Bush Administration plans to attack 7 Arab Nations - Wesley Clark

[robbedvoter]

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en40752&F_catID=&f_type=source


Headline: Bush administration plans to attack seven Muslim nations:
Wesley Clark
-- Detail Story






LONDON: General Wesley Clark, the front-runner in the Democratic race
for the White
House, in a book due for publication later this month, Gen Clark will accuse
the Bush administration
of having a five year plan to attack seven nations across the Muslim
world, a British daily reported
on Saturday.

General Wesley Clark, launched a high-risk attack on American foreign
policy yesterday when he
said the Bush administration should face an investigation into possible
criminal conduct in its drive
to war. More...

[LeftistGorilla]

1. no mention...

of any of those nations...

[soothsayer]

4. well, they want you to buy the book

but we can guess.

Iran and Syria we know. Libya. Hell, it's all probably in the PNAC docs. Saudi Arabia will be on that list, too.

[bearfan454]

21. Maybe not Saudi Arabia

Poppy has some business deals going with them.

[alfredo]

45. No, saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not on the list.

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan

That's not all, they have plans to nuke several nations.

These in addition to the seven mentioned by Clark and others.

Los Angeles Times Saturday, March 9, 2002

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has told the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven nations and to build smaller nuclear bombs for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report.

The report, provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, or "in the event of surprising military developments."
http://www.progressiveaustin.org/nukeatak.htm

[Hamlette]

9. the seven have been listed in several articles

Iraq, Iran, Lybia, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Syria.

[ixion]

12. The nations:

China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya


a link to a sfgate article dated: Saturday, March 9, 2002
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/03/09/MN124394.DTL

[alfredo]

46. No those are the ones targeted for nuclear attack.

[IndianaGreen]

50. That's one scary story!

And this is one more reason why it is imperative that we defeat Bush in 2004 before this idiot turns the planet into a radioactive parking lot.

[Brucey]

2. Wow, I hope American sheeple will believe this,

and see how dangerous the Bush* regime is.

[Mikimouse]

10. Don't hold your breath on that...

Remember that you are dealing with the 'kick their ass, take their gas' crowd.

Edit: typo correction

[Myra]

57. 'kick their ass, take their gas' crowd

Good quote Mikimouse.

[thebigidea]

66. Desert Storm-era tshirts said "nuke their ass and take their gas"

I found one in a flea market. Frightening.

[piece sine]

19. quoting Michael Savage again!!!

Anyone using the perjorative ""sheeple" to describe the very people we need to win-over in 2004 needs to know that STZUYPID, self-defeating term was coining by mega-rightwinger Michael Savage. It's an appalling phrase...I suppose you mean to slur ALL women and minorities with it too, right?

Your usage of the word simply screams 'elitist ivory-tower LOSER' who is out-of-touch with what motivates and moves voters.

[short bus president]

24. Term NOT coined by the Savage Weiner

he just uses it liberally.

Get this - 49% of the 'murkin populace is of below average intelligence. Far more than 49% feel that Faux news is "fair and balanced." Many 'murkans voted for the fuckin' shrub. These are not smart people. They are stoopid fuckin' sheeple, and they're dragging the rest of us down the splintery outhouse hole with them.

Your holier than thou attitude reeks of the elitism you claim to be against. If you wanna bitch at something, bitch at the media that breeds sheeple, not those of use who recognize the herd for what it is.

[msanger]

33. some fool said....

"Get this - 49% of the 'murkin populace is of below average intelligence. Far more than 49% feel that Faux news is "fair and balanced."

To be accurate, 49.99% is below average intelligence, 49.99% is above average intelligence, and about .01% is exactly of average intelligence. That is what AVERAGE means. Half above, half below.

[ima_sinnic]

52. wrong--that is median

average is simply the result of dividing a total by the number of "units" being measured. If 6 people total 590 among them on an IQ test, the "average" is 590/6 = 98.33... There is nothing in that figure to tell you the distribution of scores. Example: for 6 people to total 590, 1 could score 120, 2 99, 2 98, and 1 76. Usually most of the subjects being measured fall right around the average, with fewer and fewer "outliers" further from the average (the so-called bell curve, or normal curve).

