Is bush getting ready to invade another country?

[RedEarth]

I found this posted on another site. Not sure how creditable it is, however, with this administration you never know how far they will go to pump up polling numbers.


"The 3/17 Air Cav Troop has deployed. I will not say where, but this is bad news folks. The 3/17 does not do police work. They do not hand out food to people or candy to kids. They were the first unit to leave 9/12 to hunt Osama bin Forgotten.
The 3/17 does one thing, they fight."

[La_Serpiente]

1. Possibly

It is highly likely that Bush will bust a wag the dog and invade Cuba. If not Cuba, as Wesley Clark said, the US plans on invading seven countries in the middle east (that's what he said). I'm not sure which ones, but it will probably either Syria or Iran. I don't know what the other are.

[Eloriel]

26. Well, I haven't taken an official count

but it seems to me there AREN'T many more than 7 countries in the ME, esp. if you take out Israel and, one would hope, Jordan.

Put another way: name any one and you stand a good chance of having named one of the 7.

Eloriel

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. yeah he was talking up Cuba the other day

[nostamj]

3. there aren't enough troops

to even maintain the Iraqi occupation. (much less finish things in Afghanistan)

he can't invade anywhere else unless he starts a draft (which he won't do prior to an election)

would like to see more details on this deployment...

[kentuck]

11. Right...

We don't have the troops. But we are looking for an exit strategy for Afghanistan? That would free up a few troops, but they would probably be more needed to replace teturning troops in Iraq? Probably just the Administration talking out of their asses...

[jmcgowanjm]

4. yes

Bush's War Plan Is Scarier Than He's Saying
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0342/schanberg.php

Winning Modern Wars, retired general Wesley Clark:

"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. . . .
I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

[Ripley]

5. Syria and Israel will be giving us troops.

That's my prediction.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. Israeli troops will probably be deployed to Syria

The Air Cav advance team may be going there, Iran - last night Sharon was pumping for an invasion of Libya, but that could be a smokescreen, which is what the CIA convoy attack in Gaza probably is.

[ixion]

6. Syria on deck, Iran in the box, according to PNAC

n/t

[janekat]

33. Yep - "Team Bush" has been talking about Syria

don't forget though - ya gotta time it right. According to Andy Card: "You don't introduce a product until the right time."

What's the right time - a month or 2 months before the election?

[Minstrel Boy]

7. I have a gut feeling that

the next invasion will be in tandem with Israel. (At this point, does the Washington war party give a fuck about further alienating Arab sentiment?) I expect, before Nov 2004, a two-front assault on Syria.

But does anyone know yet what to do with these countries once they're occupied?

[neebob]

16. That is making a lot of sense

in light of the attack in Gaza City. Damn, I can't believe how paranoid I'm getting.

[Brian Sweat]

19. Oh Yeah, that'll be a great idea.

The ware in Iraq has been a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. A US-Israeli invasion of a Muslim nation would turn the entire Arabic world into a giant sleeper cell.

[pink_poodle]

27. Hi Toronto from Oshawa!! Yes, I agree, not only do they..............

not give a damn that the Arab world is alienated from the USA, but basically the rest of the world is too. As long as they get those resources out there. America is desperate for the oil right now and anything else it can plunder. Human lives mean nothing, even their own soldiers.

[Minstrel Boy]

34. Hey Oshawa!

I think these people have outright contempt now for the so-called "Arab street," and are practically goading it to rise against them. They may as well come out and say, "Yeah, we occupy Iraq, and we can damn well occupy you too. What ya gonna do about it?"

[pink_poodle]

37. Absolutely!! They would love to march into Canada also.................

and take over. We need to be careful here. A lot of Canuks don't really think about it much or feel they need to watch their backs, but I think some serious shit could happen here too........Heading to Toronto this Sunday for a show. Used to live in the Beaches for 14 years. Don't miss it though. Grin.

[havocmom]

8. shrub is a one trick pony

and the hand up his back is rather limited too.

