I'm sure this has been brought up in one form or another, and if I'm bringing it up again for the 1, 000, 000th time, i apologize. And if i am, feel free to resurrect an older thread. At any rate, here goes. After the attacks on the pentagon, WTC, what is the maximum reasonable response that could have occurred in response from the U.S.? Note the word "reasonable": no nuclear strikes on Mecca, D-day style invasions of the middle east, etc.
9/12/01: Maximum U.S. response
- Thread starter JimmyJimJam
- Start date
- Status
Well, invading any country that provided sanctuary to Al Queda pretty much is the maximum response if you rule out nuking the countries like Saudi Arabia that the Al Queda people came from.
And if they had done the job right and taken out the banks lower down so they killed all sixty thousand people in the banks instead of just three thousand, we probably would have nuked Saudi Arabia.
A dozen nukes on their military bases and then the Army arrives after securing our bases in the country, followed by our people from bases outside the country. We would have assigned the country to the United Arab Republic as represented by Yemen and Egypt and all the other Arabs already living in Saudi Arabia.
And if they had done the job right and taken out the banks lower down so they killed all sixty thousand people in the banks instead of just three thousand, we probably would have nuked Saudi Arabia.
A dozen nukes on their military bases and then the Army arrives after securing our bases in the country, followed by our people from bases outside the country. We would have assigned the country to the United Arab Republic as represented by Yemen and Egypt and all the other Arabs already living in Saudi Arabia.
wkwillis said:
What does destroying a national government have to do with fighting terrorism? Are you going with the thesis that the Saudi royal family support(ed) Al-Queda?
Aldroud
Banned
Plane's strike an hour later, resulting in 50,000-100,000 casualties in New York. Fourth plane strikes the Capital building, resulting in incalculable cultural loss and degredation of our governmental functions.
US Response: We've always said that anyone who uses a weapon of mass destruction against us would recieve one in reply. I think we'd nuke somebody. Maybe alot of somebodies. Personally, I'd drop one in every country from Libya to Afghanistan (Skipping Egypt and Israel of course) just to show I meant business.
That pesky chemical weapons factory in Libya? Gone.
Uranium enrichment site in Iran? Gone.
Suspected Bin Ladin site? Gone.
Baghdad? Big gone.
Damascus? See above.
House of Saud? Free oil for the rest of the century or gone.
US Response: We've always said that anyone who uses a weapon of mass destruction against us would recieve one in reply. I think we'd nuke somebody. Maybe alot of somebodies. Personally, I'd drop one in every country from Libya to Afghanistan (Skipping Egypt and Israel of course) just to show I meant business.
That pesky chemical weapons factory in Libya? Gone.
Uranium enrichment site in Iran? Gone.
Suspected Bin Ladin site? Gone.
Baghdad? Big gone.
Damascus? See above.
House of Saud? Free oil for the rest of the century or gone.
I think "cultured" is a better concept, sort of like how leaving a bowl of soup outside the fridge for a week is how you generate lots of mold spores.JimmyJimJam said:
Manipulating your culture to marginalize young men is a really bad idea. Really, really, bad. It pisses off your neighbors when your young men go and blow up their banks. They blame you when your braves go off the reservation. Blowing up banks in Saudi Arabia wouldn't bother us at all, but when you teach them to blame us for your policies, we get upset.
Like, we could replace the House of Saud with somebody more reasonable, who would make sure that the Indians and Pakistannis went home and all those young men had jobs and homes, instead of allowances from daddy.