[Zhade]

70. God, I LOVE that picture!

Can't wait until we see the real thing!

I support a second term for Bush* - a JAIL term.

[goforit]

78. This picture is our goal!!!......"Frog March those asses out of their"

Kudos to ya!

[Lorien]

44. An interesting factoid

my dad is a shrink currently working for a state Prison.Just recently he told me that the average IQ is no longer 100, but 90! He said that we as a Nation lost 10 IQ points over the past 30 years (when using standardized tests). Pretty scary..how much further can we slide?

[TankLV]

59. Amen.

nt

[okieinpain]

68. you know, I like you.

.

[femmecahors]

48. As someone who raises sheep . . .

it is a gross insult to insinuate that sheep are in any way responsible for the sorry state of our country.

[ima_sinnic]

53. so what would you call people

who unquestioningly watch Fox news and accept whatever is handed them as "fact"? who vote according to their perception of the "in" candidate instead of researching platforms and records? who buy into the myth of consume-consume-consume to be happy?

I don't care who thought it up, it is a darn good word. describes the herd mentality perfectly. "elitist"? so be it, if that's what you think :shrug:

[AntiCoup2K4]

56. Actually, I call them BUSHEEP

And I coined that term myself. But please, use it as often as you like :evilgrin:

[okieinpain]

67. hey cali is a dem state, so it will take either dems not caring,

or voting for arnold to win. now what do you call that.

[Zhade]

69. Do you work for the DLC, perchance?

NT!

[Democrats unite]

3. Will never tire of eating Clark Bars.

eom

[bahrbearian]

5. Criminal Conduct JAIL TO THE THEIF !

[tlcandie]

8. You mean to tell me he couldn't bring suit or speak out

against this administration or whatever the hell you want to call it without publishing a book or running for president?!?!?

I'm not Clark bashing...I do not bash, but something here stinks to high heaven! Where is the conscious thing to do when you know something is rotten n/m the conscequences you suffer much less holding off on the info until you can reap the $$$ rewards?

If I'm missing something here please feel free to yell at me! :mad:

[lindashaw]

11. I think he is taking a terrible risk to even say it now. We do know

that it's in the PNAC, and we have trashed the neo-cons to high heaven about their intentions. But since we can't truly look into the hearts of men, we have to see how things unfold.

With every passing day, and with each piece of information from other countries, and watching the propoganda machine begin to do its work with Syria,etc. you still take a risk in actually accusing the government of implementing this policy.

Personally, I think we're setting up Syria right now, but how can anyone make more than an educated guess, based on what we know? It's kinda like a crime having to be committed before you can arrest someone.

Otherwise, it's a pre-emptive strike, and we know where those lead.

[maha]

13. No problem.

Yes, I will yell at you.

1. What sort of suit did you have in mind?

2. I've been in the book publishing industry for 35 years. Trust me when I say that Clark will make much less money on his book than he will spend to run for President.

3. Candidates for President often publish books about themselves and their opinions. I think Kennedy started the trend with "Profiles in Courage," but a great many candidates have done it since. John McCain's book actually sold pretty well, as I understand. Do you think he was just running to sell his book? You have to be looking REAL HARD for faults to make an issue out of this.

4. I speak out all the time. The nation ignores me. I am not a media celebrity or a candidate. This is reality.

5. More on the juicy bits in Clark's book here:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/974509.asp?0cv=OB10

[tlcandie]

22. He stated this from the article ...

<snip>
"Bush administration should face an investigation into possible
criminal conduct in its drive to war."

This was what I was referring to when I asked, "Could he not head that or instigate this w/o running for prez or w/o printing a book?"

Did anyone write these books before they took office or as they were running rather than say, after the fact?

BOLDFACE type is mine

Just more mere questions, I can see all of your points, but it still bothers me that, if what you say is correct, that the only way you can get heard in real life is to publish a book...

