US vs the world - hypothetical war

[niky]

Okay, I finally give in. I'll play.

Background: Despite dire warnings from liberals and human rights activists over the past decade or so, fundamentalist Christians have taken over the government. The White House becomes a totalitarian dictatorship... Congress is abolished, and a Cabal of white ministers sits where the Senate used to be.

Year I: In a short but bloody war, The US finally kicks Fidel Castro (or whoever his successor may be) out of power. Cubans so thankful, they happily enlist in the US Army.

Year II: US and Canada renew non-aggression and security pact. Citing increasing Chinese influence and military power, which China is building up in response to Guerilla activity sponsored by the CIA, the US builds "defense bases" on the Pacific seaboard.

Security Bases in Iraq strengthened. Mutual defense pact with Israel signed.

Year II.5: US bases in the Philippines reactivated. US base in Guam upgraded. Mutual defense treaty with Taiwan strengthened (to further escalate tensions with the Chinese). Turning point: Is Japan with us or against us?

Year III: Here's the important part... the US must manufacture a plausible reason for the Sino-American war. Chinese attack on Pearl Harbor maybe? Chinese annexing of the Philippines or Taiwan?

Iraqi bases upgraded to full airfields. US now has land-based military aircraft coverage of the Gulf. Ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia start weakening, as leaders there become alarmed at US Fundamentalist propaganda.

Year IV: Sino American war in full swing. Japan remains neutral. US Bombers disguised as Tupelovs raze Tokyo and Okinawa. "Chinese" subs sneak nukes into Taipei. World is so enraged by these two actions that the US gets full UN support. Chinese military crushed in a year or so. Desperate Communist leaders actually DO launch nukes at Taiwan, Philippine bases and Korean Bases. Death toll is staggering. Backpack nukes are smuggled into Beijing in the last few weeks of the war, but the Cabal calls the CIA off. No need for that anymore.

Year V: US Military presence now stronger in Iraq. Carrier fleets roam from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Next target: Iran. Citing "terrorist attacks" on US Refineries in Iraq, the US calls for the deposing of the current Iranian leadership. Riots ensue. "Terrorist" attacks in Iraq are now mixed with actual terrorist attacks sponsored by local radicals. With perfect timing, a CIA sponsored assassination throws Iran into chaos. US and UN troops move in to restore order. Iranian industry is now "managed" by US concerns.

At this point, the US has control of China, Cuba, the Philippines, Taiwan (government destroyed by war), Iraq and Iran. Treaties with and bases in Japan, Korea, Canada and other countries in Southeast Asia. A lull of two or three years should ensue... to allow US stockpiles to rebuild.

Still can't figure out how they'll pick a fight with Europe.

 

[niky]

Year VIII: Syria and Libya annexed by US-sponsored "Iraqi" forces in the Middle East. Reasons cited are "destabilizing influence" and "harboring of terrorists". In the months before the annexing, terrified governments TRY to cooperate with UN and Iraqi fact-finding commissions, but are labelled as "obstructionist" and "uncooperative". Takeover is relatively bloodless. Civilians in both countries are tired of the endless bombings and attacks carried out by unseen "radicals" which they believe their leaders are hiding. Score one for the CIA.

Russia and France denounce US "power-mongering", ask that China, Iraq and Iran be turned over to UN control. US flatly refuses, citing a "God-given right and mission" to maintain and rebuild these countries. US ambassadors accuse French and Russian Governments of harboring secret desire to acquire business concerns in these countries.

US Carrier Fleets start patrolling the Mediterranean and British waters. US forces start building up in Iraq and possibly in reactivated US bases in Germany. The UK finally denounces US aggression, the German Government petitions the withdrawal of US forces within a year. Israeli and Egyptian planes fly patrol together for the first time, as "incidents" with American patrols (in which no shots, thankfully, are fired) become more and more common. The stage is now set. The US has enough bases, industrial resources and oil fields to fight with the rest of the world. But who will fire the first shot?

 

[a6m5]

Still can't figure out how they'll pick a fight with Europe.

Well, France is always making dirty money. How about during the Sino-American War, France was actually aiding the Chinese with some hightech weapons, violating the EU's weapons sale embargo to China. United States strike France, causing Russia to get involved and eventually, rest of the EU.