Onward Christian Soldiers
Although I'm an American Patriot, this maximum response stuff is bulshit. Many Americans (I won't venture to say most) believe in God given rights, and a few of the secularist believe in the same thing functionally. The initial bombs against the middle east might have been launched, but once the true christians in America realized that people in the middle east were being killed indiscrimately, there'd be a revolt, violently if neccesary. Mainily because no true Christian would want the death of totaly innocent people on their soul. (Which of course is the reason Christian principles have conqured the world)
*This Part Has Been Recently Added*
American might well respond in kind, in the heat of the moment. But out of all the peoples on Earth, I doubt nuke after nuke on the Middle East would come from us. In Hysteria, we might nuke once....perhaps twice...but after that, even Bush would have a hard time justifying so much to civilian death, even if every american had lost a loved one. Plainly put, we're not evil, and we're not like the old world. We live by new rules, for new and free people. (IMHO)
Although I'm an American Patriot, this maximum response stuff is bulshit. Many Americans (I won't venture to say most) believe in God given rights, and a few of the secularist believe in the same thing functionally. The initial bombs against the middle east might have been launched, but once the true christians in America realized that people in the middle east were being killed indiscrimately, there'd be a revolt, violently if neccesary. Mainily because no true Christian would want the death of totaly innocent people on their soul. (Which of course is the reason Christian principles have conqured the world)
*This Part Has Been Recently Added*
American might well respond in kind, in the heat of the moment. But out of all the peoples on Earth, I doubt nuke after nuke on the Middle East would come from us. In Hysteria, we might nuke once....perhaps twice...but after that, even Bush would have a hard time justifying so much to civilian death, even if every american had lost a loved one. Plainly put, we're not evil, and we're not like the old world. We live by new rules, for new and free people. (IMHO)
Last edited:
Sorry for saying so, but a lot of this is pretty silly. Americans not killing innocents indiscriminately? Ask the Koreans or Laotians about that sometime. Nuking the Middle East? You know, they really wouldn't like that. And neither would other oil suppliers. And tossing out the House of Saud? In exchange for what government exactly? Where (short of mass-manufacturing them in Taiwan, I guess) are you going to get pro-American, moderate, democratic Islamic leaders?
Now, given military possibilities the maximum response would indeed be massive invasions and nuclear holocaust. But not even W is *that* dumb (and anyway, he's got advisers). So the question is: how far do you want to rewrite international law? How much china will you break? And how soon will you know the guilty parties?
A few things I could see (though not literally on 12 September):
- Much more overtly strongarm diplomacy to force Afghanistan's neighbours to support the US invasion, and a much ealier and more forceful invasion. Might lead to the capture of Bin Laden, too. Or not. This could lewad to regime change in many of these countries later as governments lose street cred for their support of the US. Especially Musharraf is at risk here. That would be rather uncomfortable in the long run.
- More covert and overt work towards regime change in countries known to harbour terrorists. You can't invade them all (I wouldn't exclude the possibility everywhere), but limited violence ('retaliatory airstrikes' or 'targeted operations') and sanctions on an Iraqi scale are thinkable. Also, browbeating more friendly Middle Eastern governments into following suit.
- The Saudi policy is going to be the touchiest issue. IMO there can be no question that parts of the Saudi regime supported (and support) Al Qaida, but to call saudi arabia as a whole a sponsor of terror is questionable. Still, if the US presumes on its 'special relationship' (as it might) to force a change in policy, it could backfire badly. More likely, that special relationsahip ends, here and now. The US demand the extradition of suspects, access to intelligence data, changes in policy, and doesn't get them. Again, maximum stupidity would require Saudi Arabia being declared a rogue state and slapped with sanctions (not including an oil embargo).
- demanding unconditional cooperation from allies around the world. Germany is bullied into extraditing Hamburg Cell associates for detention and torture. Other countries find themselves under similar pressure. AQ suspects are snatched off the streets with scant regard for sovereignty or civil rights. Assassination is used far more readily.
- All of this would, of course, require the US to demand support. Sanctions don't work well if they're unilateral, even if you are the world's biggest economy. Other countries have to give you access to their airfields, military bases, airspace and territorial waters. An enraged US government might choose not to take a diplomatic route but instead use overt threats of sanctions and diplomatic punishment. It would probably work, but I'd hate to be a US diplomat for the next ten or twenty years.
- I also suspect they'd invade Iraq.
Now, given military possibilities the maximum response would indeed be massive invasions and nuclear holocaust. But not even W is *that* dumb (and anyway, he's got advisers). So the question is: how far do you want to rewrite international law? How much china will you break? And how soon will you know the guilty parties?
A few things I could see (though not literally on 12 September):
- Much more overtly strongarm diplomacy to force Afghanistan's neighbours to support the US invasion, and a much ealier and more forceful invasion. Might lead to the capture of Bin Laden, too. Or not. This could lewad to regime change in many of these countries later as governments lose street cred for their support of the US. Especially Musharraf is at risk here. That would be rather uncomfortable in the long run.
- More covert and overt work towards regime change in countries known to harbour terrorists. You can't invade them all (I wouldn't exclude the possibility everywhere), but limited violence ('retaliatory airstrikes' or 'targeted operations') and sanctions on an Iraqi scale are thinkable. Also, browbeating more friendly Middle Eastern governments into following suit.