Thanks for your reply btw and you didn't yell :)

[janekat]

30. BUT - Would we be here talking about this right now if he weren't running?

THAT is the only way he can get the platform that he has... Who else could get away with saying these things but a General who knows the inside scoop. This is the only way the PNAC can be brought down. I don't know if Clark's original motive was to really run for President OR to bring this dangerous group DOWN.

Whatever his motives - he has turned into a real contender for President.

It makes me very happy that someone with his kind of clout and media attention is bringing this kind of attention on this group and perhaps their drive towards war. You should be happy too. It may save the world from WW3.

[tlcandie]

42. janekat, IMO his GENERAL status is enough for me to take notice.

I needed nothing else...no book, no prez candidate, nothing for me to listen and yes, BE HAPPY, that he is bringing this out about PNAC and the crap in the WHorehouse.

I don't recall saying that preventing WW3 would NOT make me happy? Please don't continue with this stuff. I'm not coming back to this thread to CLARIFY, RE-CLARIFY, etc.

Enough...and best of luck to ALL candidates and those who support them! I've always supported each of you and your candidates and always will....

[JoFerret]

54. Agreed

...whoever is standing after this process is my candidate. meanwhile let's look to the strengths of each and be ready to get behind that when the time comes. (Not to say I don't have my preferences right now.)

[E_Zapata]

47. Clark doesn't spend HIS money on his presidential bid

He gets it given to him in donations.

And the money a prominent person makes on a book is guaranteed with by the publisher --

Not that I care either way.....but saying he isn't reaping a financial aware is stretching it a bit.

[saskatoon]

58. "I moved the conversation away etc."

sounds idiotic. Why in hell would anyone professing to want to know what was going on, not stand there and try and get the inside dope. I don't TRUST that guy, he sounds like a real phony--what's his game?

[goforit]

79. Hmmmm....Could this have been the reason he delayed his entry?

I wonder if he thought his book could be hurt by
this election or visa versa?

This is quite fascinating!!!

Yet ....there is a good reason of this is so damn urgent
to the survival of humanity.

[Wickerman]

23. No yelling

just perplexed that you needed to make such a leap. Clark is trying to expose what a fraud Bus* is and how dangerous his whole gang is to the peace and well-being of our planet. Books by candidates are usually a method of distributing their viewpoints and hoping to recoup that investment - in onther means, its another splash of Clark's message. Would it be read by as many if he wasn't running for President?

On another note, can you tell me how much of the PNAC plan Kucinich has disclosed or publically criticized?

[revcarol]

29. Well, DUH.

Gotta sell his book to give us info we already knew?

And Kucinich has been after the PNAC agenda since the beginning and is masterful at also tying it to the BFEE and the other greedies.

[Wickerman]

51. Rev

normally I agree with your posts. I was surprised to see such an aggressive retort from you.

I think this time we might consider that Clark is somewhat of a crossover candidate and that he can reach a lot of people with his message that some fo the other Dems might not reach. He IS attracting a lot of Bus* voters and people are tuning in to his message because of his stature. People who might not otherwise listen are hearing what he has to say.

I applaud him for speaking out about PNAC - I believe most of us on this board know about PNAC, but I am not so sure that Freepers who are just getting de-programmed have even heard of the organization or the danger it could cause. So, Duh me all you want, insult all you care to, I'm still pleased that Clark is putting this in writing and is pushing the Bus* admin hard. I'm proud of all the Dems that do that.

My question about Dennis was serious, btw - he doesn't get media coverage and I have not aggressively sought out his statements - I was in hope that one of his more reasonable supporters would give me a heads up - my mistake, I will google instead.

FYI I have not yet decided Clark is my candidate. i am looking over each and every one. Of late I have been impressed in the manner is which Clark has used his high profile to attack Bus*. I know Dennis and Dean have been consistent in their attacks also, but I was not aware of Kucinich going after PNAC as such. Any links you would like to post would be useful, though I should've jsut looked on my own.

peace.

[tlcandie]

31. Luna .. this was not about candidates .. not about bashing ..

I'm sorry you felt the need to do that as I never stated anything about candidates and stated that I am not a basher.. ?