Edit:
OMG! It's pretty close.

 

[Blake]

Once again, it depends on your definition of "power".

We could defeat the combined armies of the world in a one-time-only slugfest. The Romans could not do that.

However, we cannot conquer a hostile nation, occupy it, and successfully control it. Okay, maybe we could keep the population of Tuvalu in line for a while, but any more than that and we couldn't handle it. Modern small-arms weaponry in the hands of insurgents makes that sort of thing impractical, unless you were willing to slaughter most of the population to get your way. The Romans only had to deal with peasants wielding primitive hand weapons, so they were able to control this much territory for a very long time:

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1976/romanempire5eo.jpg

Even then, they had to use the most brutal and cruel measures to do it. Their viciousness toward the conquered peoples of their empire matched that of any of history's worst oppressors.

I completely agree 👍

Blake

 

[Solid Fro]

France can always use the money it got from Saddam for weapon sales.

 

[niky]

At this point, the UN has moved office to Europe. The US has started a war with Europe over supposed trade violations... stemming from a UN embargo on the US. Street protesters in the US, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines are taking their toll on troop morale, and many radicals are secretly arrested and shot in the Continental US.

Year X: Mediterranean-European war in full swing. Indian and Pakistani forces remain neutral... in fear of US retaliation. Indian government secretly smuggling nukes into the UK, though.

Egyptian Air Force suffers numerous casualties in the Middle-Eastern theater. Israeli and Saudi Air Fleets score some small victories, but are being battered by night-time stealth bomber raids.... that is until a light-aircraft strike force is set up with the sole purpose of intercepting Stealth Bombers. Within a few weeks, six Stealth Bombers are badly damaged, and two are shot down.

The ground war in the Middle East is not going well. US, Iraqi and Iranian tanks are pushing into Israel. Saudi ground forces are too busy holding their own territory to assist the Israelis.

In Europe, US subs have crippled British commerce. The Chunnel is now a water-filled graveyard. US forces have landed in Britain, and staging points are set-up. US Infiltration squads have thoroughly destabilized the government and are terrifying the populace. The IRA is reactivated and is taking its toll on US forces, but British resistance can't stop them now.

French and Italian wings manage to hold their own against US air forces and claim a few small victories against the older F16 and F18 wings (by this time, US air fleets are strung thin). British aircraft manage to sink two or three carriers before being neutralized by anti-air defenses. The British government goes to ground, and British aircraft and land forces are pulled back to the European mainland.

Year XI: The first nukes are fired. Three US bases in the UK go down to backpack nukes. The Iraqi and Iranian capital go down to ballistics. In retaliation, the US blows Jerusalem to kingdom come, and nukes Paris. A dozen old Russian ballistics, which were supposed to be decommissioned, hit Washington, New York, and a few other US cities. The Capitol building escapes damage by pure luck, as the Washington nuke flies a few miles too far to the west. Hostilities grind to a halt, as negotiations begin at the new UN Headquarters in Geneva.

Result of the war? US now has permanent control of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Taiwan, the Philippines, Singapore (?), and Korea. British, French, Italian, Egyptian and Saudi forces are worn thin. Israel is now a non-factor. Arab states are all up-in-arms over the destruction of Jerusalem, and there are numerous bombings at US Asian bases in the Philippines and Singapore, as well as street protests and militia actions inside Iran and Iraq. There is a UN Embargo on the US, causing a deep recession and loss of jobs in many high profile industries. Many IT firms have moved shop to Japan or Europe, and unemployment is at an all time high.

World crude hits $100 a barrel. This is called the "End of All Wars", as no one has enough fuel to mount a successful campaign against US forces already in place... and US ammunition and spares stockpiles are thoroughly depleted.

 

[niky]

Hmmm... that IS a good trigger. But the key to Europe for the US is through Britain (as a staging area) and then France. But all this hinges on the availability of troops, and by the tenth year, people will be running to the hills to escape the draft... so this scenario isn't really possible anyway.

 

[Solid Fro]

Okay, I finally give in. I'll play.