- The Saudi policy is going to be the touchiest issue. IMO there can be no question that parts of the Saudi regime supported (and support) Al Qaida, but to call saudi arabia as a whole a sponsor of terror is questionable. Still, if the US presumes on its 'special relationship' (as it might) to force a change in policy, it could backfire badly. More likely, that special relationsahip ends, here and now. The US demand the extradition of suspects, access to intelligence data, changes in policy, and doesn't get them. Again, maximum stupidity would require Saudi Arabia being declared a rogue state and slapped with sanctions (not including an oil embargo).
- demanding unconditional cooperation from allies around the world. Germany is bullied into extraditing Hamburg Cell associates for detention and torture. Other countries find themselves under similar pressure. AQ suspects are snatched off the streets with scant regard for sovereignty or civil rights. Assassination is used far more readily.
- All of this would, of course, require the US to demand support. Sanctions don't work well if they're unilateral, even if you are the world's biggest economy. Other countries have to give you access to their airfields, military bases, airspace and territorial waters. An enraged US government might choose not to take a diplomatic route but instead use overt threats of sanctions and diplomatic punishment. It would probably work, but I'd hate to be a US diplomat for the next ten or twenty years.
- I also suspect they'd invade Iraq.
The maximum possible goes way beyond the things mentioned yet.
Just imagine the US would've implied not only Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations where the terrorists came from or where they were trained or supported, but also Germany, France , Spain, (Canada?) and maybe some other nations, for negligence in combatting terrorism. An important person of one of those countries (wrongly, afaik) speculating that their secret services knew about the attack but didn't give the US concrete evidence, because they wanted to play some kind of chess on an international level, might be enough for that in the painful aftermath of 9/11.
Than we'd see the war starting in Afghanistan and Saudi-Arabia at the same time, with some surrounding nations being involved pretty quickly (Pakistan, Oman, Yemen...), and a mass mobilization and war economy in the US.
Also, there'd be extreme pressure on the other countries to contribute soldiers or money, to extradite potential terrorists, and to give up nuclear capabilities, WMD's, and so on.
Russia and GB play along - Russia as they see an opportunity to get more aggressive against rebellions in the south, GB because of Tony Blair.
Canada is forced to harmonize immigration procedures, defense, and other activities with the US, leave the commonwealth and declare independence of the UK. Blair won't be happy about it, but I suppose he wouldn't want to make the US angry at that moment.
With shady proofs in their hand, similar to the ones for WMDs in Iraq, the US starts a surprise attack on the not very cooperative Germany under "peace-chancellor" Schroeder. France doesn't like the US as neighbouring country and feels like being the next target, so they side with Germany, trying to help them. But Germany falls nearly as quickly as Serbia did a few years earlier, and after that, France is next. The EU is dissolved, some European countries ally with the US.
As the US does her "minimum civilian losses" policy like in OTL Serbia and Iraq, France doesn't use her nuclear bombs and is quickly won over. After that, the US attacks Iran and the whole rest of the Middle East, except Israel and Turkey.
In a departure from OTLs after-war policy, the US declares Islam to be responsible for the terrorism, and outlaws this religion in every territory under her control. The Christian right in the US celebrates for days. The people get a neat little book in their respective language outlining the different other religions available (not only different variants Christianity, but also Buddhisms, Hinduisms, Confucianisms, Shintoisms, Judaisms, Humanisms, and a few others). They have to choose their new religion or face jail. They also have to prove they study the religion and engage in community activities of that religion. And they have to send their children to the respective religious teachers flown in for that.
To help this process, people are relocated into big cities according to the religion they choose. That has several advantages: The production of bombs and the likes can be controlled more easily. Weapons can be kept away from the people more easily. Fewer imported religious leaders are needed to teach the people their new religions. It's easier to protect the foreigners involved. It's easier to keep sabotage from happening. And so on. Also, cities with the same religious majority in different countries are put close to each other, to encourage break up of old countries and forming of new countries, so that nationalism will play less of a role in rebellions.
Furthermore, the US takes people from conquered countries and employs them in other conquered countries. This way, American lives are saved, terrorists have fewer targets, more people depend on the US, costs are lower, and so on.
With their anti-Islamic policy, the US has nearly all Muslim countries against her. They make the Russians employ the same policy in their sphere of influence, to divide the attention of potential terrorists. For that, the Russians get a pretty much pacified and stinger-free Afghanistan. China also happily joins in the conversion of her Muslim minority, so do many other countries. Some Muslim countries in North Africa and South Asia bow to American pressure to employ the same "reforms" themselves, others are conquered first. Islam slowly ceases to exist. A few pockets of stubborn (partly secretive) Islamism don't pose any threat after some time.
