U.S Terror Alert Raised To "Hight Risk'

[Anime_girl]

ASHINGTON (Feb. 7) - The Bush administration Friday raised the national terror alert from yellow to orange, the second-highest level in the color-coded system. Attorney General John Ashcroft cited an ''increased likelihood'' that the al-Qaida terror network would attack Americans, either at home or abroad.

Ashcroft said apartment buildings, hotels or other ''lightly secured targets'' in the United States could be vulnerable. The attorney general also said terrorists might seek ''economic targets, including the transportation and energy sectors, as well as symbolic targets and symbols of American power.''

He told a Justice Department news conference the decision was based on an increase in intelligence pointing to a possible attack by Osama bin Laden's organization timed to coincide with the hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, Islam's holiest site. The holy period begins Saturday and ends mid-February.

Tens of thousands of pilgrims are traveling during the period before and after the five-day Hajj, straining the ability of security officials to keep track of militants who might use the occasion to reposition themselves.

The change in the alert level will trigger a government-wide increase in security precautions.

''We are not recommending that events be canceled,'' nor should individuals change their travel, work or recreational plans, Ashcroft said.

Even so, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge urged Americans ''in the days ahead, take some time to prepare for emergencies.'' As an example, Ridge suggested that families devise plans for contacting one another if separated by an emergency.

''Terrorist attacks can really take many forms,'' he said.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the decision to raise the alert level was made after the president's daily CIA and FBI briefings and upon the recommendation of Ashcroft and Ridge. That recommendation was delivered after the homeland security council spent over an hour poring over new intelligence in the White House situation room.

When given the recommendation, Bush said, ''I agree. Change the code,'' according to Fleischer.

The alert has been at code yellow, or ''elevated,'' which is the middle of a five-point scale of risk developed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. It was last raised to orange in September and stayed there for two weeks to coincide with the first anniversary of the attacks. The highest alert level is red.

Ashcroft said there was a ''sound basis'' for the decision. However, he declined to go beyond that.

''This decision for an increased threat condition designation is based on specific intelligence received and analyzed by the full intelligence community. This information has been corroborated by multiple intelligence sources,'' Ashcroft said.

Other officials said U.S. preparation for a possible war with Iraq was also a factor in the decision to raise the alert status.

''Since September the 11th, the U.S. intelligence community has indicated that the al-Qaida terrorist network is still determined to attack innocent Americans, both here and abroad,'' Ashcroft said.

He said the recent bombings of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, and of a resort hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, ''demonstrate the continued willingness of al-Qaida to strike at peaceful, innocent civilians.''

Ashcroft also said the global terror network could even try to mount a chemical, biological or radiological attack.

Ridge said local and state law enforcement agencies, the nation's governors, many mayors and Congress had been informed in the change in the alert status. ''We're asking all these leaders to increase their security and vigilance wherever necessary,'' he said.

Ridge outlined the threat Friday morning in a conference call with the nation's governors, urging them to increase their security efforts and discussing confidential security precautions. He also plans to talk to congressional leaders and to several dozen business leaders who control critical infrastructure, which could include electric power grids, dams or nuclear plants.

The public will likely see some changes, such as delays at some facilities and events and some buildings will be harder to enter. Other precautions, however, will be secret and go largely unnoticed by most people.

Examples cited by Fleischer included more random inspections of baggage at airports, tighter scrutiny at U.S. orders and more checks of cargo coming into U.S. ports.

Government officials have grown increasingly concerned about the likelihood of terrorist attacks within the United States as intelligence sources are reporting an increase in terrorist activity or ''chatter.'' One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this activity appeared to be peaking and was rivaling that seen before the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Officials are increasingly worried that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups might try to use chemical, biological or radiological weapons such as a ''dirty bomb'' that spews radiation into the atmosphere over a relatively confined area. There is no evidence, they say, that al-Qaida has acquired nuclear weapons but there is ample proof that it was working with a variety of harmful substances.

There is also concern that individual al-Qaida member or sympathizers could attempt small-scale attacks, such as a shooting or suicide bombing.

The State Department on Thursday issued a worldwide caution to Americans about a greater risk of terrorism, including ''suicide operations, assassinations or kidnappings'' as well as use of chemical or biological agents.

AP-NY-02-07-03 1440EST

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

[The Landstander]

meaningless.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by DrWeird
meaningless.

Yeah... that was my first thought...