I was upset and trying to clarify how it made ME feel irregardless of who I support or don't. I'm still trying to find out about Clark myself .. in case...it comes down to voting for him...you know the ABB thing most here profess. Yet, this still has nothing to do with that!

On another note:

When someone such as yourself gets on the defensive when someone like me HONESTLY makes a post out of something that upsets them and you want to take it to the bashing level and candidate level...that truly turns me off!

[Wickerman]

49. what are you talking about?

How is asking for information on what Dennis has said about PNAC "Bashing" your candidate? I said, Could you tell me what he has said about PNAC? I didn't use angry faces, I didn't use a mocking tone. Dennis doesn't get the air or print time he deserves, I hoped you could use this time to inform me since you use him as your avatar.

I am sorry that you felt I was "bashing". I realize there is a lot of bashing on this board. I believe the only bashing I could be found to have done in the past is to Bus*.

[catforclark2004]

74. Ask Scott Ritter....who just was let out of the Loony Bin yesterday!

Clark already went on Meet the Press and try to tell them about the phone calls he received from ME Think Tank in Canada.....They called him crazy then.....
Remember the mood of the country....and remember the criminal acts of the Media.....

He's doing it the right way....take my word for it!...

They can't get rid of him so easily now!

Boy.....are you a skeptic!

Remember history....so you don't repeat it!

I guess it's true about what they say about Americans......It's easy to get over on them....cause they can't remember what they were doing yesterday!

[ConcernedCanuk]

6. Duh - Clark sure hit the nail on the head !!

from the article

Gen Clark, who as Nato supreme commander led the war in Kosovo, accused the Bush administration of entering office already determined to attack Iraq, then seizing on the September 11 attacks as justification.

He called for an independent review of what he called the possible manipulation of intelligence to convince the American people that war with Iraq was necessary.


Afghanistan - Iraq in 2 years

- only 3 to go and Geedubya got his goal - letsee - Iran - Syria -

- ok - who's the lucky No. 5 ???

I'm afraid GeeDubya's on his way to getting away with it !!

[maha]

15. Seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan

Page 130: A revelation:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. … He said it with reproach — with disbelief, almost — at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/974509.asp?0cv=OB10

[Dagaz]

7. Re-elect Bush

[Flying_Pig]

14. This is Clark's attack on PNAC. One simply has to read the....

documents at PNAC's website to see which nations are targeted. Note, that these proposed attacks (two of which have already happened, Iraq and Afghanistan), are being urged on by Ariel Sharon and the fascist Likud government in Israel.

The majority of PNAC's members are closely associated with Israel, and many of our politicians, of both parties, are tied to AIPAC/JINSA, which fully support the policy aims of PNAC/Bush/Sharon. Further, Likud/PNAC/AIPAC/JINSA have many friends in the media, which becomes apparent when looking at coverage of events in the ME, not to mention coverage of politics here, which are heavily biased in favor of those supporting Likud/PNAC/AIPAC/JINSA positions, and preferred candidates (like Bush, and most Republicans).

In addition to crushing the Republicans, we must make it a top priority to remove PNAC from all levels of our government, and take steps to prevent the influence of the right-wing Likud (and their U.S. allies) on our foreign/military policy, and on our domestic politics. We can no longer afford to let an outside nation (Israel) control, in violation of our Constitution, the fate of our nation. It must be stopped, and hopefully, Wes Clark will make this a priority.

The motivations to attack these countries are not all related to Israel though. A quick look, tells one that these seven countries contain nearly 60% of the world's known oil reserves. So one hand (Israel), washes the other (greed and oil companies).

[DemExpat]

16. Clark is HOT!!!!!

Hope he has excellent protection from now on......

:kick:

DemEx

[shanti]

36. hot?

pnac has been known here on DU for a loooooong time, and that's all this is.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

41. What OTHER Candidate Is Talking About This?

Christ, give the man some credit.

DTH

[T Bone]

43. PNAC is not news on DU true

But for most Americans it will be news. For most Americans the IMPLICATIONS of the PNAC agenda are still not recognizable nor fully understood. Remember 49% of Americans have an IQ below 100.