Background: Despite dire warnings from liberals and human rights activists over the past decade or so, fundamentalist Christians have taken over the government.

How does one go about doing this?

 

[Ev0]

Yep, the French are always making good money by selling arms to countries that nobody will do business with. Guess who helped Iraq's nuclear program in the early 80s... that is up until Israel bombed it.

And as for the whole war scenario, I'd love to make a long post, but I'm too tired, so I'll sum up quickly.

US will begin by bombing Canadian and Mexican airports and seaports, denying any facilities to the enemy in North America, thus leaving the continental USA safe. If anybody tried to send ships to North America, the US Navy would easily intercept them.

The air war would be a stalemate, as the USAF would have a pretty tight reign over North American skies with a very formidible force of a mix of F-16s, F-15s, and a growing number of F-22s. The USAF would not be able to go on the offensive save for select ground attack missions, due to a lack of tankers to fuel hundreds of aircraft required to attack, say, Europe (B2s would have no problem doing this though). The air battle over the sea would also be a stalemate. American F/A-18s would be outclassed by the Eurofighters of the EU, and F-15s of Israel (They would rebase to a suitable location), and Japan. F-14s would not make a difference since there is currently only one squadron of them left. Even so, their mighty Phoenix missiles (with a range of 100 miles) have been retired for a few years now. But if the Hornets are outclassed, how would the US keep their carriers safe? Aegis cruisers. If you're a fighter pilot, this is pretty much your worst nightmare. If anyone tried to attack a carrier battle group, the Aegis would prove to be a decisive factor, with it's array of weapons and it's massively powerful radar, which would be enough to give the inferior F/A-18s an edge in battle.

There likely wouldn't be a ground war. Even if there were adequate ships to move enough troops, many of those ships would be sunk by the US Navy (especially their subs). If there was any ground action, all I could imagine is a US invasion of Alberta, just for the oil. And even if they did that, getting the oil back would be a nightmare. I could only imagine Canadian special forces destroying any attempt to build a pipeline (and for the record, Canada's elite spec ops unit JTF2 is just as good as the Green Berets, Navy SEALS, the UK SAS, or the Aussie SAS).

No full scale invasions would take place. Invading Mexico would be absolutely moronic considering the huge hispanic population in the US. Invading Canada could be a possibility. But only if the US needs the resources. There are around 20 million people living within 100 miles of the Canada/US border; they would need a lot of troops to occupy succesfully.

Well, that was fairly long, but I didn't go into detail on how China and Russia would be essentially useless allies.

Oh yes, and I did not include nukes in any of this. Then it would be a pretty straightforward shooting war. Except it would last a few days, ending in either the almost complete destruction of all life on earth, or most of the planet gets wiped out, and the two sides agree to a cease fire before all is lost.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Maybe I should buy some Raytheon stock.

Not without the proper research first.

God bless you, Bri!

Remember... homework first, then make the final decision.

I still maintain that corporations instigate wars for profit. They have lobbyists who bribe Congressmen and "think tanks" that trick federal agencies into spreading corporate propaganda. Operation Iraqi Liberation is only the beginning.

 

[niky]

How does one go about doing this?

Fundamentalists in the Government? I thought they were already there?

As for EV0's post... I still think they would annex Canada and Mexico under a mutual defense pact. The CIA plays a big part in this, as they would need to manufacture a reason for each and every conflict. With a proper reason, they would have excuse enough to move US troops around the world.

Agreed, most wars are fought over money and profit. But the motivational force for the troops and the people is usually fanaticism. Whether this is disguised as Patriotism, Religion or something else, it's necessary. You would need the fundamentalists in the Government to encourage the soldiers to fight.

 

[a6m5]

Not without the proper research first.



Remember... homework first, then make the final decision.

I still maintain that corporations instigate wars for profit. They have lobbyists who bribe Congressmen and "think tanks" that trick federal agencies into spreading corporate propaganda. Operation Iraqi Liberation is only the beginning.

That comment was due to your links to the Yahoo Finance, nothing more. 👍 As far as conspiracy theories go, all I know is that some people get to cash in during and after the war.

 

[Zardoz]

...Operation Iraqi Liberation is only the beginning.

