Who's Next? - Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea....?

[Borincano]

What country do you think is in Bush's list of attack? He did state North Korea and Iran, along with the already toppled Iraq, in his "axis of evil." However, recently, I've been hearing about possible invasions of Syria and even Cuba. (Which is on the US list of terrorist states.) So, who do you think will be next, and the countries afterwards? How long do you think this will take and could this war machine last long enough to invade all those countries?

[Pete]

Syria or Iran. They now have a forward base in the region and can move more troops in.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

And we must not forget the indirect approach made possible by the CIA.

That system will be used in countres wich can not be accused of similar actions as the "axis of evil".

[Subcomandante Marcos]

i say D) All of the above

the problem is that the inetrnational community is not going to tolarete more killings, irak has been a target for a long time and Saddam was really a tyrant, but England has already stated that if the U$ wanted to interfer any further in any other country it would have to go with out the british support

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Let's hope that Bush doesn't have anymore "Democracy" to spread. Looking at past foreign interventions by America, it would be reasonable to say he's done, though.

[redstarshining]

syria would certainly be a target.

Most of the oil from Iraq that is exported to Eurasia flows through Syrian pipelines. Almost the whole economy in Syria lives from buying and selling Iraqi oil. Syria is believed to have bought and sold at least 200.000 barrels of Iraqi crude oil/ day despite of the embargo. This clearly shows the importance of the syrian pipelines, and that therefore the country has still significant influence on the oil price.

If the US want to get hold of the syrian pipelines, they will either have to arrange with the Syrian government or to "bring them democracy".

[Pete]

They could label them as 'harbourers of terrorists' for dealing with Iraq during the embargo, and because their where shipments during the war across the border, whos to say Saddam won't be hiding in Damascus?

[Larissa]

Syria

Cuba

[Larissa]

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7588
Which Country Is Next?
The Neoconservative Agenda

William Pfaff is the author of Barbarian Sentiments: America in the New Century and The Wrath of Nations. He writes a syndicated column for The International Herald Tribune in Paris.


Editor's Note: This editorial was originally published in the International Herald Tribune on April 10, 2003.




The Bush administration, determined to remake the Middle East by remaking Iraq, now has the bit between its teeth.

Few had seriously doubted that the military forces of the United States would overcome Iraq's army in fairly short order. It was the administration itself that fueled contrary fantasies of military disaster caused by the supposed threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that might tomorrow be used against the American "homeland" itself.

The balance of conventional forces said that Iraq's defeat was a military inevitability; the single question open to discussion was whether Iraq's population or a part of it might rally to the invaders, or on the other hand support irregular or terrorist resistance.

Quick victory now is taken for granted in Washington, and the debate has moved on to two other matters: Who will govern a conquered Iraq, and which country will be the next American target.
Full story, check the link to the site.

[Soul Rebel]

On some level I believe that cuba is at threat to be next. However, i find it highly unlikely. I dont think many people, especially Europe and Canada, find cuba a threat. I know if it is even brought up, most countries (well at least france, germany, spain, italy, canada) will be very opposed.

Iran is next though...

[Severian]

Cuba's #1 on what they'd like to attack. Always has been. But it would be very difficult. Politically - both internationally and within the U.S. And militarily - with the whole Cuban people mobilized to resist.

North Korea and Iran are #2 and 3. But both would be significantly more difficult than Iraq, and everyone knows it. North Korea might even have a couple nukes already. Countries that actually have "weapons of mass destruction" are less likely to be invaded.

Syria would be much easier. May actually be next. You can see the propaganda being geared up already, with nonsense about Iraq's phantom chemical weapons supposedly being taken to Syria (that's why the U.S. can't find any!) And accusations that Syria armed the Iraqi military, etc.

We'll also see 'em tightening the screws on their own puppet regimes. Like Saudi Arabia...there's even been speculation that they could be next. Seems paradoxical, 'cause Saudi really is Uncle Sam's puppet, but they've gotten so weak and unstable that they can't keep a lid on the opposition. Which is a problem for Washington.