So this book will be news given that he has vaulted to the upper tier of the Democratic candidates. This news item being on MSNBC in such detail about the book will be news to a majority of readers at MSNBC.

When Wesley Clark and others begin talking about the information in this book on the Sunday talk shows and the morning news shows it will be news to a majority of those tv viewers of those shows.

Then, maybe, the majority of the country realizes that many of the administration's media shills apearing on these talk shows for the last 3 years, like Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith and who were advocating for the ADMINISTRATION, are also one and the SAME as the CORE MEMBERS of PNAC !! Maybe public sanity about this agenda will return to the American polity.

[rocktivity]

17. You call this late-breaking news?

Why do you think the Bush Regime has been dragging its feet about transferring power to Iraq? Why do you think Halliburton is overseeing the construction of four military bases there? Along with control of the oil, the purpose of the invasion was to give the Pretzel-Dunce a foothold to expand his mideast empire--we DU-ers figured that out MONTHS ago!


rocknation

[Ediacara]

18. ya....

this story broke a couple of weeks ago didn't it?

[Cocoa]

20. it's different coming from Clark

I think the PNAC agenda has been more analysis and theory than proven.

Clark seems to be giving the most insider view so far, as far as I know, and he's being quite specific about it.

He gets points in my book for revealing this. However, the next test is how much he stands behind it. He's been known to "clarify" other statements away.

[Ediacara]

65. no, this isn't LBN

This news, with Clark saying it, is over a week old...

[soothsayer]

39. On behalf of Israel

Since he changed his tune on them after the pretzel incident and has been doing their bidding ever since.

[robcon]

25. This report shows two problems

1. if Clark believes this, he is disqualified for president. This is a spurious claim, and it comes from the land of make-beleive.

2. the link to Dawn, the least reliable paper in the area, on the home page, suggests the story is complete fiction.

Bush is not that stupid.

[Cocoa]

26. well, it's about Clark's book

so the credibility of this site is not an issue.

Regarding #1, we'll see how good the info is when the book is published and Clark is asked how he knows this.

[bicentennial_baby]

27. It's out now

I picked it up last night...I'll let y'all know when I get to that part.

[w13rd0]

35. What do you mean it's a spurious claim?

The fargin PNAC has been writing Bush policy, and they've written extensively on their "bold plan" for "transforming the Middle East" into an oil spouting American-loving wonderland...

[Zhade]

71. When you say spurious, do you mean the story about being told?

Because that is, to be fair, based only on Clark's hearsay.

If you mean PNAC attacking other countries, then I disagree.

[Donna Zen]

28. Gravitas

Clark is spending a vast amount of personal capital on this offensive. He understands how important it is for us to stop what is happening and begin to repair the damage that is being done.

[janekat]

32. I think his #1 agenda is to end this group....

even over and above winning the Presidency. He may help to save us from fighting WW3.

[Trek234]

34. Isn't this all the arab nations?

With Iraq and Afganistan... Shouldn't that be about it?

[On the Road]

60. It Leaves Out Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States,

as well as non-Arab Islamic states like Pakistan and Sudan. Significant omissions.

[Old and In the Way]

37. Do you think maybe the PNAC script is in rewrite?

Really, isn't the absurdity of this "vision" becoming more exposed everyday? We are stuck in Iraq with a classic guerilla campaign underway. We have no coalition support to speak of. When this administration decides to take unilateral action against the next "target", will it be easier or more difficult, given our ground logistics in Iraq/Afghanistan? They can't very well siphon off troops there without increasing the danger for those remaining.

Will US opposition be more or less opposed to the next invasion? Will the world community be more or less opposed?

The only way that another invasion could be supported is with another "event" occuring in the US. Will there be 4 more of these? No, I really don't think so.....if this administration declares war on another country, I think there will be a domestic meltdown/backlash the likes these criminals have never seen here.