[UTUSN]

9. Cuba's the Quickest Fix

Shrub would claim overthrowing CASTRO as an easy feather in his cap, would be an IMMEDIATE zoom in ratings, would cement him with the radical exiles AND with the robber barons dying to get their hands on Cuba-as-cash-cow, and on and on. Fast. Easy.

[Minstrel Boy]

14. It wouldn't be quick or easy.

Of all the potential targets, this is, I think, the least likely.

The logistics would be daunting, the argument for war hasn't been made, and the resistance would be ferocious.

Think the international community is united against Bush today? Wait until he assaults Cuba. And I think most Americans outside Miami Beach would be appalled.

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. Dunno, I think most Americans outside this site would support anything

the regime decides to do. And if they don't, what exactly did you think they would do about it?

[UTUSN]

28. re: "the argument for war hasn't been made"...

Otoh, the argument for the current Iraq attack was made....when?

[Minstrel Boy]

32. The argument for Iraq was a tissue of lies,

but they spent a year hammering it until most Americans didn't know black from white. Any argument they come up with for invading Cuba couldn't possible be valid, but they haven't been beating the drums to prepare the public for what would be an enormous undertaking.

[Dirk39]

17. I doubt that Bush would dare to invade Cuba...

he would produce too much hate and terror all around the world against the USA. I guess, even moderate people all around the globe would start to sympathize with terrorist and violent attacks against the USA and at the same time, Castros Cuba would become a kind of Jesus-myth for all the poor and oppressed people in the world.
Even besides all the propaganda and brain-washing against Cuba for decades, this can't be done without provoking a catastrophe.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk
P.S. At least, wait a few weeks, one of my friends is in Cuba right now!

[Brian Sweat]

21. Shrub will never take out Castro

The GOP has enough electoral math trouble without making it possible for all of the Cuban royalty to return home.

[Wickerman]

10. Is the Pope a Pole?

Some mysterious immediate threat will pop up, but this time he will attack without warning. He will say he has the authority to pre-emptively attack when the US is threatened - and Syria is threatening. The Neo-convicts can't be happy that we only have Iraq and Afghanistan under our belts - PNAC expects so much more.

[truth2power]

25. "Neo-convicts." That's a good one! n/t

[Saudade]

12. Syria

Watch for "intelligence" linking the Gaza bombing to Syria.

[Jackpine Radical]

Of COURSE Syria (or maybe Iran).

Does Cuba have oil? Is a pipeline gonna have to cross Cuba to get oil to Israel?

All Cuba has to offer is the Batistista expat vote, which Shrubco has already.

[snippy]

13. I think so. What pisses him most about Iraq is how many invasion troops

are tied down there. He wants to use those troops elsewhere.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. It's the Custer mentality. We don't need no stinkin sojers.

Gimme a coupla hunnerd cavalry troops an' I'll ride through the entire Sioux nation.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

20. The Rumsfeld reorganisation...

As I posted back when it first happened, that whole "reorganisation" of the Iraq command was actually a cover-story. Rumsfeld was bogged down dealing with Iraq, so they came up with the idea of having Rumsfeld reorganised out, and putting Rice in charge.

Then they did this whole "infighting" thing to fool people into thinking that Rumsfeld was getting bitchslapped, rather than being retasked to planning for the next invasion.

Personally, I am leaning towards Syria (the Cuba stuff is just a distraction). I believe the IDF attack in Syria was meant to ramp up tensions, and seemingly it worked as Syria claims to have called up anywhere from 50,000 to 300,000 reserves, and the IDF appears to be massing troops in the the north of Israel.

I am willing to bet that this bombing of the US convoy in Gaza will be blamed on Syrian supported terrorists, making Syria fit the definition of a nation that supports terrorists who attack Americans.

The beauty is (for PNAC), that Iraq is the perfect jumping off point for the attack, and as someone else posted yesterday, there is a major replacement effort going on, with I believe two divisions currently in Iraq about to be replaced by two new divisions. What this means is that for some period of time there will be two extra divisions in Iraq in a perfect position to act as one arm of a pincer movement against Syria, with the IDF being the other arm.