No. This is the end. This won't happen again. As of this moment we're at the beginning of an investigation of how we really got ourselves into this fiasco. When the smoke clears we'll have learned our lesson. This is a bit of history that won't repeat itself:

If they try to cover up what was really going on, they'll be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice...

 

[Solid Fro]

The Democrats needed a closed door hearing to not allow the public see them making fools of themselves from this meaningless stunt. Democrats will find nothing from this or any indictment hearing. All of the intelligence was laid before them and every single one voted for the war. Just an attention grabber and nothing more and the media played right into it.

About this O.I.L. acronym, it does need to stop. Unless you have facts to back that statement up, then I suggest refraining from posting again, MrktMkr1986. I believe you are a man of intelligence, I would have never imagined stupid rhetoric like that coming from you.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That comment was due to your links to the Yahoo Finance, nothing more. 👍

No problem.

As far as conspiracy theories go, all I know is that some people get to cash in during and after the war.

True.

No. This is the end. This won't happen again. As of this moment we're at the beginning of an investigation of how we really got ourselves into this fiasco. When the smoke clears we'll have learned our lesson. This is a bit of history that won't repeat itself:

If the smoke clears...

...but I'm glad the liberals took it upon themselves to show the country that we mean business (pun? ).

If they try to cover up what was really going on, they'll be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice...

I hope so.

Hopefully the Bush administration turns out to be less corrupt than Reagan's...

What a waste of corporate PAC money...

About this O.I.L. acronym, it does need to stop. Unless you have facts to back that statement up, then I suggest refraining from posting again, MrktMkr1986. I believe you are a man of intelligence, I would have never imagined stupid rhetoric like that coming from you.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/ <<< dated: 8/31/2005

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030320-war03.htm <<< dated: 3/20/2003

The United States is the world's largest consumer of oil .... Much of the world's oil lies beneath Iraq and its Gulf neighbors... experts say oil played a significant role in the decision to confront Iraq.

However, there are some dissenting opinions:

This is not about oil, and anyone who thinks that is badly misunderstanding the situation.

 

[a6m5]

All of the intelligence was laid before them and every single one voted for the war.

I was just going to say. VZ, you probably remember that I was critical of the invasion of Iraq. When they should have stopped Bush from the invasion, those fools went right along! Is entire Democrat Party a John Kerry/flip flop?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I was just going to say. VZ, you probably remember that I was critical of the invasion of Iraq. When they should have stopped Bush from the invasion, those fools went right along! Is entire Democrat Party a John Kerry/flip flop?

No. The entire Democratic Party is owned an controlled by PACs-R-Us... Some Democrats have a conscience, though, and after nearly 3 years ( ) finally decided that something wasn't right...

 

[Solid Fro]

The Boston Globe headline of: "Bush gives new reason for Iraq war. Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists" is incorrect. No where in that article does President Bush says that he has a new "reason" for the Iraq war. As the article date of August 15, 2005, the Iraqi government is in control of all of their oil fields. All profits made by the selling of oil is paying off debts Saddam owed to other countries and rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq. It would be wise for the American military to protect any oil field from terrorists acting in Iraq for not only environmental reasons (as stated in the Global Security article you posted), but for finance reasons as well. Iraq as a nation has very few sources of national income.

As in the Global Security article, any fire set to the oil pipelines can cause serious environmental damage, as seen in Kuwait during Desert Storm:

Safeguarding the Iraqi people's oil -- and that's truly how we look at it -- is extremely important to us,&quot; said Maj. Chris Hughes of the Marines, a spokesman for the Coalition Forces Land Component Command in Kuwait. &quot;There is an incredible natural resource available to the Iraqi people to help them reestablish their society, and we will work to make sure it's available, and that a significant environmental disaster is not inflicted,&quot; he said.

In 1991 in Kuwait, it took nine months and $20 billion to contain the fire damage to the oil fields and restore production.

&quot;The whole sky was black for weeks on end,&quot; recalled Fahad Dousair, an engineer at the Burgan oil field in Kuwait. &quot;You could not see the sun.&quot;

If Hussein were to do the same thing in Iraq, the damage could exceed $50 billion, experts say.