[EinBebop]

I can understand why Dr. Weird and outlander00 would consider it meaningless: because it really doesn't affect how they're day-to-day lives. I think it's only when it gets to severe that they advise citizens to cancel their travel plans and stay away from public places. In fact, here...

The change in the alert level will trigger a government-wide increase in security precautions.

''We are not recommending that events be canceled,'' nor should individuals change their travel, work or recreational plans, Ashcroft said.
I would imagine that law enforcement, airports, and security at high risk targets would be paying attention to this as well, and might even be setting their own guidelines to go along with whatever color level we're at at the time. Except Disneyland. Those cheap b*****ds.

So you're right. It is meaningless... to you.

On a lighter note... I loved the bit from Saturday Night Live last spring where they presented the security levels:

Off-white: Huge risk of Terrorist Attack
Cream white: Immense Risk of Terrorist Attack
Putty white: Enormous Risk of Terrorist Attack
Bone white: Gigantic Risk of Terrorist Attack
Natural white: Enormous Risk of Terrorist Attack

"Many of you might have noticed that there are two 'enormous risks of terrorist attack.' This was a mistake we didn't catch in time."

[Parallax]

Well I'm not really worried about an attack since I live in a small town but this does that people should maybe take it serious instead of ignoring it.

[ccffan01]

Wow, I am petrified. Cheap way to build up support for a meaningless war.

[jeffrey 228]

Ashcroft said apartment buildings, hotels or other ''lightly secured targets'' in the United States could be vulnerable. The attorney general also said terrorists might seek ''economic targets, including the transportation and energy sectors, as well as symbolic targets and symbols of American power.''

This could also hurt the stock market also and that with bad issues here, it will hurt the internet as well.

I also would like to add on that my city may also be in troble too, because from where I live, I'm not far from the Naval shipyard Bremerton, and that a big risk of a terrorest attack is not good.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by ccffan01
Wow, I am petrified. Cheap way to build up support for a meaningless war. Yes, how absolutely absurd to think Iraq might try a pre-emptive strike. :rolleyes: jeffrey made a good point. Bush is held accountable for the stock market, which has seemed to dip somewhat whenever these security risks come up. Another reason I'm sure they're not done lightly, since Bush will be held accountable for the economy among other things in 2004.

[Parallax]

Originally posted by EinBebop
Yes, how absolutely absurd to think Iraq might try a pre-emptive strike. :rolleyes: jeffrey made a good point. Bush is held accountable for the stock market, which has seemed to dip somewhat whenever these security risks come up. Another reason I'm sure they're not done lightly, since Bush will be held accountable for the economy among other things in 2004.

Well actually not to be rude but I think they are worried about another Al-Queda attack not from Iraq. So really alot of this talk is pointless.

[EinBebop]

Al-Qaida and Iraq aren't exactly mutually exclusive. ;)

"These al-Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," Powell said. "From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond."

[Parallax]

Originally posted by EinBebop
Al-Qaida and Iraq aren't exactly mutually exclusive. ;)

Oh, well. I'm just talking off what I saw in the news. But still it's most likely to come from Al-Qaida. I don't think Iraq would attack us up front 'cause then the UN might give us support for the "meaning-less war".

[Galaxia]

Originally posted by EinBebop
On a lighter note... I loved the bit from Saturday Night Live last spring where they presented the security levels:

Off-white: Huge risk of Terrorist Attack
Cream white: Immense Risk of Terrorist Attack
Putty white: Enormous Risk of Terrorist Attack
Bone white: Gigantic Risk of Terrorist Attack
Natural white: Enormous Risk of Terrorist Attack

"Many of you might have noticed that there are two 'enormous risks of terrorist attack.' This was a mistake we didn't catch in time."

"One last point, at my request and effective immediately, the President has placed the nation on Condition TAUPE. More on that in the weeks and months ahead."

LOL - I also liked Tina Fey's comments about the color alert system - "However, if the scale goes above orange, I will make brown" and "B****h I can't be any more alert than I already am! Ok, I'm opening my mail with salad tongs, I take my passport into the shower with me. I'm watching so much CNN I'm having dreams about Wolf Blitzer. How 'bout this: you be on full alert. I'm gonna freeze my head like Walt Disney, and you can wake me up when everything's cool. Ok?"

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by EinBebop
I can understand why Dr. Weird and outlander00 would consider it meaningless: because it really doesn't affect how they're day-to-day lives. I think it's only when it gets to severe that they advise citizens to cancel their travel plans and stay away from public places.