At the very least, they'll step up the pressure their puppet dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East to crack down harder on opposition groups, esp. those labelled "terrorist". Which will make those regimes less flexible, give 'em less room to maneuvre, and make them more likely to be overthrown.

What else? Stepped-up interventions in Colombia and the Phillippines. Continuing to move in on France's sphere of influence in Africa, including oil-producing countries in West Africa.

[Palmares]

Syria looks like a likely target at the moment. Dubya is giving alot of warning and accusations against the Syrians. All this stuff about Syrian terrorists in Iraq, Syria harbouring Iraqi leaders and the matter.

But leave Cuba alone...

[Boris Moskovitz]

I personally also think Syria is next, it's quick, it's easy, and the US forces are once again overconfident that they may win over there. The US wouldn't dare attacking Cuba. Castro has so many supporting countries with him that the US wouldn't be able to take them all. Cuba's allies include the magnificient Soviets!

But North Korea... HA-HA! Don't make me laugh... The US would rather be doing its best to make a "I'm sorry" speech over there.

Anyway, I think Bush wants the Middle-East... That's what I think...

But what the fuck is the "Axis of Evil"? That's the least original name I've ever heard. They've completely killed the originality of Hitler 'Axis'. Sorry people, but I just think it's a cool name.... 'Axis'... The name sounds so good that you still want to hear the kickass word... 'Axis'... Oh yeah! You wanna hear it again! AXIS! AXIS! AXIS!

[Zombie]

Bush is now accusing Syria of possession of chemical weapons and of harboring exiled Iraqi politicians...
I think she's next... and with Israel claiming to be ready for war.. it's perfect. :angry:

Oh yeah i'm just repeating what others said, sorry for skipping a few posts.

Z.


(Edited by Zombie at 12:46 pm on April 14, 2003)

[Boor]

If any of these countries are attacked I will be there
defending them as my own family and kill as many of
the USgAys as possible
Thats a promise!

In the name of Allah
Down with Imperialism
Down with Capitalism
Down with The Usa

[JD]

Three weeks ago, I bet a pro-war buddy of mine that this war has nothing really to do with Saddam or weapons of mass destruction. I said that I could prove it. He asked how. I said to him that we will be in Syria or Iran within three or four months. As it looks now, with the same language being used towards Syria as was used towards Iraq (Comply or face the consequences), and we are leaving no way for Syria to comply (how can they get rid of what doesn't exist), I win.

The f-ed up part is that now everyone agrees that it wasn't a war against Saddam. They've all gone back to the "War on Terror" bs. At first, everyone I know who is pro-war said that it was a bad idea to stat going after other countries. That there was no need and they would start to think differently about the war. Now, they are all backing the idea, with the same cowboy, yahoo, kill 'em all, mentality. It cracks me up.

There are a couple other reasons I can guarantee Syria as next. The US took over two airfields in western Iraq that were extremely close to Syria in the first couple days of the war. With about another month of preparations, there will be bombs over Damascus, and the UN will have had no voting or even discussion this time.

I also wouldn't at all be suprised to see Israel go through Lebanon and "help the coalition" take over Syria. Think about how much more land they will have.Then after that, I think it will be Iran, then followed by what will be the new great folley of trying to invade North Korea.

[Larissa]

Ok, Syria is definitely the next...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,937105,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937105,00.html)

[Larissa]

"not next on the list" ??? WTF?? So, there is a "list"!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13...,936664,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,936664,00.html)

[Pete]

Yet Syria will go down harder than Iraq. I have this silly feeling from the readings I've been doing that the people of Syria will rise and resist. The Americans will not be seens as liberators, as the Syrians hate the Israeli's, and they dispise the Americans. Just look how the people protested against the governments rule. 66% of their government is either Ba'ath, or allied to the Ba'ath (Thursday Night told me this in another forum), but I also read that it is 66a% Ba'ath and 33% allied to Ba'ath, so I don't know. Thursday's break down was more comprehensive, so I am willing to believe his numbers/info more.