&quot;The wells in Iraq are much higher-yield. They're farther apart. The terrain is more difficult. There may not be enough water nearby,&quot; said Robert Ebel, energy program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. &quot;It would be one god-awful mess.&quot;

I was just going to say. VZ, you probably remember that I was critical of the invasion of Iraq. When they should have stopped Bush from the invasion, those fools went right along! Is entire Democrat Party a John Kerry/flip flop?

I surely hope not. America needs TWO parties to operate, not one. It is unfortunate to see the Democrats vote one way and then say something opposite when they see a political advantage.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The Boston Globe headline of: "Bush gives new reason for Iraq war. Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists" is incorrect. No where in that article does President Bush says that he has a new "reason" for the Iraq war. As the article date of August 15, 2005, the Iraqi government is in control of all of their oil fields. All profits made by the selling of oil is paying off debts Saddam owed to other countries and rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq. It would be wise for the American military to protect any oil field from terrorists acting in Iraq for not only environmental reasons (as stated in the Global Security article you posted), but for finance reasons as well. Iraq as a nation has very few sources of national income.

As in the Global Security article, any fire set to the oil pipelines can cause serious environmental damage, as seen in Kuwait during Desert Storm:

Safeguarding the Iraqi people's oil -- and that's truly how we look at it -- is extremely important to us,&quot; said Maj. Chris Hughes of the Marines, a spokesman for the Coalition Forces Land Component Command in Kuwait. &quot;There is an incredible natural resource available to the Iraqi people to help them reestablish their society, and we will work to make sure it's available, and that a significant environmental disaster is not inflicted,&quot; he said.

In 1991 in Kuwait, it took nine months and $20 billion to contain the fire damage to the oil fields and restore production.

&quot;The whole sky was black for weeks on end,&quot; recalled Fahad Dousair, an engineer at the Burgan oil field in Kuwait. &quot;You could not see the sun.&quot;

If Hussein were to do the same thing in Iraq, the damage could exceed $50 billion, experts say.

&quot;The wells in Iraq are much higher-yield. They're farther apart. The terrain is more difficult. There may not be enough water nearby,&quot; said Robert Ebel, energy program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. &quot;It would be one god-awful mess.&quot;

While I don't doubt the environmental and economic significance of the oil fields, I do believe we have our own interests in mind as well.

 

[a6m5]

Some Democrats have a conscience, though, and after nearly 3 years ( ) finally decided that something wasn't right...

I don't know. I really suspect that they are taking advantage of the situation like Viper Zero is saying. It's bit frustrating that on a war(big mistake at that) I hoped to have avoided, Democrats go right along with Bush. Now they are trying to pass the blame, that in my opinion, they should share. Many of the U.S. Citizens are guilty of it as well. I know bunch of people who criticized anti Iraq invasion people like me(but pro Afghan invasion), but now they criticize Bush for it. Hypocritical.

 

[Solid Fro]

No, everything is right. No mistakes, no blunders, no quagmires.

The only reason why the Democrats are doing this is to bring attention back to them after failing to charge anyone in the CIA leak case with a crime, ratifying a constitution in Iraq, and a successful Supreme Court nomination by President Bush. They are indeed taking advantage of the situation.

The Democratic party needed a direction and this is what they pick, a fruitless misadventure.

 

[Diego440]

Not to add more log into the fire on this issue, but the rest of the world saw the Iraq war as an opportunity for the US to get Iraqi oil for free. I mean, take over their government and then be in charge of administrating all its oil? Come on.

Seriously, I've seen many instances where the US receives one version of the news and the rest of the world get another. Remember in 9-11, there were four planes. One crashed into the Pentagon, two into the WTC and the fourth plane crashed somewhere in PA. Within the US there was this story of how the heroic passengers took over the plane from the terrorists and crashed it in an open area. The rest of the world (or at least Europe, if anyone else, please expand) got the story of the US military shooting the plane down because it was headed to the White House.

 

[Solid Fro]

But, you are adding more logs to the fire. Maybe this is why Americans get pissed off. People like you who do not bring facts to the table.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/flight/flight.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_93
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Get it straight or don't post at all.