I looked at it on a strategic level... Queda, or any terrorist organization, isnt stupid enough to have information going back and forth over paths of communication that we could pick up on. Is that over-rationalizing it to the point of being naive? Perhaps...

[WingZombie38]

Originally posted by jeffrey 228
I also would like to add on that my city may also be in troble too, because from where I live, I'm not far from the Naval shipyard Bremerton, and that a big risk of a terrorest attack is not good. [/B]

I'm worried because I live in NYC. I am also worried about my best friend is stationed at the Naval base there in Bremerton. All in all, I am quite tired of hearing all these alerts and threats. Why can't a more diplomatic way be found? We humans are to savage, despite our superiority. :rolleyes:

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by Outlander00
I looked at it on a strategic level... Queda, or any terrorist organization, isnt stupid enough to have information going back and forth over paths of communication that we could pick up on. Is that over-rationalizing it to the point of being naive? Perhaps... Now that's a reasonable dispute. I've always wondered why terrorists supposedly can't organize a bombing with 50 people knowing about it. But hey, the government at least has to make an effort, right? I understand that if we hadn't disregarded intelligence, we might've been able to prevent 9/11.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
But still it's most likely to come from Al-Qaida. I don't think Iraq would attack us up front 'cause then the UN might give us support for the "meaning-less war". All the more reason that Saddam would use the Al-qaida. And since it sounds as if they're now based in Iraq, you can bet Saddam has some influence in their operations.

[Pihlajamaa]

After 9/11, most people were clamoring for the government to warn everyone over every possible terrorist threat. This is the result.

If you don't care about it then just ignore it. Snappy remarks do not help anyone.

[Parallax]

Your right, it'll could be coming really from Iraq but with Al-Qaida taking the blame. Some how we would have to convince the UN that Iraq was behind the attack not Al-Qaida, it would be hard though 'cause Bin Landen (If He's Still Alive) like's to brag.

[EinBebop]

I don't think we're all that concerned with the UN anymore. They choose to stick their heads in the sand, and Bush has said we're moving ahead with or without their support.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by Pihlajamaa
After 9/11, most people were clamoring for the government to warn everyone over every possible terrorist threat. This is the result.

If you don't care about it then just ignore it. Snappy remarks do not help anyone.

I have never heard the majority of the people asking for it... when it came out, as a matter of fact, it was mixed reviews...

[Pihlajamaa]

That's because they were expecting actual warnings, not vague "stages of alert."

[Parallax]

I guess your right EinBebop but then shouldn't Iraq just attack us up front. Or are they worried that the UN might actually look even harder for the weapons if the attack the US? So, that might be a possibilty, then again they still probaly won't find anything.

[ccffan01]

Originally posted by EinBebop
Yes, how absolutely absurd to think Iraq might try a pre-emptive strike. :rolleyes: jeffrey made a good point. Bush is held accountable for the stock market, which has seemed to dip somewhat whenever these security risks come up. Another reason I'm sure they're not done lightly, since Bush will be held accountable for the economy among other things in 2004.


How many times has Iraq attacked the United States?

[Parallax]

Originally posted by ccffan01
How many times has Iraq attacked the United States?

Never, but nobody said that they did, they might not attack us directly but they can through Al-Qaida without the UN getting down their backs.

[EinBebop]

Not once. But they would have far more reason to attack us then say.... the Kurds and Kuwait.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
I guess your right EinBebop but then shouldn't Iraq just attack us up front. Right now there are a lot of people, both within and outside the US, that chooses to stick their heads in the sand. If Iraq makes the first direct move, they would lose a lot of their sympathizers.

[Zach Logan]

I think this alert system just causes panic within the nation, of cource the GOVERNMENT should have risk stages, but they should not announce it like THIS to the people

Its okay to tell the people to be careful...but this will cause mass paranoia

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by Gogeta
Its okay to tell the people to be careful...but this will cause mass paranoia

i think thats exactly what bush wants. when people are scared, they need somewhere to turn. the first place they look? the government, i.e. the president. hence the high approval ratings and lack-of-questioning-authority that took place shortly after 9/11. it was during this time the enormously unconstitutional Patriot Act was passed and stuff like Operation: TIPS (which sounded a lot better than Operation: Spy on your neighbors) was started.

