After Syrian, whats next ?

[T-123456]

Hopefully you will live to see them into your inventory. We will bomb the death out of Greece

Peace in the country,peace in the world

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Peace in the country,peace in the world

No, we are warmongering freaks

 

[Hussein]

Try out the Saudi tea is too thick. I don't drink tea though, period.

Italian cofee ?

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Italian cofee ?

Yes, my grama makes the best Italian coffee on the planet!

Hellz, everytime I go to see her I asked for the coffee in advance

 

[Battle of Kursk]

I am not sure where this attack against Pakistani nukes ideas are coming from.
The USA has never dared to directly face a nuclear power in the past.
Take NK for example, the country is a much lesser nuclear power, barely worthy of the name. It is much more defiant than Pakistan against USA interests. In fact Pakistan complies with the USA on most subjects and even turns a blind eye on drone strikes. Yet the USA has never attacked NK, why Pakistan?
Even should the USA employ some kind of a terror tactics against the Nukes, it's hard to believe that it would be successful. The nuclear sites are probably well guarded and are secured in highly resistant bunkers, what kind of explosive the "terrorists" would use to get through? remember they cannot use anything that will directly and unquestionably lead to a 1st world country...

And all that without taking into account that the terrible risk that the Pakistani will understand what's up and give nuclear elements to unstable actors, or put down an nuclear ultimatum to the USA on the subject. Nukes are not toys.

 

[Edevelop]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Syria are the countries that have been effected. Either the West invaded or backed Militant groups to create Civil Wars.

As long as Royal Families rule Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Jordan, they are untouched.

Iran will most likely be next.

 

[Arjun93]

For Pakistanis: Please ponder this. Why are the Pakistani nukes topmost concerns for the Americans NOW? There is no major civil war in Pakistan. If anything the security of the nukes have been greatly strengthened since 9/11--with American help! The idea that Talibans or any non-military entity can 'take over' is absurd.
There is only one conclusion I can draw from this: Plans are on fast track to neutralize the Pakistani nuclear capability, especially in the 'fog of war' around Pakistan.

No!!!!! The very idea of De-Nuking is absurd at best. How can one neutralize the nukes of a country? I might declare I have a 100 nukes and neutralize them , but I might have another 500 secretly stored in some underground bunker in the mountains. It is possible to prevent a country from building nukes, but it is impossible to neutralize the nukes once the country has it(or rather, there is no legitimate way of knowing if a country has neutralized its nukes). Your theory is illogical like most other conspiracy theories.

 

[Meengla]

Take NK for example, the country is a much lesser nuclear power, barely worthy of the name. It is much more defiant than Pakistan against USA interests. In fact Pakistan complies with the USA on most subjects and even turns a blind eye on drone strikes. Yet the USA has never attacked NK, why Pakistan?

You have some good points--and frankly none of us can be sure. However, I tend to think in a regional war people will go ape crazy and try to neutralize each possible opponent preemptively.
Pakistan is in a different strategic situation than NK; the latter can't be attacked not only because of the nukes but also the huge conventional threat to Seoul and American forces there. Pakistan is anti-Israel. Has always been. And probably remain so until the Palestinian issue is resolved. Pakistan is a very grave potential danger to Israel. The only country with the will and the resources to retaliate Israel in case of a nuclear exchange involving, say, KSA. You should not fail to notice the intense focus on Pakistani nukes--the Black Budget is but a latest news item. Pakistan is in the cross hair for a long, long time.

I hope I am wrong but in a regional war Pakistani nukes are a likely target.

PS. My personal preference would be that Iran and the Arab world learn to live together and let peace prevail in the world. We don't want another stinking war which will hurt us all except the damn war profiteers.

 

[KingMamba]

Lol....I love debating kids who know zero history and weren't around when this all happened....you and the kitty should split the tin-foil.



I was around and am more familiar than most, but I didn't live in the region so I may miss a few details. From what I understand "Taliban" means "student" and the name came from Pakistani Madrassas. And yes, I agree that the former Mujahideen were out of control...and tearing the country apart.

Yes Taliban means students because the first Taliban were students at a local madarsa in Kandahar. They joined Mullah Omar when he went on his spree of taking over Afghanistan since for them he brought sense to the order. Kandahar has always been the Taliban hq. Pakistan only supported the Taliban after it saw how successful they were becoming.

 

[LeGenD]

To OP, many of the replies are simple phantasms, the people who wrote them could not defend the idea for the life of them. I cannot tell if it's because of lack of knowledge, reasoning ability or general trolling. take this one for example.

I highlighted the role of US in shift in ground realities of Middle East and its surroundings in current times. This is an important facet of this discussion.

