Which "Enemy" Should We Preemptively Attack Next? Syria? Iran? North Korea?

scottspfd82

New member
Dec 29, 2006
1,496
68
0
The war machine is in full force.

Syria is looking like a strong candidate. They've crossed the "red-line", allegedly using chemical weapons (the latest reports are that the "rebels" (US backed Al-Qaeda) used chemical weapons.

I wonder where they got these weapons from?

North Korea is tense. There's a ton of anti-american propaganda coming out of North Korea. Including the (alleged) threat of nuclear war. We're conducting exercises in South Korea right now.

It seems like a lot of posturing and threats on both sides.

And we can't forget Iran. They allegedly could be close to nuclear capabilities. But IF they attained this power, what are the odds that they'd use it? They know they'd seal their own destruction. On the other hand, if they did build the bomb, they'd avoid the same fate as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another question. IF there was an economic collapse. And IF it was because of the Government's criminal behavior do you think there's anything that they wouldn't do (especially preemptive war, considering our recent history) to distract the public or place the blame on a foreign enemy?

So who do you think we'll preemptively attack first to protect our "freedoms" (lol) and our economy?

Are you and your children condemned to a lifetime of perpetual war (mass murder) or do you think we can overcome it? Would love to hear Wickedfire's thoughts on this...
 


Who SHOULD we attack? Nobody.

Probably no surprise that I agree 100%.

Who is our Nobel Peace Prize-Winning President going to bomb first? Based upon the troop movements, provocative actions, and B-52 bomber flights, North Korea.

I'm just speculating, I think it'll be Syria first. I don't see us attacking NK without provocation... Which I think will come, but will come in the form of a false flag.

My gut says it'll go Syria, Iran and then NK... But that's just a guess.

I'm always an optimist, I hate to be a downer, but I'm very confident that new wars are coming in the following weeks. And I really hope I'm wrong.
 
The US isn't attacking any of them. If they could, they already would have.

All 3 are an impossibility for them, unless it's a defensive action, but I don't see any of those 3 launching an offensive against the US any time soon, so no worries for now! US isn't going to do fuck all against Syria. Look at how easily the US jumped into Libya and Egypt. They're not touching Syria though, and it's because they're not allowed.

The most likely scenario is Israel decides to attack Iran, so Iran retaliates against Israel, and the US is forced to jump in to help out. This then turns into a full scale war, which involves the US invading Iran.
 
qxjb0p.png


The world's top 5 military spenders in 2012.

The US isn't attacking any of them. If they could, they already would have.

All 3 are an impossibility for them, unless it's a defensive action, but I don't see any of those 3 launching an offensive against the US any time soon, so no worries for now! US isn't going to do fuck all against Syria. Look at how easily the US jumped into Libya and Egypt. They're not touching Syria though, and it's because they're not allowed.

The most likely scenario is Israel decides to attack Iran, so Iran retaliates against Israel, and the US is forced to jump in to help out. This then turns into a full scale war, which involves the US invading Iran.
 
Syria is looking like a strong candidate. They've crossed the "red-line", allegedly using chemical weapons (the latest reports are that the "rebels" (US backed Al-Qaeda) used chemical weapons.

I wonder where they got these weapons from?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oES2dWWfa2I]Syria Breaking News: Al Qaeda will use Chemical Weapons on Syrians backed by the USA - YouTube[/ame]
 
We're not gonna attack anyone, the Democrats are the party of peace.

What, did you think they're like that warmonger Bush?
 
We're not gonna attack anyone, the Democrats are the party of peace.

What, did you think they're like that warmonger Bush?

Yeah.

Simple economics dictates that the "two parties" are under the control of the same puppet masters, and I'd bet money we'll see some kind of military action within the next few weeks.

Probably within days. My guess is Syria. I hope I'm wrong.

Even if I'm wrong about it this time, we'll be starting new wars soon enough. The existence of the state depends on it.
 
The business of war.

We will attack all of them.

Our noble peace prize president will murder children and human lives and play the hand of God in deciding who lives and who doesn't.

We will continue to send over our tax $$$ to countries who burn the American flag. All while shutting down failing budgets in our hometown.

Military contract companies will proceed to get rich off blood.

The terrorist organizations have infiltrated America, and will proceed to destroy it. These include Obama, the media, and banks, big pharma, among others. They will undermine the Constitution, personal liberty, and the iconic symbol of freedom: America itself.

In other news: Prepare your Angus. :(
 
I hear Australia just found themselves some oil. They may have freedom over there, but they could always use some more freedom amirite
 
qxjb0p.png


The world's top 5 military spenders in 2012.


But, like the rest of our government spending, the majority is pissed away on over-paid contractors and ridiculous shit that doesn't actually do anything for us, instead acts more like military welfare.

I find it impossible that our military can be the only part of government that doesn't piss money away on literally worthless shit.

If you cut the fat, waste, and welfare out of our military spending, I'd guess that we would be much closer to China's spending than we currently are.