So what is your best guess on where the next war will be?
I remember people all getting worked up about Iraq and I remember saying "We'll don't worry, this won't be the last war."
Now having said that I am wondering, where will the next one be?
Here is my guess
1. Iran (Because they are ragheads)
2. Bangladesh(They got water)
3. Syria(Ragheads)
I figure the camel jockeys got the oil and the Bangladeshi's got water, we need both. N. Korea was a choice, but I think we own N.Korea, I think they are a contract enemy run by Haliburton and used to keep the news interresting.
Share This Page:
The next war
The next war
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Depends. I see a number of flashpoints in those countries we're currently engaged in (Iraq and Afghanistan) for the foreseeable future.
There's also the matter of 'local' conflicts, as in Africa, or more worrisome, a nuclear exchange in Asia (Pakistan and India possibly).
But the majority of countries mentioned in your post I think will very agressively pursue WMD acquisition programs in large part as a result of our actions.
And as far as our will to deter them and enforce disarmament, I got doubts.
So does Spain, which wants some answers from us about a North Korean shipment of missiles and chemicals they intercepted near Yemen a year ago: Dick Cheney called them off, telling them the sale was legal (even though the 'merchandise' was not on the ship's manifest).
Cheney apparently then called the Yemeni president to let him take possession of the cargo, which found its way to its intended recipient: Khaddafi's Lybia.
Further in the future? Maybe the previously unthinkable: a war between the US and EU, most likely over economic concerns. And I think the US would be the agressor if it came to that.
There's also the matter of 'local' conflicts, as in Africa, or more worrisome, a nuclear exchange in Asia (Pakistan and India possibly).
But the majority of countries mentioned in your post I think will very agressively pursue WMD acquisition programs in large part as a result of our actions.
And as far as our will to deter them and enforce disarmament, I got doubts.
So does Spain, which wants some answers from us about a North Korean shipment of missiles and chemicals they intercepted near Yemen a year ago: Dick Cheney called them off, telling them the sale was legal (even though the 'merchandise' was not on the ship's manifest).
Cheney apparently then called the Yemeni president to let him take possession of the cargo, which found its way to its intended recipient: Khaddafi's Lybia.
Further in the future? Maybe the previously unthinkable: a war between the US and EU, most likely over economic concerns. And I think the US would be the agressor if it came to that.
haha france would be a morale boosting war....
USMC, RM invaid from channel after SBS SAS recce work
paras drop around paris...
french surrender....VF day..VICTORY in FRANCE 7 hours after it began!
did you know a town in england, brighton maybe is still at war with russia??...could be a major thing in the future!
cheers, davo
USMC, RM invaid from channel after SBS SAS recce work
paras drop around paris...
french surrender....VF day..VICTORY in FRANCE 7 hours after it began!
did you know a town in england, brighton maybe is still at war with russia??...could be a major thing in the future!
cheers, davo
Forward Troop - CLRRM, Viking Operator and Maintainer. Viking Support Troop out in The Ghan.
-
Big Cheese
- Member
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sun 19 Oct, 2003 2:00 pm
- Location: London
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Good point Tab.
As to a war between EU and US, well the probability is low. It would take an administration similar to what we currently have to make it possible.
They have another five years, and in that time they'll have their hands full elsewhere.
Then there's the details.... Like Lawrence Eagleburger's comment earlier this year that, should the administration decide to attack Syria after Iraq, "Bush will not last five minutes in office". Strong words. I suspect they would be even stronger if serious talk of attacking Europe developped.
Also, seriously, how do you grade US intelligence capabilities at this time? It will take many years to repair what's left, and all indications point to the administration adopting Mossad as proxy (or vice versa?).
An attack on France would be an attack on Germany as well, unless tensions and cracks could be engineered between the two, but due to degraded US intel capabilities, we'd have to rely on Mossad and SIS. Also, I think the notion that the French would rollover within a week like they did in 1940 actually serves them better than us.
As much as disinformation has compounded Americans' disgust for European and the French in particular, the question remains whether they have the stomach for perpetual war. Bear in mind we're talking about maybe 10 years from now. By which time, they'll grow wearier of casualties in the ME, of corruption scandals from Wall street to Pennsylvania avenue, etc.
Lastly, let's face it: the French have nuclear weapons and they would absolutely use them. I can't see a war like this happening. Not on the ground, anyway. But it's still fascinating how the rhetoric and disinformation bring back memories from the 1930s.