[Junkdrawer]

38. If this book appears, I'll give it a read and I'll consider Clark...

This has always been my #1 worry with Clark: a closet PNACer. If he mounts an effective campaign against their "preemptive" agenda, I'll give him some serious thought.

[Zhade]

72. I have no clue if Clark is or is not a PNACer.

But I would point out that any insider could "battle" the neocons convincingly.

But I may just be paranoid. I still don't trust Clark, though, and not based on thinking he's a PNACer.

[Rowdyboy]

75. Someone earlier today posted an excerpt from his new book

that would totally reassure you (in no uncertain terms) that he is the opposite of PNAC and the neo-cons. He, alone among the Democratic candidates, disses them openly! I can't find it right now but, if you'll keep an open mind, his book is due next week and I'll have a copy I can quote. Just give me a little time...Thanks....Steve

[GermanDJ]

40. I have no words for this. Attacking Iran and Libya?

I am really really deeply shocked about this. How can *any* leader of a Western democracy even consider attacking other souvereign nations?
I mean, this is something that was regarded a criminal act almost 60 years ago when the facist leaders of my home country were sentenced during the Nuernberg trials.

Mr. Bush should know that this time his propaganda wouldn't work at all. In Iran there is a young generation of people who want to transform their own country into a democracy. Those people are already under pressure, because radical muslims become more and more popular since the US gouvernment threatens to attack Iran.
The same is true for a nation like Libya, which to my mind never really was a threat to anyone. I read several newspaper articles over the last few months, where relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing said they don't believe that Libya was involved in this act of terror.

Of course, their leader kicked out Great Britain and the US some decades ago when it became rather obvious that Great Britain stole their natural ressources (oil). Libya has today AFAIK the hightest living standard in Africa, because oil revenues flow back the people living in Libya and not to multinational oil companies.

What is the idea behind attacking those nations? Bush must know that the result would be desastrous. For *all* nations involved.

Here are some interesting articles I found about this particular aspect of president Bush's "war on terror":

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/chomsky.html

http://www.serendipity.li/more/lockerb.htm

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/libya/ConTerrAgnstLbya.html

[Eurobabe]

55. because Bu$h is a moron

without a brain, and with a hidden agenda. Didn't vote for him. Am already working my ass off trying to get him outta there in 2004!!

GO CLARK!!!!

[Zhade]

73. Why? Because our 'leaders' are fascist traitors.

Sadly, many people in America are either too stupid or too apathetic to see the danger right under their own noses.

Welcome to DU, btw, thanks for speaking up from the land of Germany! I have a friend living there now, and it sure sounds a lot more free than here right now.

[Flying_Pig]

61. This needs a...

:kick:

[Rowdyboy]

62. And one more

:kick:

They're still a lot of people who think he's closet-PNAC. They need an opportunity to learn.

[roguevalley]

63. personally, I think he's a patriot.

who in all this group of good men-our candidates-has been so aggressive in calling them out? He proudly asserted he's a liberal.
How many times have you heard ANYONE say that? He is telling the
tale of PNAC machinations and calling them out. I wish they all had
since the beginning of their runs.

As someone who lives in a place that has been targeted by North
Korea --Alaska has already had front page diagrams and articles
in the newspapers about how we will be bombed if this happens--
I am glad ANYONE is speaking out so forcefully.

Bush is NUTS. He's CERTIFIABLE! Nuke seven countries?!

There will be revolution first.

[TacticalPeek]

64. Late Kick.

:kick:

[Robb]

76. Given today's news

about Israel sending forces inside Syria, does this have any new relevance?

[goforit]

77. OMG!!!!!!!..........Bring it on Clark!!!......

The Nazi imperialist are on a mission!!!!

God help us all.

This is scarey sh*t!!!!!

[goforit]

80. Maybe voting Repug in the past is a good thing......It gives the GOP

far less traction to bash him on.

And he may pull some of those indecisive moderates over.

After all we are not talking Republican any more....
We're talking FASCISM!!!!!!

[Nottingham]

81. I always Knew Bush was going to put us in WWIII

:bounce: It started with Afghanistan then Iraq then it will be Syria

WWIII is going to get very very ugly!