 

[ledhed]

So where is all this free oil ? The war is costing almost 300 billion dollars + . is the war about oil ? YES If their was no oil in the middle east no one would care about it .
But there is oil and the western world thrives on it . It must be kept accessable through free trade or all the western economies along with the rest of the world economies will crash . WTF is so hard to understand about that ? Why must liberal idiots come up with stupid slogans like war for oil ....NO **** SHERLOCK ...so ? At any rate besides oil you have terrorism and leaders who would fund and use terrorist to attack other countries ...like SADDAM , who is in jail and soon to be put on display in a trial . You also have the unique oppurtunity to establish a Democracy and to remove a despot ...something the other countries in the region cant seem to do on their own . A free and prosperous Iraq will show the rest of the region that there is an alternative to despotic rule and hoplessness that breeds terrorist and terrorism . in the short run did the invansion create more terrorist ? YES ...but they seem to be all in one place and are becoming martyrs at a rapid pace thanks to the military and the same time Al- Queda and the other orginizations are actually AT WAR ...only this time THEY are being hunted and killed ..instead of being ignored like before 9-11 . Liberals neglect all the success comming out of the Middle East region in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebenon and elsewhere , they are actually looking for the US to fail ..this is treason and stupidity..why would you want the US to fail ? What the F*#k do you think the world will be like if that happens ? $#@* moron , camel wang biting weasel frog butt muching ,scum suckers , looking for a failure here are beyond contempt .

 

[Famine]

Seriously, I've seen many instances where the US receives one version of the news and the rest of the world get another. Remember in 9-11, there were four planes. One crashed into the Pentagon, two into the WTC and the fourth plane crashed somewhere in PA. Within the US there was this story of how the heroic passengers took over the plane from the terrorists and crashed it in an open area. The rest of the world (or at least Europe, if anyone else, please expand) got the story of the US military shooting the plane down because it was headed to the White House.

I live in the UK and have never heard it even voiced that the "unsuccessful" kamikaze passenger jet was shot down by the US military.

 

[DQuaN]

Same.

I heard the story that the passengers regained control, but crashed for some reason.

 

[niky]

So where is all this free oil ? The war is costing almost 300 billion dollars + . is the war about oil ? YES If their was no oil in the middle east no one would care about it .
But there is oil and the western world thrives on it . It must be kept accessable through free trade or all the western economies along with the rest of the world economies will crash . WTF is so hard to understand about that ? Why must liberal idiots come up with stupid slogans like war for oil ....NO **** SHERLOCK ...so ? At any rate besides oil you have terrorism and leaders who would fund and use terrorist to attack other countries ...like SADDAM , who is in jail and soon to be put on display in a trial . You also have the unique oppurtunity to establish a Democracy and to remove a despot ...something the other countries in the region cant seem to do on their own . A free and prosperous Iraq will show the rest of the region that there is an alternative to despotic rule and hoplessness that breeds terrorist and terrorism . in the short run did the invansion create more terrorist ? YES ...but they seem to be all in one place and are becoming martyrs at a rapid pace thanks to the military and the same time Al- Queda and the other orginizations are actually AT WAR ...only this time THEY are being hunted and killed ..instead of being ignored like before 9-11 . Liberals neglect all the success comming out of the Middle East region in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebenon and elsewhere , they are actually looking for the US to fail ..this is treason and stupidity..why would you want the US to fail ? What the F*#k do you think the world will be like if that happens ? $#@* moron , camel wang biting weasel frog butt muching ,scum suckers , looking for a failure here are beyond contempt .

There is still no solid evidence linking Saddam to 9-11.

America sucks at creating democracies and removing despots. Ref. Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, most of South America, Afghanistan under the Russians... etc. Liberals wanting the US to fail? HAH HAH. They just didn't want the war in the first place.

When you remove a dictatorship through force, the forces which remove the dictatorship often take the place of the previous dictatorship and do the exact same thing. If they can't, they do what they can to destabilize the new government. Ref.: the overthrow of Marcos, Philippines.... the military which overthrew Marcos tried five different times to overthrow his successor... the overthrow of Estrada, in which the same militants that marched him out of power are now trying the same thing with his successor, the current president.