[Saudade]

23. Agreed

I agree with your analysis, Devils_Advocate, but who will do the occupying?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

29. Probably a combined force...

but, who says they are going to occupy Syria?

It is possible they will pull an Afghanistan where they merely destroy the nation and then basically pull out and leave a token force surrounding a puppet government.

Or they could just blow shit up and go home.

The ONLY reason they are occupying Iraq is because of the oil there. Iraq will be rich, and they will occupy it until they can ensure that the majority of that wealth ends up in the hands of US corporations.

But, assuming they do occupy Syria for an extended period of time, they will probably have a combined force of IDF and US troops with perhaps a few "coalition of the willing" partners.

But let's remember, they never really planned on how to occupy Iraq, so it is possible they haven't thought that far in the case of Syria either.

I believe the idea is to create "facts on the ground" so that even if Bush loses the election the next Dem president still has to deal with the situation probably to the benefit of the same companies Bush is helping.

[ewagner]

24. Do you have a link for this?

and the IDF appears to be massing troops in the the north of Israel.

I suspect Syria is the target. The PNAC is obsessed with reshaping the Middle East. Cuba is just a distraction meant for domestic consumption (and boosting Dubya's numbers with the exile community)

[Aidoneus]

31. I believe it was in Haaretz about a week ago..

The event where rogue PFLP units staged a raid on the Lebanese border retaliating against the bombing of their abandoned camp in Syria, Israeli military responding by firing on a UN water truck and some other cars on the border road on the Lebanese side, then that escalated later in the day into an artillery exchange between IDF & Hizbullah (both of whom deny doing anything). I think I pieced together a timeline of what happened that day/night.. difficult to piece together, though.

Anyway, a day or two after that Haaretz reported from (I think) military radio talking about the northern border near Lebanon/Syria being reinforced by more IDF units. Things there died down after the artillery exchange, though things are still tense.

The odds are better that IDF are planning on a full-scale assault on Gaza before anything happens in Syria--the latter would require a reserve callup of much more than what the IDF currently has to keep deployed in the Occupied Palestinian territories.

[Capn Sunshine]

30. It's KOREA

They are getting ready to take an election year whack at the last bogeyman in the AXIS.

I fully expect a faked missle launch at Seattle any day.

Note the Chinese have moved 146,000 troops to the Korea border also.

[absolutezero]

38. We wouldnt win that one easily

there's no way he's gonna order an invasion of NKorea. They have nukes, and China to back them up....like all immature bullies he only goes after the weak

[catmandu57]

35. Well, no doubt they'd like too but.....

Logistically it'd be one hell of a bitch. The original plan was to use Iraq as a base of operations, now though that plan has been shot full of holes. Just like the army tied down there, there isn't enough force in Afghanistan to do anything but take a little pressure off of those in Iraq.
There are several things that would make this impractical, we the U.S. are being looked down on by the rest of the world by our ilegal war in Iraq, there would be great condemnation and quite possible spurning by the world body as a whole leaving us isolated and friendless.
Two, the american people know they were sold a bill of goods, fool us once shame on you, we won't get caught off guard again. The congress would never go along with another misadventure like the present one. The members up for reelection will be feeling the heat come next year.
Three, there is N. Korea, they didn't move last time, but, it would'nt take a genius to see the handwriting on the wall.

Four, Syria and Iran are not pushovers like Iraq, they have the means to defend themselves and to bring the fight here as well, They don't benefit from the great military mind of saddam.

Five, we give these neo convicts way too much credit, their view of the world is colored much much differently, and they can't see past their noses in most cases.

So, while these idiots would like to contimue in their quest for world domination I don't think it's going to happen, they've already bit off way more than they can chew in Iraq, and another war is not going to get kkkarl and co. another ride. Just my thoughts.

[ewagner]

36. Troop Movements

Troops movements are the surest sign that something is about to happen.

Rhetoric is one thing but actual movement/deployment of troops is another.

Deployment of IDF forces to the Northern border is bad news.

Deployment of 140,000 Chinese troops to Korean border is maybe bad news although I'm not sure what role China wants to play in this conflict.