As to a war between EU and US, well the probability is low. It would take an administration similar to what we currently have to make it possible.
They have another five years, and in that time they'll have their hands full elsewhere.
Then there's the details.... Like Lawrence Eagleburger's comment earlier this year that, should the administration decide to attack Syria after Iraq, "Bush will not last five minutes in office". Strong words. I suspect they would be even stronger if serious talk of attacking Europe developped.
Also, seriously, how do you grade US intelligence capabilities at this time? It will take many years to repair what's left, and all indications point to the administration adopting Mossad as proxy (or vice versa?).
An attack on France would be an attack on Germany as well, unless tensions and cracks could be engineered between the two, but due to degraded US intel capabilities, we'd have to rely on Mossad and SIS. Also, I think the notion that the French would rollover within a week like they did in 1940 actually serves them better than us.
As much as disinformation has compounded Americans' disgust for European and the French in particular, the question remains whether they have the stomach for perpetual war. Bear in mind we're talking about maybe 10 years from now. By which time, they'll grow wearier of casualties in the ME, of corruption scandals from Wall street to Pennsylvania avenue, etc.
Lastly, let's face it: the French have nuclear weapons and they would absolutely use them. I can't see a war like this happening. Not on the ground, anyway. But it's still fascinating how the rhetoric and disinformation bring back memories from the 1930s.
-
Spannerman
- Member
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: East Anglia
-
Frank S.
- Guest
No worries, mate! I certainly don't take it personally.
But in fact there is another difference between the US and the UK: the campaign of vitriol against France has been huge here. It spawned websites, jokes, commentaries which in turn affect the American mindset and opinion.
There has been so damn much disinformation it actually became a tad worrisome around the time of the war. And you know, folks here don't know all that much about history to begin with, and do not follow up on news stories, many of which later get debunked.
The first impression remains and primes them to believe France is in fact an enemy. The New York Times ran a piece about waking up to the fact that we are in fact at 'war with France'.
If push came to shove this would become a point of contention between us and the (more deliberate and analytical) UK folks.
That might have the unfortunate effect of edging the UK closer to European integration, too.
Consider this: Three years ago, I would have voted for Bush. I actually liked Rumsfeld (for about 6 months).
I'm not going to revisit events in the intervening years, but American policy can swing rather violently. There are many here who actually do believe we need to nuke France.
But in fact there is another difference between the US and the UK: the campaign of vitriol against France has been huge here. It spawned websites, jokes, commentaries which in turn affect the American mindset and opinion.
There has been so damn much disinformation it actually became a tad worrisome around the time of the war. And you know, folks here don't know all that much about history to begin with, and do not follow up on news stories, many of which later get debunked.
The first impression remains and primes them to believe France is in fact an enemy. The New York Times ran a piece about waking up to the fact that we are in fact at 'war with France'.
If push came to shove this would become a point of contention between us and the (more deliberate and analytical) UK folks.
That might have the unfortunate effect of edging the UK closer to European integration, too.
Consider this: Three years ago, I would have voted for Bush. I actually liked Rumsfeld (for about 6 months).
I'm not going to revisit events in the intervening years, but American policy can swing rather violently. There are many here who actually do believe we need to nuke France.
Frank.American intelligence Services are underrated, like many other organisations there is a need to know problem and no one out side there own department needs to know, or so it would appear. The problem is putting together all the pieces of the jigsaw and once they have sorted that there should be a vast improvement. The other problem is running scenario on probably trouble spots. When they do this in the States so prat will run off and tell the press that they are planning to invade this place or that which make planning very difficult to do any thing. There have been cases of British Officers going for a briefing with their American Allies in Iraq and they are forbidden to see the the intelligence that they have provided as it is to sensitive and they don't have clearance
to view it.
to view it.
-
Spannerman
- Member
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: East Anglia
Frank, I understand what you are saying.
Up until September 11th 2001 I always felt the the US of A appeared insular, since then they have sat up and looked around, Northern Ireland was a problem area but ignored due to the Irish American vote, Israel is Little Ameica and really do not mind what happens there as long as the Israelis borders remain intact, the buffer the USA has created between Israel and other parts of the Muslim world is significant in itself.
The USA have not (IMO) got an enemy in Western Europe but may have in decades to come if the Muslim community becomes ever powerful within France, Germany and Britain.