Syria was the only arab nation to back Iran (persian, not arab) in the Iraq-Iran war. As well, next to Egypt, Syria is the most powerful arabian nation, and a counter balance to Israeli power in the region (Their 'peacekeepers' got the israelies out of Southern Lebanon...).

The biggest problem I see is the division between secular and religious power. I have said this many times, but the Government is concerned mostly with Israel and containment there, where as the Mufti and religious people are concerned with America's 'crusade.' I doubt that they will bind together in the time of need, instead the Mufti will take a hard line and many people will support him (as proved by the Syrian brigades in Iraq, and the mass demonstrations against the War in Iraq.)

Another note in the Iraq-Syria relations is that both are Ba'ath ruled (where in Iraq's case) but Syrian Ba'aths hate Iraqi Ba'aths. At one time they tried to unite the nations (as Syria did with Egypt for a time). In addition to supporting Iran (which could see in the case of a Syrain invasion Iranian support) they sent troops into Iraq to aid the Americans during Gulf War I.

Just some info I have gleaned from various books I am reading (in support of eachother, I like the concept of 3 authors, one topic, read each chapter of a similar point in each book before moving to the next.)

[Severian]

Powell: U.S. will consider sanctions against Syria (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/283686.html)

Rumsfeld says Syria conducts chemical weapons tests (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2563040)

So yeah, trying to lay the groundwork there.

I dunno, Pete. Part of Syria's been occupied by Israel for decades, and there hasn't been any popular resistance to that. Not allowed by the regime. Palestine solidarity activity (demonstrations, etc.) has also been repressed traditionally, as in most Arab countries. Again, threatens the regime.

It wasn't Syria that got Israel out of Lebanon, it was Hezbollah. Now there's some popular resistance to invaders.

Syria's role in Lebanon was complex. Included some pretty brutal assaults on Palestinian refugee camps.

As you say, though, there's a long traditon of hostility between the Syrian and Iraqi factions of the Baath party. Probably this is part of why Syria supported Iran, and the first Gulf War.

[SwedishCommie]

I wonder when the US have ocupated the entire middle east? Shouldnt be long from now (The bloody bastards!)

[Zombie]

It wasn't Syria that got Israel out of Lebanon, it was Hezbollah.

But Hezbollah is funded and equiped by Syria and Iran. The Lebanese people have long wanted them to get out from the South, they don't represent us they work for the Syrian and Iranian regimes.

[Severian]

1. Accepting aid from a foreign government does not automatically make a resistance force a puppet of those governments.

2. What, you speak for the whole Lebanese people? By most accounts, Hezbollah has plenty of support in Lebanon - even people who aren't Shi'a Muslim admire them for forcing Israel out. And I don't see how they could have done it without popular support in the region.

[Lefty]

Syria is next. Fast, easy, comes with mucho economic benefits...and the people of the world can't do a thing about it.

[Zombie]

Quote: from Severian on 2:59 pm on April 15, 2003
1. Accepting aid from a foreign government does not automatically make a resistance force a puppet of those governments.

2. What, you speak for the whole Lebanese people? By most accounts, Hezbollah has plenty of support in Lebanon - even people who aren't Shi'a Muslim admire them for forcing Israel out. And I don't see how they could have done it without popular support in the region.


Accepting aid from a foreign government does not automatically make a resistance force a puppet of those governments.
The Lebanese Army is unable to do anything in order to remove that so called resistance force from the south, wonder why? Cos' of the Syrian support!

And I don't see how they could have done it without popular support in the region.
Whoa! So now South Lebanon spoke for the whole damn country? Or are you? Have you ever been there? Do you know how much the public opinion is against Syria and its puppet Hezbollah? Fuck the whole damn Lebanese government is Syria's puppet.

Z.

