The next front in the War on Terror

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by preemptingyou03, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    Let's take a look at the near future in the War on Terror: one year from now.

    All of these thugs and criminals in Iraq will be crushed. Iraq will be on the right path. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will be caught. I believe OBL and al-Zawahiri will be captured in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Both nations will be on the verge of elections.

    What is next in the War on Terror? Do we confront another rogue regime, such as Iran? Do we demand the dismantling of other terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah? Do we attack these group's bases, and if we do, do we remove the state sponsor that gives them shelter?

    Do we confront North Korea? Saudi Arabia has paid for Pakistan's nuclear bomb, which thus paid for Iran's, North Korea's, and Libya's nuclear programs. The Saudis still preach hatred. Do we put pressure on them?

    What is the next move?
     
  2. gaffer
    Offline

    gaffer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +44
    I think bin laden will be found in iran. We seem to be waiting for some sort of upraising in iran. If that doesn't come soon I think we will be heading that way next. Its the birthplace of radical islam. iraq is the perfect jumping off place to do it from. It might be done the way afganistan was done, with special forces and local forces. Syria could be next. That will definately take a full military invasion. With those two down the saudis will fall right into line. I think the saudis will try to set up a british style government with a royal family that has no real power.

    North Korea will remain contained for a few more years until things are secured in the middle east. But eventually we will confront them as well. Providing they don't do something stupid, which they do on a regular basis.

    For historical information. Truman did not attack North Korea. NK attacked South Korea and the American troops stationed along the dmz at the time in 1950. And that war was north korea and later china verses the UN. It was a UN war which is why it ended in a stalemate. There was never a treaty. Only a cease fire. We have had a 50 plus year cease fire with NK and china. That cease fire could be declared over at any time.
     
  3. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    I see that you believe an invasion of Syria would require a "full military invasion," while Iran could be done from the inside, like Afghanistan. I think it is fair to say though, that Syria would be a quicker war than a war with Iran, for three reasons: a) if we had Iranians revolting, with American special forces to rid Iran of the Mullahs, and terrorist elements within it, it could take longer, much the way it did with the Northern Alliance, b) Iran has a stronger military than Saddam did or the Taliban, and c) Syria is a much weaker nation, and a much smaller one, than any of the countries we have confronted.

    A war with Syria would last less than two weeks. However, the terrorist war, after the invasion, (what we're going through in Iraq) would be tough. There are Hezbollah terrorists and Hamas terrorists in Syria.

    People here are saying we need more forces in Iraq, more forces in Afghanistan... but they don't understand we are already a big and strong military. But we're too slow. We need to become quicker, faster, and lighter. We need more covert operations and special forces. We need more revolts.

    I think we will open up a new phase in Iran if things continue to go sour there. If they fail to turn over Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, and if we get intelligence that Osama is in Iran, we might have to overthrow the Mullahs.

    I don't understand this precedent: Osama attacks us, Taliban harbors him. We ask the Taliban to hand him over, they don't, we attack them. Why not the same with Iran?

    Why is it when al-Qaeda attacks somewhere outside the US, we don't demand that the Iranians hand over Saif al-Adel? As far as I'm concerned, the next time Hezbollah commits a large scale attack, or the next time al-Qaeda does something and Iran fails to hand over al-Qaeda members... Iran should be confronted. That's what we did in Afghanistan.

    If we want to remove the Mullahs through preemption, we can look at their nuclear weapons.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,220
    I think Iran is going to be the next choice. While Syria would probably be a good target, Israel complicates things. I think we should probably try to take out as much of Al Queda around there world and free the rest of the Muslim people before we start helping Israel that directly.
     
  5. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    To me, as long as Israel gets out of areas that aren't theirs, I see nothing to be ashamed of in siding directly with them. Their terrorists are ours. We can't see any difference between Hamas and al-Qaeda.

    But I think you are right. I think Syria will, eventually, take the path Libya took.
     
  6. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    The question with Syria is, do they want their government overthrown? I haven't heard anything like that, so I don't know. If there isn't any internal popular support for regime change, we won't go in. I'd guarantee it.

    With Iran, there seems to be some internal support, and I could see us doing what we could to encourage and assist that once most of our troops are extricated from Iraq. Airstrikes, arms, what have you.

    I think, that once our troops are out of Iraq, many will be placed in a threatening manner about North Korea.

    I don't believe we will ever invade North Korea, but I do believe any further anti-terrorist action in the Middle East will be limited to cruise missiles and special forces.

    I believe the President may be dead set on resolving the North Korean problem once and for all before his second term is out. I think he appreciates that this problem has been lingering for far too long, and now is as good a time as any to deal with it. We are still early in the son's reign over North Korea, China isn't interested in making enemies with us or our money, and Japan is too important an ally to ignore such a volatile situation so close to them. It is a destabilizing element in the whole region, and that's bad for bussiness.

    If the President could accomplish that, that would make for a shinning star on top of his already awesome legacy.

    I think he and Powell can do it.
     
  7. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    One can only hope. In regards to Syria, I think they will take the path of Libya and dismantle their WMD and start handing over leaders of Hezbollah. In regards to North Korea, I think, like you said, serious pressure will come down on Kim Jong Il. Nobody wants this madman to get nukes. If he does, he'd either blackmail us all, our sell them to some Islamic terrorist network. As for Saudi Arabia, I feel we need to continue to put pressure on them to crack down on terrorist funding and the preaching of terrorism in their schools. The same goes with Pakistan.

    However, Iran... I feel will get what is coming to them. And it will be much different than Iraq. It will look more like Afghanistan. I would see, sometime around 2006 or 2007, an uprising of Iranians against the Mullahs in Iran, and a revolt, aided by a preemptive American invasion. Maybe 30,000 troops tops. We know Rumsfeld is trying to make our forces smaller and quicker and faster.

    The war would last about four to six weeks, and eventually, al-Qaeda operatives in Iran, as well as their Mullah leaders, would be caught. And I would guess we would find weapons of mass destruction this time.

    Bush will leave office and his record will show the following:
    - Set precedent, strategy, and doctrine of preemption and regime during the next few decades to come, as we fight the War on Terror.

    - "The 9/11 - War President."

    - The removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, replaced by a democratic government.

    - The removal of the Baathist regime in Iraq, replaced by a democratic government.

    - The removal of the Mullahs in Iran, replaced by a democratic government.

    - The capture of the likes such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Chemical Ali, Saif al-Adel, Hambali, etc.

    - Killing the likes of Uday Hussein, Qusay Hussein, Mohammed Atef, etc.

    - The peaceful reformations of the Saudi Kingdom, the Pakistani government, Syria, and Libya.

    - The dismantling of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

    - The pressure on Arab states to hand over any terrorist in any terrorist group.

    - The first American leader to state Palestine should be a free state.

    - The leader to change homeland security and intelligence gathering for decades to come.

    - The leader to change the face of the military: quicker, lighter, faster... and ten times more gung-ho.

    - The leader who demanded North Korea disarm, and put economic pressure on them, until their communist system and regime fell apart.

    Then, Rudy Giuliani has a lot to work with in 2008.
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    - The begining of the reformation of Islam and the Middle east.

    That's historic.


    ...and I think Chemical Ali is confirmed dead. Blown away in the early stages of the war.
     
  9. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    No, he was believed to have been dead, and then they realized they didn't kill him... they didn't announce that he was really alive until they caught him though! Gotta love politicians...
     
  10. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    So he's already been captured? I missed that. When did that happen?
     

Share This Page