as for iraq...i believe Saddam does have connections to al-Qaeda, which might make a "regime change" a good idea...but i really don't think he's the biggest enemy to america by a longshot. i dont think he has (m)any weapons of mass destruction, and if he does, i really dont think he has the technology to successfully hit america without us knowing a long time beforehand. bigger threats to america? how about Saudi Arabia, which there has been solid evidence linking them to terrorism, or North Korea, which recently announced it is re-setting up it's nuclear weapons program in defiance of the US. maybe iraq is a us enemy, but we have bigger fish to fry.

and when i said "meaningless", what i meant was (among other things) just because the government changes the color of line from yellow to orange (those are the colors, right?) doesn't mean there is any more of a chance of some dellusional fundamentalist blowing up a bunch of innocent people.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by DrWeird
i think thats exactly what bush wants. when people are scared, they need somewhere to turn. the first place they look? the government, i.e. the president. hence the high approval ratings and lack-of-questioning-authority that took place shortly after 9/11. it was during this time the enormously unconstitutional Patriot Act was passed and stuff like Operation: TIPS (which sounded a lot better than Operation: Spy on your neighbors) was started.

as for iraq...i believe Saddam does have connections to al-Qaeda, which might make a "regime change" a good idea...but i really don't think he's the biggest enemy to america by a longshot. i dont think he has (m)any weapons of mass destruction, and if he does, i really dont think he has the technology to successfully hit america without us knowing a long time beforehand. bigger threats to america? how about Saudi Arabia, which there has been solid evidence linking them to terrorism, or North Korea, which recently announced it is re-setting up it's nuclear weapons program in defiance of the US. maybe iraq is a us enemy, but we have bigger fish to fry.

and when i said "meaningless", what i meant was (among other things) just because the government changes the color of line from yellow to orange (those are the colors, right?) doesn't mean there is any more of a chance of some dellusional fundamentalist blowing up a bunch of innocent people.

Thats a very interesting interpertation, but when mass paranoia erupts it also causes riots, chaos, and the country to fall apart (worst case sinario), and that WONT help Bush at all.

Plus I dont think Bush is that smart :rolleyes: unless this system was created by one of his advisors

[Parallax]

Originally posted by Gogeta
Thats a very interesting interpertation, but when mass paranoia erupts it also causes riots, chaos, and the country to fall apart (worst case sinario), and that WONT help Bush at all.

Plus I dont think Bush is that smart :rolleyes: unless this system was created by one of his advisors

I think is smarter then we think. :rolleyes: If he is doing this to cause paranoia I'm sure he would have a reason. Maybe the Al-Quida is letting us hear when the next terrorist attack will happen, maybe they are playing with us. Or maybe we are all just over anylyzing the situation.

[Zach Logan]

Well the war with Iraq is most likly a distraction from terrorism. This seemes to be true because before recently, the Bush Administration hadnt mentioned Al-Quida in quite a while.

I am surprised they brought out the "Terrorist Color" System again, I almost forgot about our impending doom. It seems odd that the administration would do this...

[Parallax]

Originally posted by Gogeta
Well the war with Iraq is most likly a distraction from terrorism. This seemes to be true because before recently, the Bush Administration hadnt mentioned Al-Quida in quite a while.

I am surprised they brought out the "Terrorist Color" System again, I almost forgot about our impending doom. It seems odd that the administration would do this...

I know, it seems that they must be serious to bring Al-Quida up again. I don't think I've heard anything about the "War on Terrorism" on the news in at least a month or two untill today...

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
I know, it seems that they must be serious to bring Al-Quida up again. I don't think I've heard anything about the "War on Terrorism" on the news in at least a month or two untill today...

Yes, it definetly seems odd and out of place... This could mean they have intersepted an Al Quida message, or threat...

All I know is that it cant be good...

[Parallax]

Originally posted by Gogeta
Yes, it definetly seems odd and out of place... This could mean they have intersepted an Al Quida message, or threat...

All I know is that it cant be good...

Yeah it can't be. But I'm not worried about me. I live in a very small town which only get's tourism when there's a NASCAR race in town. But I am worried about the country as a whole. If there is another terrorist attack I hope we can stop it.

P.S. Congrats on a 1000!