Up until September 11th 2001 I always felt the the US of A appeared insular, since then they have sat up and looked around, Northern Ireland was a problem area but ignored due to the Irish American vote, Israel is Little Ameica and really do not mind what happens there as long as the Israelis borders remain intact, the buffer the USA has created between Israel and other parts of the Muslim world is significant in itself.
The USA have not (IMO) got an enemy in Western Europe but may have in decades to come if the Muslim community becomes ever powerful within France, Germany and Britain.
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Interesting points again, Tab. On the need to know issue, I sense that since 9/11, intel is possibly communicated better between agencies based on individual (oral) means and decisions. Some agents frustrated by bosses 'sitting' on what appears to be crucial intel may share it more readily with agents of other organizations.
But if that's true, I don't think it's systematic.
As to reforming the way agencies cooperate, once again, we have two diverging attitudes within the administration: one resulted in setting up a 'joint center' to promote cooperation and improve analysis, the other is to institute a whole new agency and reinvent the wheel.
This as a result of dissatisfaction on the part of the vice president's office and the civilian leadership in charge of intelligence at the Pentagon with a lack of 'agressive' analysis on Iraq.
They wanted to focus on what 'could be' rather than what was actually known.
Hence the creation of a special intel analysis cell at the Pentagon sifting through reports for information to buttress what Ahmed Chalabi claimed.
They discarded much of what the State Department put out and 'bullied' CIA analysts from the Directorate of Intelligence into focussing exclusively on nightmare scenarii. So in a real sense, much of the intel community was turned from an advisory entity into creative consultants, and when previsions turned out to be false, the blame was laid at their door.
In the midst of all this, the leak about Ambassador Wilson's wife being a covert operative was very destructive and we haven't heard the last of it.
But if that's true, I don't think it's systematic.
As to reforming the way agencies cooperate, once again, we have two diverging attitudes within the administration: one resulted in setting up a 'joint center' to promote cooperation and improve analysis, the other is to institute a whole new agency and reinvent the wheel.
This as a result of dissatisfaction on the part of the vice president's office and the civilian leadership in charge of intelligence at the Pentagon with a lack of 'agressive' analysis on Iraq.
They wanted to focus on what 'could be' rather than what was actually known.
Hence the creation of a special intel analysis cell at the Pentagon sifting through reports for information to buttress what Ahmed Chalabi claimed.
They discarded much of what the State Department put out and 'bullied' CIA analysts from the Directorate of Intelligence into focussing exclusively on nightmare scenarii. So in a real sense, much of the intel community was turned from an advisory entity into creative consultants, and when previsions turned out to be false, the blame was laid at their door.
In the midst of all this, the leak about Ambassador Wilson's wife being a covert operative was very destructive and we haven't heard the last of it.
FrankFrank S. wrote:The New York Times ran a piece about waking up to the fact that we are in fact at 'war with France'.
There are many here who actually do believe we need to nuke France.
I think we can dismiss the NYT piece as inflammatory hyperbole. But if the second is true then that's really worrying.
What grounds do they give? Because the French didn't back the Iraq invasion?
-
Frank S.
- Guest
I think it goes back further.
But as to Iraq, most people believe that France opposed the US because:
1 - they had economic interests, both past and ongoing with Saddam.
2 - they were afraid that their continued economic and military support of Saddam would be revealed.
3 - because they cling to obsolete notions of their own role on the world scene, which puts them at odds with the US.
I don't really want to highjack the thread much further with this tangeant, but the opinion of many if not most Americans is that the French are arrogant cowards who aid our enemies because they foolishly resent the US for saving their bacon twice in a century. Much of it stems from the capitulation of France to Germany in 1940 and subsequently, DeGaulle's attitude and policies.
Then there are those who truly hate the French, and they are the ones advocating nuking Paris. Never been there, nor do they care to.
But as to Iraq, most people believe that France opposed the US because:
1 - they had economic interests, both past and ongoing with Saddam.
2 - they were afraid that their continued economic and military support of Saddam would be revealed.
3 - because they cling to obsolete notions of their own role on the world scene, which puts them at odds with the US.
I don't really want to highjack the thread much further with this tangeant, but the opinion of many if not most Americans is that the French are arrogant cowards who aid our enemies because they foolishly resent the US for saving their bacon twice in a century. Much of it stems from the capitulation of France to Germany in 1940 and subsequently, DeGaulle's attitude and policies.
Then there are those who truly hate the French, and they are the ones advocating nuking Paris. Never been there, nor do they care to.
