtong
Now that Iraq has fallen, what is the next country to preemptively invade because they have WMD and could be a potential threat to national security?

Who's next?

UN ?