Libya: went on to fully comply with the west in 2004 [1] , fully abandoned the nuclear program, paid the victims of the Pan-AM sponsored terror attack their money. Cooperation with European states. Practically the dream for the USA and Europe. The situation now is much worse for them, the tribal war has caused instability in oil flow which effect their economy for the worse. The civil war there was caused by their tribal nature, some of the tribes saw a chance to grab for power and took it. It paid off and Gaddafi's tribe lost. Even the bombing campaign was not started by the USA and neither did the USA took a leading part in it.

US "interests" are not just about OIL. In addition, US is not dependent upon Libya for its OIL related needs.

Lack of stability in Libya is a cause of concern for European markets but Russian and China have also lost influence in Libya since this war. Gaddafi was close to Russia and China regardless of shift of his attitude towards WEST, if I am not mistaken. Furthermore, a militarily degraded Libya is not a threat to Western hemisphere on strategic front.

Iraq: Currently Iraq is a much bigger threat to USA interests in the region then it was in 2003. Now Iraq is heavily influenced by Iran, the main rival of the USA in the region, one simple example is that it allows the Irani planes with military supplies to fly over the country to Syria against USA's wishes.

Iranian influence cannot spread beyond the Shia faction of Iraq on ground; Iraq is split between 3 major factions in total (Only 1 faction is friendly to Iran). Situation is like this:

Shia faction = under Iranian influence
Sunni faction = under GCC influence or nuetral
Kurd faction = under Western influence

Iraq at the moment is too weak to counter Iranian influence because of destruction of its military capability. If Iranian Jets can fly over Iraqi airspace to reach Syria then US can send its Jets to intercept Iranian Jets in Iraqi airspace as well. Its not as if US is short of options or Iraq is standing its way.

Iraq (under Saddam) used to be a big psychological and militaristic hindrance for US, Israeli and Saudi interests in the Middle East. Now one big target is left: Iran.

Until or unless you would not realize the connection between GCC, USA and Israeli interests in Middle East, you will not get my gist.

Syria: So far Western involvement was minimal to non resistant, despite what some conspiracy theorists would tell you it started as genuine demonstrations against a dictatorship, definitely not something uncommon. What was different though was the atmosphere in the Arab world, those were the days after powerful Mubarak lost his seat as well as the ruler of Tunisia, and Gadaffi was hanging in the balance, so they dared to oppose him even after he started massacring the civilians with machine guns, snipers and mortars.
It held long enough till the extremists who just finished their fighting against the USA moved to Syria from Iraq and Afghanistan and the war was fully on it's way. (similar to what happened with the extremists after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, though it was to the Caucasus, Balkans and the horn of Africa at the time).

Well, an excuse have been found to target Assad. This will mark the beginning of degradation of Syrian threat and influence in Middle East. Syria has close links with Iran and Russia and this game can be altered.

Also, the militants you are referring to are under US influence actually. US have extensive experience in raising/pocketing proxies such as these and using them for its agenda.

Once again, chief beneficiaries of this development are not surprisingly:

1. GCC
2. USA
3. Israel

Syrian rebels will be under payroll of these beneficiaries soon.

Once Syria is down, it would be easier to counter the threat of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran in Middle East for the beneficiaries.

I am sorry that it's so long, but it's hard to convey rational is short sentences.

It isn't hard to figure out that Iranian influence in Middle East in Post-Saddam era is under challenge in the light of existing ground realities of the aforementioned region. Degradation of Syria will leave the door open to checkmate Iranian influence on ground as well and not just through Arabian Sea. Iran would no longer have the option to use Syria as a staging ground of its military operations to extend the reach of its firepower within the Middle East and its surroundings. Iran would not be in the position to come within striking distance of Israel anymore. Furthermore, proxies of Iran in Syria will be counter-checked by proxies of other beneficiaries in the same country.

I am not sure where this attack against Pakistani nukes ideas are coming from.
The USA has never dared to directly face a nuclear power in the past.
Take NK for example, the country is a much lesser nuclear power, barely worthy of the name. It is much more defiant than Pakistan against USA interests. In fact Pakistan complies with the USA on most subjects and even turns a blind eye on drone strikes. Yet the USA has never attacked NK, why Pakistan?
Even should the USA employ some kind of a terror tactics against the Nukes, it's hard to believe that it would be successful. The nuclear sites are probably well guarded and are secured in highly resistant bunkers, what kind of explosive the "terrorists" would use to get through? remember they cannot use anything that will directly and unquestionably lead to a 1st world country...

And all that without taking into account that the terrible risk that the Pakistani will understand what's up and give nuclear elements to unstable actors, or put down an nuclear ultimatum to the USA on the subject. Nukes are not toys.

NK benefits from its location and being a darling of China.

No!!!!! The very idea of De-Nuking is absurd at best. How can one neutralize the nukes of a country? I might declare I have a 100 nukes and neutralize them , but I might have another 500 secretly stored in some underground bunker in the mountains. It is possible to prevent a country from building nukes, but it is impossible to neutralize the nukes once the country has it(or rather, there is no legitimate way of knowing if a country has neutralized its nukes). Your theory is illogical like most other conspiracy theories.

