NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't think that america is finished with the War on Terror yet.... I think there will be many more invasions.... But what do you think?

This is just a guess, but I'm gonna say...hmmm...Syria, maybe?

Lets be clear, the US has NEVER 'invaded' anyone, in the technical sense of the term.

I don't think that america is finished with the War on Terror yet.... I think there will be many more invasions.... But what do you think?

Iran is just too powerful. Syria is a perfect target with it's history and everything. And man, Americans have tried to find reasons to attack that country for ages.

or maybe it's Sweden...

Lets be clear, the US has NEVER 'invaded' anyone, in the technical sense of the term.

launching a full scale attack on a country not at war with no real internal conflicts going on in the country, overthrowing the government, installing a new government and occopying the country is what i call an invasion.

Or maybe Sudan. It would look good in CV.

Syria because they are one of the few remaining threats to Israel in the middle east, and top white house and pentagon officials even admitted a large / major reason for the war in Iraq was to protect Israel from the threat of Iraqi desires to attack them.

Iraq had a history of attempting to artillery super-guns with range on israel, also Iraq was giving 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank. Iraq had a history of launching SCUDs at Israel. etc


Syria will go, then perhaps Lebanon will be plunged into chaos again, then maybe we'll see Jordan hit again. Then perhaps Iran.

Then a great arab coalition greater than 48' will rally and we'll see America have to put 300,000+ troops to defend Israel herself from the masses of arab gunmen swarming to avenge their dead brethren.

Nostradamus said the end for the USA would be "Persia" (now Iran) and "The one who wears the blue turban".


The middle east will be our doom.

I think if it's in the middle east, Syria. The American public likes quik victories. Iran would give them a run for their money.

i chose "none of the above" in the ever optimistical assumption that george bush will not be elected in november

otherwise i guess we'll take out the next easiest target until we finally run out of resources

Kerry can flip out and invade Canada......

Kerry can flip out and invade Canada......

God, if only. Then we'd have cheap maple syrup and rights to a wussy flag and hockey players galore.... ;)

I am also choosing "none of the above" in optimistic hope.

I think Kerry will get us into some wars, too. If the UN has any more 'peace-keeping' missions, he'll want us to come along, because he's a UN ass-kisser.

Alabama

bump

Lets be clear, the US has NEVER 'invaded' anyone, in the technical sense of the term.

No?.. Hmm.. I must be suffering from extreme hallucinations then..

Syria because they are one of the few remaining threats to Israel in the middle east, and top white house and pentagon officials even admitted a large / major reason for the war in Iraq was to protect Israel from the threat of Iraqi desires to attack them.

Correct.

Syria will go, then perhaps Lebanon will be plunged into chaos again, then maybe we'll see Jordan hit again. Then perhaps Iran.

Thus breeding even more rage and hatred for America and the West...

Then a great arab coalition greater than 48' will rally and we'll see America have to put 300,000+ troops to defend Israel herself from the masses of arab gunmen swarming to avenge their dead brethren.

A billion Muslims will descend upon the Arabian Peninsula.. Israeli nuclear forces will go to Defcon 1, Pakistan's government will be overthrown by the people, new theocratic government will put its forces at Defcon 1.

The middle east will be our doom.

Indeed it shall.. and the doom of all humankind, I guess..

Hmm... good idea for a novel.. much like "Total War 2006"...

Is Max Barry working on something right now? 'Cuz this would be a big hit ;)

I'd have to say Iran. They are the region's worse threat, and are actively building a nuclear weapon. They already have missiles that stretch as far as Central Europe, but Israel is the most likely target. Israel has hinted it'll respond with a pre emptive airstrike, and it'll create a war, destabilizing the region. With US troops in the area, we may have to get involved, anyway.
But North Korea wouldn't be bad to attack, soon. The million man army is starving and woefully underequipped. While they now have the bomb, there are only a few silos they can be loaded into, all of which the US knows where they are. I see an easy victory in a week, with minimal damage to Seoul. North Korea will need to be revived, but hey, that's the ultimate investment oppritunity for the South. And since South Korean troops will make the bulk of any invasion force up, occupation will be easy. They're all Koreans, after all.

Lets be clear, the US has NEVER 'invaded' anyone, in the technical sense of the term.

Haha I think there is a whole country called Iraq that may disagree with you..

Haha I think there is a whole country called Iraq that may disagree with you..

Not to mention WWII Germany. They declared war on us first, but we launched the first attack.

Maybe we can invade ourselves. I would love a bit of martial law, just for a month or two.

CLEANSED!!!

Here is a better idea...lets just forget everybody else. They do not want us. Colonize space, and leave this foul rock of a planet and all of its unsolvables behind us. Invade...the moon!!!

Prehaps an oil rich country?

the moon? Good idea! America leaves behind the world, and starts fighting aileans, because no-one on earth will challenge them

Iran is just too powerful. Syria is a perfect target with it's history and everything. And man, Americans have tried to find reasons to attack that country for ages.

or maybe it's Sweden...