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by Gogeta
Thats a very interesting interpertation, but when mass paranoia erupts it also causes riots, chaos, and the country to fall apart (worst case sinario), and that WONT help Bush at all.


let me rephrase "mass paranoia" into a "general sense of fear"

i think bush is quite stupid (in several meanings of the word), but his advisors are SMART. they are the ones making this war with iraq happen and making it popular. bush is just a puppet who says things to get the country going, like "We will find those responsible" and "Iraq is bad, mmmkay." ok, he didn't say that second one, but you get the idea.

o and also congratulations on post 1000.

[Parallax]

Originally posted by DrWeird
let me rephrase "mass paranoia" into a "general sense of fear"

i think bush is quite stupid (in several meanings of the word), but his advisors are SMART. they are the ones making this war with iraq happen and making it popular. bush is just a puppet who says things to get the country going, like "We will find those responsible" and "Iraq is bad, mmmkay." ok, he didn't say that second one, but you get the idea.

o and also congratulations on post 1000.

But Bush isn't that stupid. He does make some of these stuff up himself, you know.;)

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by DrWeird
let me rephrase "mass paranoia" into a "general sense of fear"

i think bush is quite stupid (in several meanings of the word), but his advisors are SMART. they are the ones making this war with iraq happen and making it popular. bush is just a puppet who says things to get the country going, like "We will find those responsible" and "Iraq is bad, mmmkay." ok, he didn't say that second one, but you get the idea.

o and also congratulations on post 1000.

Thanks everyone, I was gonna make a thread about it, but I dont like annoying people :D

On the topic at hand, I live near New York City, i was able to see the WTC from near where I lived, i went to the top once a couple years ago. For me terrorism is real, but I dont want it, nor do i let it, interfere with my life.

Bush is making the public fear it, and is carring out the goal of the terrorists.

"We will find those responsible"
I belive you, and you have already, but they are hiding SOMETHING. They are focusing WAY to much on Iraq, which is definetly NOT the prime consern. I dont like Iraq at all, but I think we should make that our second consern, and put the destruction of the Al Queda network first...

[jeffrey 228]

And I think what Bush needs to do is stop trying to make it even worst as it is now with the Ecomany going down the drain and making another contry like North Korea to make it to a WW3 and just mind there own business, And I have a known fast that if he keeps this up he may get fired from office.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by Gogeta
I belive you, and you have already, but they are hiding SOMETHING. They are focusing WAY to much on Iraq, which is definetly NOT the prime consern. I dont like Iraq at all, but I think we should make that our second consern, and put the destruction of the Al Queda network first... Catch my earlier quote from Colin Powell... Iraq is now the center of operations for Al Qaida. But even if it weren't, I would be in favor of putting the war on terrorism on hold to deal with the global threats of Iraq and North Korea.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by jeffrey 228
And I think what Bush needs to do is stop trying to make it even worst as it is now with the Ecomany going down the drain and making another contry like North Korea to make it to a WW3 and just mind there own business, And I have a known fast that if he keeps this up he may get fired from office.

How to make a world war:

Get at least two countries from opposite sides of the globe:
North Korea
Iraq
United States
Great Britain
Russia
France (maybe?)

Get two with nuclear capabilities:
North Korea
Iraq
United States
Russia

Get at least two that hate each other:
United States/Iraq
North Korea/United States

I think we have the recipe, now all we have to do is put it in the oven...

[Parallax]

It seems like Gogeta has another point. Bush isn't focusing on the right target. He's too busy trying to go to war against Iraq that's he forgetting Al-Quida. When I first heard of the US might go to war against Iraq I thought why they hadn't finished the Al-Quida problem first. Bush should of have listened to morals. "Always Finish What You Started" I'm just glad to hear he hasn't forgot about the Al-Quida. I'm not glad that they haven't all ready wiped out the Al-Quida and now were worrying about another terrorist attack.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
It seems like Gogeta has another point. Bush isn't focusing on the right target. He's too busy trying to go to war against Iraq that's he forgetting Al-Quida. When I first heard of the US might go to war against Iraq I thought why they hadn't finished the Al-Quida problem first. Bush should of have listened to morals. "Always Finish What You Started" I'm just glad to hear he hasn't forgot about the Al-Quida. I'm not glad that they haven't all ready wiped out the Al-Quida and now were worrying about another terrorist attack.

Im getting too into this topic...

I agree with you there, we should worry about first things first, and then move on.

[The Landstander]

i always found it interesting that during the years between the gulf war & now iraq was only worried about slightly...now that Bush Jr. is up there, all of the sudden it's a "world threat". im not saying it isn't a threat at all, but it seemed like a rather quick opinion change.