[Borincano]

Do you think the USA gov't could gain support to invade Venezuela? They have a lot of oil and the USA gov't was involved in the failed coup against President Chávez of April 11th of last year. The USA gov't could use the arguement that Chávez has become a dictator-like leader, killing his own people, (Untrue, of course) and supports FARC, the Colombian Marxist-guerillas, which are considered terrorists by the USA gov't.

[Exploited Class]

Well I don't think the US is going to need to invade Iran, since now it controls and occupies the country to the west of Iran and the country to the East of Iran. The political influence is already showing that Iran is going to attempt to try and get back into the good graces of the US by political means, because they are scared. The US will win Iran by just fear tactics.

Syria is the next logical course of action and no it would fall very easily. The question would be, will the US be able to do it with out fear of International backlash. Syria would be the 3rd country to fall to the US under one President.

I doubt that at this point the US will take on Syria under this elected term of Bush's office. International relations are already very strained because of a unilateral attack/war on Iraq. Where the rest of the world right now knows exactly what the intentions of the US are. Iraqi Oil fields were undercontrol prior to water, electricity, museums, histortical and ancient artifacts and hospitals were under control and safe from looting or destruction.

The international community lead by strong anti-american countries might be forced allign in an effort to stop America's progression of take over.

N. Korea is safe since they do have WMDs, taking a lesson from Iraq and not disarming itself like the International Community asks, just to make it easier for America to take over at a later date.

Cuba will never have a full out attack with military force against it from the US again. Instead insurgents will be supported, economic sanctions inacted and perhaps even stronger political strong arming from the US.

And instead of attacking Venezuala or Brazil head on, will probably view them as lost causes and strenghten relationships with other S. American countries through economic aide programs and elimination of debt owed to the US.

India and Pakistan will probably be in a full out war within 2 years. After a year or so of fighting, America might come in to "Help" Pakistan, since Pakistan will be losing. The US will do so to try to do this using the guise of trying to keep the war escalating to a possible nuclear war. Once there will occupy Pakistan.

[IPkurd]

i'll say that syria is next beccause it has the smallist millitary probably does.n't have weapons of M.D. Iran is in the process of completing a nuclear power station maybe even finished it by now so thy could have nukes soon so usa might not want a nuclear war. and u have to remember that no one in iraq liked saddam so every1 supported the usa invation in syria i tink that the people like president assad so if the US are going for syria they have to take on the whole nation.

[Pete]

I have read in a few sources that the Syrian military is second only to Egypt's in the Arab world

[Sensitive]

I agree that Syria will be the next victim of US imperialism.

However, it will be a much longer fight for the invaders. As we speak, Syria is most likely building up its military and preparing for the invasion. This one could be a real Vietnam in the desert.

[Zombie]

Not really, you see, that war will most likely be fought at first on Lebanese ground, with Israeli troops getting ready for action.
Sharon will be the first to order the attack, move in the South, Beirut and the surroundings, claiming to go for Hezbollah and the Palestinian camps, while Bush keeps threatening Bachar like a **** on national TV.
It will be very much like the 1975 war, the real thing will be fought not on Syrian ground.
Much like the 'war' on Iraq, the US will have a strong ally this time around, Israel, if Britain and the rest chicken out. And Isreal, as we all know, doesn't really give a damn about civilian casualities.

Even now in Lebanon, the process of freeing a popular Lebanese Forces leader from jail, christian Samir Geagea, is well underway. He has been convicted 9 years ago for bombing a church i dont know where. This will only escalate to a higher bitter level, the already existing conflicts between the different parties and religions in Lebanon, making the whole country auspicious for another "civil" war.
It is scaring the bejesus out of me cos' all my friends and family are there, and another war of this kind might decapitate the country once and for all. That is the cost of a war on Syria, from my Lebanese point of view.
And it's getting closer than I hoped it would.
:(

Z.

(Edited by Zombie at 1:48 pm on April 17, 2003)