Iran? to powerful?

they can't even fend off the kurds

As much enjoyment as I would get out of a war with Canada I know it won't happen so I'm going to go with Iran.

Iran? to powerful?

they can't even fend off the kurds

Not military powerful but politically powerful in the whole muslim world...Not everything is messures by the strenght of one's army.

Now, I just have to ask why Pakistan is on the poll. The US and Pakistan are tied to the hip, and that's not likely to change soon.

I couldn't think anybody else.....

USA will never attack a nation that can fire a nuke north korea is out

I couldn't think anybody else.....
ok

USA will never attack a nation that can fire a nuke north korea is out

true...

The FARC in Colombia.

Haha I think there is a whole country called Iraq that may disagree with you..
America only invaded Iraq in the sense that it invaded France in 1944 or invaded Kuwait in 1991.

You mean the next country to be LIBERATED.
There are no "victims" when the US moves in and eliminates tyrants.

The next country to be liberated will be Iran.

Haha I think there is a whole country called Iraq that may disagree with you..

The VAST majority of the people of Iraq see us as "liberators".
It is only the insurgents from foreign countries and a minority of Iraqis that want to set up an Islamic Theocracy that feel we "invaded.

Pakistan is not our friend, but we will not liberate them.
President Musharaff is our "friend", but he has a price on his head.
When he is gone, we will be back to where we were, but we still won't need to deal with them yet.

USA will never attack a nation that can fire a nuke north korea is out

I think that's exactly the reason why we would attack them. Same thing with Iran if they get nukes.

The VAST majority of the people of Iraq see us as "liberators".
It is only the insurgents from foreign countries and a minority of Iraqis that want to set up an Islamic Theocracy that feel we "invaded.

You know, everyone says this, but then they don't provide a credible link to the raw information that makes them feel this way. Care to substantiate this claim? I'm fully willing to admit that the Western media may be showing bias by not reporting equally on Iraqi citizens that see the whole business as "liberation". However, I'm not willing to buy that the "VAST majority of the people of Iraq" feel this way without a credible, independent source of data.

Besides the tacky flag, the ultimate in hockey players, we could also get cheap prescription drugs. Canada sounds good to me. In all seriousness, if Kerry gets into office, I doubt we will be invading anybody. Were u insinuating there was no internal conflict in Iraq?

Do u really feel that it would be possible to get "raw data" on whether or not we are perceived as liberators? There are a thousand links that show USA as invaders or Liberators. Take your pick. Unless u interviewed each Iraqian and promised them protection, it will be years before that question is answered.

Do u really feel that it would be possible to get "raw data" on whether or not we are perceived as liberators? There are a thousand links that show USA as invaders or Liberators. Take your pick. Unless u interviewed each Iraqian and promised them protection, it will be years before that question is answered.

Provide one from a credible, independent source.

I'm sure people could find a more recent poll, but to help people here :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/03_march/16/iraq_polls.shtml


Opinion was evenly split on whether the invasion humiliated Iraq (41%) or liberated it (42%). Almost one in five respondents (17%) refused to comment.

Half of Iraqis (49%) believe the invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition was right, compared with 39% who thought it was wrong.

Overall, 70% of Iraqis say that their life these days is good, compared with 29% who say their life is bad.

71% of Iraqis expect their lives to be better in a year from now, compared with 6% who expect life to be worse and 9% who say life will remain about the same.

Compared with just before the war in 2003, 57% of Iraqis now say their life is better overall, compared with 19% who say it is worse and 23% who say it is about the same.


When asked what political actions by other people would be acceptable, whilst the overwhelming majority of respondents thought any violence was unacceptable, some 17% said attacks on coalition forces would be acceptable, 14% said the same about attacks on the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and 10% thought attacks on foreigners working alongside the CPA would be acceptable.

This was from March this year, so its like 5 months before the current date.

I'm sure people could find a more recent poll, but to help people here :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/03_march/16/iraq_polls.shtml

This was from March this year, so its like 5 months before the current date.

Thank you.

Victim? Fuck you man. Afghanistan was self defense combined with retaliation for a brutal attack. As for Iraq, the American people won't let neocons get away with illegal and counterproductive wars again. You are trying to make the USA sound like a gang of vicious criminals. We have always done more good for the world than harm.

I don't think that america is finished with the War on Terror yet.... I think there will be many more invasions.... But what do you think?
Sweden, definitely.

Sweden, definitely.

Yeah sure...... We will defeat them with guerilla tactics

My vote is for the Netherlands, because it's the host country of the international court for war crimes. The US already passed a law explicitely allowing the invasion of the Netherlands in case any Americans are brought to trial, so all they have to do is wait for an occasion :)

Alternatively, either Syria or Iraq. Syria because it's one of the biggest Arabic powers and suspected of hiding Iraqi weapons and fugitives, Iran because it's probably closer to building an atomic bomb.