Germany is divided into four or five states, who, together with France, are made independent again.
In the former Islamic world, the countries are also made (pretty) independent as soon as their non-Muslim societies are stable enough to survive on their own.
The states of Canada are made US states against the protest of mainly the UK, but without them being able to do something against it. That also strengthens the republican movement in Australia, so that Australia goes the same way without US pressure.
Just imagine the US would've implied not only Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations where the terrorists came from or where they were trained or supported, but also Germany, France , Spain, (Canada?) and maybe some other nations, for negligence in combatting terrorism. An important person of one of those countries (wrongly, afaik) speculating that their secret services knew about the attack but didn't give the US concrete evidence, because they wanted to play some kind of chess on an international level, might be enough for that in the painful aftermath of 9/11.
Than we'd see the war starting in Afghanistan and Saudi-Arabia at the same time, with some surrounding nations being involved pretty quickly (Pakistan, Oman, Yemen...), and a mass mobilization and war economy in the US.
Also, there'd be extreme pressure on the other countries to contribute soldiers or money, to extradite potential terrorists, and to give up nuclear capabilities, WMD's, and so on.
Russia and GB play along - Russia as they see an opportunity to get more aggressive against rebellions in the south, GB because of Tony Blair.
Canada is forced to harmonize immigration procedures, defense, and other activities with the US, leave the commonwealth and declare independence of the UK. Blair won't be happy about it, but I suppose he wouldn't want to make the US angry at that moment.
With shady proofs in their hand, similar to the ones for WMDs in Iraq, the US starts a surprise attack on the not very cooperative Germany under "peace-chancellor" Schroeder. France doesn't like the US as neighbouring country and feels like being the next target, so they side with Germany, trying to help them. But Germany falls nearly as quickly as Serbia did a few years earlier, and after that, France is next. The EU is dissolved, some European countries ally with the US.
As the US does her "minimum civilian losses" policy like in OTL Serbia and Iraq, France doesn't use her nuclear bombs and is quickly won over. After that, the US attacks Iran and the whole rest of the Middle East, except Israel and Turkey.
In a departure from OTLs after-war policy, the US declares Islam to be responsible for the terrorism, and outlaws this religion in every territory under her control. The Christian right in the US celebrates for days. The people get a neat little book in their respective language outlining the different other religions available (not only different variants Christianity, but also Buddhisms, Hinduisms, Confucianisms, Shintoisms, Judaisms, Humanisms, and a few others). They have to choose their new religion or face jail. They also have to prove they study the religion and engage in community activities of that religion. And they have to send their children to the respective religious teachers flown in for that.
To help this process, people are relocated into big cities according to the religion they choose. That has several advantages: The production of bombs and the likes can be controlled more easily. Weapons can be kept away from the people more easily. Fewer imported religious leaders are needed to teach the people their new religions. It's easier to protect the foreigners involved. It's easier to keep sabotage from happening. And so on. Also, cities with the same religious majority in different countries are put close to each other, to encourage break up of old countries and forming of new countries, so that nationalism will play less of a role in rebellions.
Furthermore, the US takes people from conquered countries and employs them in other conquered countries. This way, American lives are saved, terrorists have fewer targets, more people depend on the US, costs are lower, and so on.
With their anti-Islamic policy, the US has nearly all Muslim countries against her. They make the Russians employ the same policy in their sphere of influence, to divide the attention of potential terrorists. For that, the Russians get a pretty much pacified and stinger-free Afghanistan. China also happily joins in the conversion of her Muslim minority, so do many other countries. Some Muslim countries in North Africa and South Asia bow to American pressure to employ the same "reforms" themselves, others are conquered first. Islam slowly ceases to exist. A few pockets of stubborn (partly secretive) Islamism don't pose any threat after some time.
Germany is divided into four or five states, who, together with France, are made independent again.
In the former Islamic world, the countries are also made (pretty) independent as soon as their non-Muslim societies are stable enough to survive on their own.
The states of Canada are made US states against the protest of mainly the UK, but without them being able to do something against it. That also strengthens the republican movement in Australia, so that Australia goes the same way without US pressure.
Well, I think this would even stretch out the Ressources of the US too much.
Whilst a surprise attack on germany would work without any doubt (or, at least without much doubt), the political and economical impact would be quite devastating.