Ref. Afghanistan: By arming the mujaheddin with weapons and guerilla tactics to combat the Russians, CIA operatives lay the foundations for Osama's terrorist army.

All told, now that US forces are occupying Iraq, there's no other choice but to follow through. But one of the main results of the Iraqi invasion is the destruction of Saddam's miltary might, and the going to ground of thousands of his supporters, who now form a formidable guerilla army... a terrorist force where there wasn't one before. Again, America creates its own problems.

Terrorists all in one place? With new bombings in India and Indonesia, what leads you to believe that? By invading another Muslim country without direct cause, the US has caused another generation of radicals to take up arms. But then, America could sneeze and terrorists would pop out of the woodwork.

Yes, there is a way to remove a despot. Either kill him, or wait for him to die. Somehow, according to convention, it's more "moral" to start a war involving thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damages than to assassinate one asshole. Go figure.

Creating a democracy doesn't happen overnight. The factors that led to a dictatorship are still there. The REST of the CAST in this sordid play are still in place. The transition to democracy requires the will and the ability of the people to hold that power. The will is there in the Iraqi people, but the power isn't there... not yet. While order is enforced by an outside agency instead of self-imposed, it's still not a true democracy.

I'm not suggesting America pull out, but please, get off that damn high horse. This was never about restoring democracy to an oppressed people, otherwise, George Senior would have done it. It was a pure and simple show of force.

NOW, can we get back to destroying the world?

 

[///M-Spec]

It seems like some of you need a refresher on what this thread is about.

I refer you to the title of the thread. I also refer you to some of the posts from a6m5, Zardoz and niky. They seem to have a pretty good grasp on how to stay on topic.

If you have a burning desire to go another 15 rounds about Iraq and 9/11 conspiracy theories, I suggest you try the "SEARCH" feature. It's very handy.

Thanks for your cooperation.


M

 

[Duke]

Not to add more log into the fire on this issue, but the rest of the world saw the Iraq war as an opportunity for the US to get Iraqi oil for free. I mean, take over their government and then be in charge of administrating all its oil? Come on.

Frankly, this right here is why Americans get aggressive.

Frankly, I don't give a crap how the "rest of the world" sees it, because the rest of the world is no more likely to be right than I am... And, frankly, more likely to be wrong.

Please demonstrate how America is "in charge" of administering Iraqi oil.

Please demonstrate how we are getting it "for free". Considering the cost of this war effort, it would have been much cheaper - I mean, several orders of magnitude cheaper - for us to pull a France and just buy the oil outright under the table.

Please demonstrate how the US military shot down the airliner that was scuttled in western Pennsylvania. And, incidentally, Americans did initially get the story that it was intercepted and shot down, in the early hours and day or two after the attack. It's just that we actually paid attention when the truth was determined and published.

I mean, sheesh - and you wonder why we seem to have short fuses?

 

[Zardoz]

NOW, can we get back to destroying the world?

Okay (but I think this thread is doomed anyway...).


In this post I concocted a Tom Clancy / Stephen King contrived scenario to create a no-nuke slugfest between the U.S. and everybody else:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1966818&postcount=49

Thinking it over, I'd say the whole thing would be decided in the initial engagement between the EU and the Carrier Battle Groups off the coasts of Britain and France. The key would be the survival of the Nimitz-class carriers. If the EU and Russian fighters could get to the carriers, game over for us crazed Yanks, because without the mighty flattops, we could make no mischief anywhere else in the world. Once again, the USAF would not be able to bring any of its all-conquering fighters into the conflict, which completely changes the equation.

So, basically, this little spat would come down to the EU Typhoons, Tornados, and Mirages versus the U.S. Navy's guided missile frigates. Would the ships be able to stop the fighters before they got within range of the carriers, and if a few planes got by them, would the short-range defensive systems of the carriers be able to knock down the incoming anti-ship missiles?

I think not. I think the EU and Russia could send enough planes after the battle groups that some anti-ship missiles would get to the carriers, sinking several of them. President Robertson's plans would them be spoiled, and he would just have to sit in the oval office and sulk.