Depends upon several factors:-

1. Geographic setting of the nation
2. Size of the nuclear arsenal of the nation and how it has been deployed
3. Military capability of the nation
4. Intel quality
5. Internal issues of the nation
6. Disparity of options between the aggressor and defender

 

[Battle of Kursk]

You have some good points--and frankly none of us can be sure. However, I tend to think in a regional war people will go ape crazy and try to neutralize each possible opponent preemptively.
Pakistan is in a different strategic situation than NK; the latter can't be attacked not only because of the nukes but also the huge conventional threat to Seoul and American forces there. Pakistan is anti-Israel. Has always been. And probably remain so until the Palestinian issue is resolved. Pakistan is a very grave potential danger to Israel. The only country with the will and the resources to retaliate Israel in case of a nuclear exchange involving, say, KSA. You should not fail to notice the intense focus on Pakistani nukes--the Black Budget is but a latest news item. Pakistan is in the cross hair for a long, long time.

I hope I am wrong but in a regional war Pakistani nukes are a likely target.

PS. My personal preference would be that Iran and the Arab world learn to live together and let peace prevail in the world. We don't want another stinking war which will hurt us all except the damn war profiteers.

I agree that if a regional war erupted and the threat of nuclear weapons leaking away from official hands (or worse being used) then there would be some kind of intervention. However I do not see any indication for this to happen.
I agree that there are other complications with the NK case concerning it's conventional arsenal. However Pakistan is no weakling either.
I do not see Pakistan as Israel's enemy, except maybe by name. Israel and Pakistan are too far away too be of much of a threat to one another. Israel might use nukes, if we indeed have then, only in the case of imminent annihilation or second strike anyway. So another possible threat from Pakistan is not something that's going to be a major point of consideration. Frankly I don't think there are many possible scenarios for current Israel to use nukes, the only one which comes to mind is a second strike against Iran, and even that's not likely. In this case an additional nuclear attack by Pakistan is useless. Since one nuke is already enough to gravely hurt Israel.

 

[Juice]

US forces used 'chemical weapon' in Iraq - Americas - World - The Independent

Another fail. WP, as even noted in the article, is for smoke, and incendiary. Not gas at all. As far as being a "chemical weapon".....if I hit you with a stick....some tard could say I used a "chemical weapon", as the wood is held together by chemical bonds. If I shoot you, well the bullet is propelled by a chemical reaction. Not really all that bright, are we?

 

[Riea]

they went in to remove Saddam and the Taliban which was a strategic blunder, of course Iran took an advantage of this. Other countries also worked hard to promote their own interests in the region like India, China, and Russia.

The politicians decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. But these countries had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama a former CIA agent was found at his home in Pakistan!

so exactly where Iran comes in? Im not so sure.

did i say anything about Iran invading the Taliban and Iraq along with the states? i said Iranian are in cahoots with the Zionist, that means conspiring secretly together against someone. but i bet its normal for iranians to take the discussion elsewhere because u r the masters of falsehood/tacqhiyyaa or whatever u call thses days. anyhow does iran contra affair ring any bell?

 

[Ceylal]

Dear all

Any members could post prediction of future of middle east countries ?
The above is just my views. Please do not insult any body.
The question is:
1. Whats the future of Syrian, Egypt, Iran, Turkey and GCC ? (complicated but please give reason)
2. Will any of them go for purified islam stage or go for secularisation like Christian in EU ?

Who's next? Actually there 3 countries that are object to extra surveillance by the US...Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan and Pakistan is the only country that becoming a headache from them...Who's next is hard to guess.
Iran is surrounded by American bases, for the time being , she is kept in check, but she is far from the target. History showed us that the US have , recently, never attacked a country that can bring war to her. A nuclear Iran doesn't phase one bit uncle Sam, it Iran was in his sight, the American would have never allowed a Shia government in Irak.
But , the ME will be remodeled along sectarian lines..Irak will be divided, as well as Syria, Turkey, Egypt and Libya.
We may see, I said may, the creation of a sort a vatican which will encompass the holy site to appease the Muslim of the incoherence use of these sites by the Saudi as a tool for their diplomacy.

We will witness the birth of Kurdistan as country for the uprooted 30 millions or so Kurds.

In North Africa, Morocco is likely to collapse from social pressure. For Algeria, there is a constant danger hovering over our heads...

 

[Mozambique Drill]

Rafidis are getting taken down. In Syria, then Lebanon, then Iran.

Only then will Israel agree to a Pal state.

Lebanon gets democracy back once Iran is kicked out.

Syria rebuilds.

Saudis let women drive

Peace and love.

The west needs to help the Arabs because they can't help themselves.