- #1
Laser Eyes
- 73
- 0
Which country will the US invade next?
Which Country Might Face US Military Action Next?
- Context: News
- Thread starter Laser Eyes
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the question of which country the United States might consider for military action next. Participants explore various geopolitical scenarios, potential threats, and historical contexts, with a focus on the implications of military interventions.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants suggest that the US might act against countries that use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or launch unprovoked attacks.
- One participant proposes France as a potential target, arguing that known enemies are easier to deal with than allies who may pose hidden threats.
- Another participant mentions Libya and Syria as "hornets' nests" of terrorism but expresses uncertainty about the appropriateness of military force in those regions.
- Some participants express skepticism about the feasibility of invading countries like France, Iran, or North Korea, citing potential catastrophic consequences.
- There are comments about the historical context of US military interventions, suggesting that realpolitik and geostrategic goals often drive such actions rather than purely defensive motives.
- One participant criticizes the discussion as offensive and insensitive to the people living in the countries mentioned, likening it to a game of Risk.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on which country might face US military action next. Some agree on the potential for action against countries using WMD, while others argue against the practicality or morality of such interventions.
Contextual Notes
Participants reference historical US military interventions and the complexities of international relations, highlighting the influence of geopolitical strategies and alliances. There is an acknowledgment of the potential consequences of military action, but no definitive conclusions are reached.
- #2
LURCH
Science Advisor
- 2,550
- 119
Whichever one uses WMD next. Or launches the next unprovoked attack on the US, whichever comes first.
Do you know which country that will be?
Do you know which country that will be?
- #3
kat
- 45
- 0
none of the above?[?]
- #4
GENIERE
I'd vote France as known enemies are easier dealt with than those disquised as allies.
- #5
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,097
- 1
Greetings !
Libya and Syria are the "hornets' nests" of
international terrorism. They are the reasonable
next choices. But, I'm not sure that force
should be applied there.
Live long and prosper.
Libya and Syria are the "hornets' nests" of
international terrorism. They are the reasonable
next choices. But, I'm not sure that force
should be applied there.
Live long and prosper.
- #6
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 22
Well I personally thought it was a very good album - not as good as "Quadraphenia", but that is a tough benchmark to beat.
Njorl
Njorl
- #7
kyleb
well France is a thought, but Turkey is much smaller politically and has been rather unhelpful lately as well; so using the "if you are not with us you are with the terrorist logic" and considering that they don't have nearly as strong as a military as we do, it seems like an obvious choice to me.
- #8
Mulder
- 54
- 1
Although it would be nice to wipe out 50 million frogs, it's probably a little unrealistic 
. Syria however haven't done themselves any favours in the last day or two...
. Syria however haven't done themselves any favours in the last day or two...- #9
Andy
- 76
- 14
Kill the frogs its about time this european union rubbish is got rid off! lol
And if you go by the logic of if your not with us your against us then the United States will attack pretty much every country that doesn't speak english.
And if you go by the logic of if your not with us your against us then the United States will attack pretty much every country that doesn't speak english.
- #10
Nicool003
My answer too!
We don't invade for fun laser despite what you think and we don't go to war for fun. We most likely won't invade or go to war with anyone else as long as they don't THREATEN us and as long as they don't have ILLEGAL weapons and as long as they don't KILL AND TORTURE their own people and as long as they don't use TERRORIST attacks on us then we will GLADLY leave them alone
exactly my thoughts!
- #11
damgo
None of the above. An invasion of France, Iran, or North Korea would be utter folly. France has lots of those nuke thingies, and an invasion of Iran or North Korea would be a catastrophe: tens or hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, maybe a million or so dead civilians. Syria and Libya would be less nasty I think, but at this point, the Arab world would (probably rightly) unite behind them against the USA.
PS - Nicool, have you looked at the history of US military interventions? We often attack based on realpolitik and geostrategic goals, not just to defend ourselves. eg:
Granada
Panama
Nicaragua
Vietnam
Also, there are plenty of countries with brutal repressive regimes and/or WMD that we are allied with. We armed OBL way back when because fomenting Islamic fundamentalism in the region was deemed to be good Cold War strategy; we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war when Iraq was using chems; and I noticed both El Salvador and Uzbekistan are on board the Coalition of the Willing... neither of their governments are much better than Saddam's.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~alis/rumsfeldnsaddam.jpg
^^^ Yup, that's Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. He was a special envoy sent to Iraq in '84 [date?] to "improve relations"; ie to see how we could help Iraq win the war. Iraq had begun to use chemical weapons when he was sent. Charming, eh?
PS - Nicool, have you looked at the history of US military interventions? We often attack based on realpolitik and geostrategic goals, not just to defend ourselves. eg:
Granada
Panama
Nicaragua
Vietnam
Also, there are plenty of countries with brutal repressive regimes and/or WMD that we are allied with. We armed OBL way back when because fomenting Islamic fundamentalism in the region was deemed to be good Cold War strategy; we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war when Iraq was using chems; and I noticed both El Salvador and Uzbekistan are on board the Coalition of the Willing... neither of their governments are much better than Saddam's.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~alis/rumsfeldnsaddam.jpg
^^^ Yup, that's Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. He was a special envoy sent to Iraq in '84 [date?] to "improve relations"; ie to see how we could help Iraq win the war. Iraq had begun to use chemical weapons when he was sent. Charming, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #12
- 19,917
- 10,945
This topic is highly offensive and insensitive to people who might live in those countries listed. We throw around countries like it was a game of Risk.