For once, an unprovoked attack on a peaceful and allied (!) nation would quite destroy any credibility america has and would even raise the suspection that the US aren't fighting terrorism (they, by now, are a terrorist nation by themselves) but only want to wipe out economic competitors and improve their own economic situation.
And second, taking out germany would give world economics quite a blow, might even lethal. Stock exchanges would crash everywhere (there's the question if american economic interests would even allow it)
this could even raise hardline communists in quite some countries (hey, the old propaganda of capitalism being evil IS true, look at how america wipes out competitors), could even lead to resurrection of the old regimes. Russia and China wouldn't need any help or advice on how to deal with minorities, they might even form a new communist bloc to defend against american World Domination Plans (as they might call it), since after the surprise attack on Germany noone can really tell who might be next, so you better be prepared for it.
Whilst a surprise attack on germany would work without any doubt (or, at least without much doubt), the political and economical impact would be quite devastating.
For once, an unprovoked attack on a peaceful and allied (!) nation would quite destroy any credibility america has and would even raise the suspection that the US aren't fighting terrorism (they, by now, are a terrorist nation by themselves) but only want to wipe out economic competitors and improve their own economic situation.
And second, taking out germany would give world economics quite a blow, might even lethal. Stock exchanges would crash everywhere (there's the question if american economic interests would even allow it)
this could even raise hardline communists in quite some countries (hey, the old propaganda of capitalism being evil IS true, look at how america wipes out competitors), could even lead to resurrection of the old regimes. Russia and China wouldn't need any help or advice on how to deal with minorities, they might even form a new communist bloc to defend against american World Domination Plans (as they might call it), since after the surprise attack on Germany noone can really tell who might be next, so you better be prepared for it.
Are you talking most massive or most effective?
Because half the responces so far would get the rest of the world to wage war upon us and ramp up terrorist support. Nuking everything from Libya to Pakistan to show we mean business? I think that pretty much defines Rogue State if the term has any meaning.
Odds are we would be looking at a de-facto occupation of Pakistan to 'aid' Musharref in helping us springboard into Afghanistan (not to mention provide assistance at subverting Terrorist elements on his own ground and firming government control over the وفاقی قبائلی علاقہ جات (Vifāqī Qabā'ilī ʿIlāqâjāt, eng: Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and شمال مغربی سرحدی صوبہ (Šimāl Maġribī Sarḥaddī Ṣūbâ, eng: North West Frontier Province)). If the body count is bad enough a draft may come through and get enough troops on the ground to seriously rebuild Afganistan (an educational system not rooted in Salaphist madrassas and a larger economy could do wonders) and purge the Taliban (with the borderlands under Allied control snaring Bin Ladin and the leadership is a lot easier). The Saudi's oh-so-mutually-profitable relationship gets flushed and we insist on either full cooperation or open&complete washing our hands of the dynasty (Oh, and we demand our military stuff back).
Iraq... goes on the back burner where it belongs.
HTG
Because half the responces so far would get the rest of the world to wage war upon us and ramp up terrorist support. Nuking everything from Libya to Pakistan to show we mean business? I think that pretty much defines Rogue State if the term has any meaning.
Odds are we would be looking at a de-facto occupation of Pakistan to 'aid' Musharref in helping us springboard into Afghanistan (not to mention provide assistance at subverting Terrorist elements on his own ground and firming government control over the وفاقی قبائلی علاقہ جات (Vifāqī Qabā'ilī ʿIlāqâjāt, eng: Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and شمال مغربی سرحدی صوبہ (Šimāl Maġribī Sarḥaddī Ṣūbâ, eng: North West Frontier Province)). If the body count is bad enough a draft may come through and get enough troops on the ground to seriously rebuild Afganistan (an educational system not rooted in Salaphist madrassas and a larger economy could do wonders) and purge the Taliban (with the borderlands under Allied control snaring Bin Ladin and the leadership is a lot easier). The Saudi's oh-so-mutually-profitable relationship gets flushed and we insist on either full cooperation or open&complete washing our hands of the dynasty (Oh, and we demand our military stuff back).
Iraq... goes on the back burner where it belongs.
HTG
Albidoom said:
I believe the US could handle even bigger wars atm. It also depends upon the contributions of any allies. And Schroeders peace policy was a good reason to declare the alliance with Germany as cancelled by the Germans. It also isolated Germany pretty much for a few months - enough time to start a war and even get quite some support internationally. And success often creates sympathies - a lot of countries would follow the US, even on such a hard policy, imo.