Invading Iran first would have the added benefit of secretely pleasing the Arab world (even though they'd probably deny it), so it might create some much needed goodwill.

Yeah sure...... We will defeat them with guerilla tactics
Haha. OK, just try then. You know im just joking though.

Iran - no; if we wait a little longer, they'll kill off their government for us. There's gonna be a revolution any time now.

Syria - not within the next five years

Sudan - see above

North Korea - no, nuclear power

Pakistan - nope, India will nuke 'em for us

Canada - we tried that once; it didn't work. :(

US INVASION PLANS OF CANADA, AUTHENTIC DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS!! (http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html)

We have always done more good for the world than harm.

You're just hilarious.

US INVASION PLANS OF CANADA, AUTHENTIC DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS!! (http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html)

It would be so great to own Canada now.

It would be so great to own Canada now.

yeah..... i think sweden had some Norway invasion plans too....

You're just hilarious.

I know.. isn't he?

yeah..... i think sweden had some Norway invasion plans too....

What is the name of your town? (I'm just curious, so I can see if I'll be able to pronounce it or not)

check the NS profile sticky, the last page..... :D

I voted Syria but I pray it's Sudan. Something has to be done, a few million people are starving to death and being massacred. Makes 9/11 look like a picnic. A really small picnic.

Oh and also, don't elect Bush or America deserves anything that comes its way.

Oh and also, it could be Iran for two reasons. One, Iraq gives a perfect base of operations for an invasion. Two, the powers that be fear an Arab revolution like the one they stopped by helping Saddam (anyone remember that America was good friends with him?) invade Iran. If a revolution gets into full swing and the Arab world unites and forgets its differences, the world economy (oil) is screwed. The puppet governments in places like Saudi Arabia will fall and Isreal would be in huge danger. So depending on how things go Iran or Syria.

I voted none of the above. Why you might ask?

Well the topic for this thread is "Which country will be Americas next victim? ", and the answer to that question is very obvious but it is not on the list.

If America invades another country in a similar fashion as to the invasion of Iraq (false pretenses), then the country that will be most victimized while be America itself.

If you think about it long enough, you will realize that that is the sad truth. :(

It would be so great to own Canada now.
Well that isn't going to happen and you know it, so dream on.

What country will be America's next VICTIM... isn't this a bit rich even from a Swede? ;)

What's the problem man? You haven't profited enough?

I voted none of the above. Why you might ask?

Well the topic for this thread is "Which country will be Americas next victim? ", and the answer to that question is very obvious but it is not on the list.

If America invades another country in a similar fashion as to the invasion of Iraq (false pretenses), then the country that will be most victimized while be America itself.

If you think about it long enough, you will realize that that is the sad truth. :(
And why do you believe that?

i pwned the Bump

I don't think that america is finished with the War on Terror yet.... I think there will be many more invasions.... But what do you think?
How about sweden.

I don't think that america is finished with the War on Terror yet.... I think there will be many more invasions.... But what do you think?



Brainwashed Troll.

Brainwashed Troll.

lol

Why do people keep saying Sweden when Norway is right there and has oil?

Norway has a LOOOOOT of Oil......... Sweden has a looot of forest, iron ore, copper, silver mines, some gold mines and ect ect

Of the countries you've named, I'd say Iran is the most likely. North Korea seems like the obvious choice, but I think the US is willing to take the required risks.

Syria, because it is more easy then Iran and it would fit better Israels plans.

And why are so many people voting for Syria?

Syria, because it is more easy then Iran and it would fit better Israels plans.

You think so? How's that?

You think so? How's that?

Since Syria claims it's territory of the Gollan Heights back ;)

Ahhh, perhaps, perhaps...

Ahhh, perhaps, perhaps...

Off course perhaps, but you asked why people vote for Syria?

IMO the US will not invade any country before Iraq is stable, they just don't have the reserves for it, since they pull troops out of Korea and from bases in the EU.

Personaly, I don't think there will be a third country at all. The current government is already getting so much heat over Iraq, a third war would be suicidal.

I think if America made a move against another Arab nation the rest would come to their aid. I think they'll either go for Syria or Jordan next. Jordan is a pain in the arse for Israel, as is Syria.

I think if America made a move against another Arab nation the rest would come to their aid. I think they'll either go for Syria or Jordan next. Jordan is a pain in the arse for Israel, as is Syria.

Minor mistake here, darling-
Our relations with Jordan are the best we have in the Mid-East, a bit more than cold-blooded peace.
Syria on the other hand...
I voted for Syria. God, don't I hope they'll go for Syria.

darling

Don't. Just don't.

As for US-Jordan relations, they don't really matter so much. All it'll take is a terrorist or whatever with links to Jordan and that'll be it. Besides, the US only have good relations with the rulers in Jordan, not the people themselves. They resent Israel for loss of territory and the US for supporting Israel.