But there'd need to be more than just a little dispute for a real war - but some apparent involvement of a seemingly allied country in terrorist attacks on the own country would be enough imo.
The economic implications for the US would be extreme - but as W appears to favor a more protectionist economy anyways, he might risk it, if enough apparent reasons appear to make it worthwhile. Just look at the economic problems caused by his policies atm.
Communism rising again would just mean a weaker opposition, as communism isn't very effective economically. The Germans supported it in Russia during WWI to weaken Russia, the Americans might also give money to communist parties in Russia and China to achieve the same...
But I admit, all this is slightly ASB-territory for any just fairly intelligent US leadership. The costs would be gigantic, the risks uncalculatable, public support might dwindle just when it's needed the most, and so on. And as territorial expansion has been ruled out by the allies after WWII, it would also raise serious questions in terms of other countries expansionism or give little reward.
Any talk of the US launching nuclear weapons, attacking European countries, or outlawing Islam is really ASB territory. Not even the most hawkish ultra-conservatives would seriously consider such a thing.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Paul Spring said:
"We should kill their leaders and convert their people to Christianity"-Ann Coulter.
Who, admittedly, doesn't speak for you all (at least everyone hopes so) but still has enough followers for her own autostall in the bookstore.
A more massive response against terror would be one where all our resources were aimed against terrorism, rather than leaders who dissed our leader's daddy and/or have resources the neo-Cons want control over.
A quick sharp invasion of Afghanistan. Possible use of tactical nukes early on, but kept secret and no escalation.
The capture of bin Laden early on, massive worldwide manhunts and captures for all al-Qaeda leaders.
Covert operations the world over. These would be so huge as to be really unhidable for the most part, but the US would use a combination of pressure and guilt to get the rest of the world and the world media to go along. The governments of all the Islamic republics and any other rogue states might not fall but they would certainly change a lot, perhaps not in a way noticeable immediately but much more free and open in a very short amount of time.
jolo said:
I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to go off the deep end, and there it goes.
NapoleonXIV said:
"No one sane in the United States takes Ann Coulter seriously."-Me.
JimmyJimJam said:
No one sane in Iraq takes al-Zarqawi seriously.
Sorry, but it is generally not the sane ones we need to worry about....
carlton_bach said:
Thats probably why we dont have an even bigger mess in Iraq than we do.
Canada independent of the UK? They already are. And as for any control the UK has over Canada, didn't you read the Canada Act of 1982, Jolo? Why would they leave the Commonwealth? There's nothing stopping them from staying members even with closer co-operation with the US if that's what they wanted, just like other Commonwealth members have close co-operartion with other countries not in the Commonwealth.
As for the US response to a worse 9/11, some places may well glow in the dark, but it's not going to be loads of places. Agree that there would most likely be an earlier invasion of Afghanistan.
Sargon
As for the US response to a worse 9/11, some places may well glow in the dark, but it's not going to be loads of places. Agree that there would most likely be an earlier invasion of Afghanistan.
Sargon
Not to forget - the second USA declares war on a Middle Eastern country, oil supply will immediately stop... and here we are talking about invading the whole of Middle East as promply as possible 
.
This website claims that 30% of US oil is imported from the middle east and judging from the 1970s, where oil supply fell 5% and the prices quadrupled - so here we are looking at oil prices to go up to 2400%. Russia and Venezuela are going to seriously cash in on this.
And then look at how much trouble the US military is having containing insurgency in Iraq alone. So no, if the US doesnt want to destroy itself in the process, realistically, Afganistan, Iraq and maybe another small country is as much as it can do. Now, if it's ASBs, then it's entirely another matter...
.This website claims that 30% of US oil is imported from the middle east and judging from the 1970s, where oil supply fell 5% and the prices quadrupled - so here we are looking at oil prices to go up to 2400%. Russia and Venezuela are going to seriously cash in on this.
And then look at how much trouble the US military is having containing insurgency in Iraq alone. So no, if the US doesnt want to destroy itself in the process, realistically, Afganistan, Iraq and maybe another small country is as much as it can do. Now, if it's ASBs, then it's entirely another matter...
No wonder most of the world distrusts America! I have never read such purile drivel outside of Marvel comics.
Lashing out at everyone and everything is what little children do when they are surprised and hurt. Wild animals too react similarly. I doubt even George II would be that stupid. But apparently his voter base is just that.
Lashing out at everyone and everything is what little children do when they are surprised and hurt. Wild animals too react similarly. I doubt even George II would be that stupid. But apparently his voter base is just that.
- Status