[EinBebop]

I'll be honest, I think we could be on the verge of World War III, but I don't think it will be the global apocalypse that's been predicted for the last half-century.

Here would be the major players as I see it; there are still a lot of wildcards:

U.S./Russia/Great Britain vs Iraq/North Korea/Germany

France is in bed with Iraq, but I believe they'd try to stay out of it if possible.

Do Iraq and North Korea have nuclear weapons? Don't know, but I don't think they'd be as likely to use them as people think. Nuclear weapons in the hands of third world countries serve two purposes: blackmail and revenge. But the blackmail angle doesn't really work because they'd have to be insanse ::shiver:: to, say, use their one or two bombs to destroy a couple of U.S. cities at the price of their entire country. Then of course, there's revenge. Well...

[Parallax]

Originally posted by Gogeta
Im getting too into this topic...

I agree with you there, we should worry about first things first, and then move on.

I think I am too....


But still I don't think we should worry about Iraq at all unless we find out something about them first. They may be hiding weapons of mass destruction, but let's find them first and then accuse, accuse, Accuse! Untill then we deal with Al-Quida. Simple as that.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by EinBebop
I'll be honest, I think we could be on the verge of World War III, but I don't think it will be the global apocalypse that's been predicted for the last half-century.

Here would be the major players as I see it; there are still a lot of wildcards:

U.S./Russia/Great Britain vs Iraq/North Korea/Germany

France is in bed with Iraq, but I believe they'd try to stay out of it if possible.

Do Iraq and North Korea have nuclear weapons? Don't know, but I don't think they'd be as likely to use them as people think. Nuclear weapons in the hands of third world countries serve two purposes: blackmail and revenge. But the blackmail angle doesn't really work because they'd have to be insanse ::shiver:: to, say, use their one or two bombs to destroy a couple of U.S. cities at the price of their entire country. Then of course, there's revenge. Well...

I think your wrong about the Germany part, they learned their lesson from WWII (im Jewish so dont say anything, I belive that they have learned, I have proof if you want to challange my opinion :) ) I think Germany will be more like Switzerland and stay out of the war. Their finantial situation is not that great, and they dont want to be involved in war, it doesnt seem to logical that they would be involved in THIS war...

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by DrWeird
i always found it interesting that during the years between the gulf war & now iraq was only worried about slightly...now that Bush Jr. is up there, all of the sudden it's a "world threat". im not saying it isn't a threat at all, but it seemed like a rather quick opinion change. Remember who was president for eight years between the gulf war and now. And don't forget that even anti-military Bill Clinton saw fit to launch a strike on Iraq in 1998, for the same reasons that Bush is taking action now. And the same democrats who are opposing Bush now supported Clinton then. But that's a whole other can of worms.

[Parallax]

Originally posted by EinBebop
I'll be honest, I think we could be on the verge of World War III, but I don't think it will be the global apocalypse that's been predicted for the last half-century.

Here would be the major players as I see it; there are still a lot of wildcards:

U.S./Russia/Great Britain vs Iraq/North Korea/Germany

France is in bed with Iraq, but I believe they'd try to stay out of it if possible.

Do Iraq and North Korea have nuclear weapons? Don't know, but I don't think they'd be as likely to use them as people think. Nuclear weapons in the hands of third world countries serve two purposes: blackmail and revenge. But the blackmail angle doesn't really work because they'd have to be insanse ::shiver:: to, say, use their one or two bombs to destroy a couple of U.S. cities at the price of their entire country. Then of course, there's revenge. Well...

Sorry to double-post but that's notion is kinda scary. :( Fortunately if the US focus is on the Al-Quida now we might be able to end it before it comes to that. Then we can concentrate fully on Iraq/Geramny/North Korea.

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by EinBebop
Do Iraq and North Korea have nuclear weapons? Don't know, but I don't think they'd be as likely to use them as people think. Nuclear weapons in the hands of third world countries serve two purposes: blackmail and revenge. But the blackmail angle doesn't really work because they'd have to be insanse ::shiver:: to, say, use their one or two bombs to destroy a couple of U.S. cities at the price of their entire country. Then of course, there's revenge. Well...

well, hasn't it been proven that N. Korea has nuclear weapons (I really don't remember; hasn't it?). also, that revenge angle made me think of a desperate Saddam about to have his palace stormed sending some sort of missle as a sort of last action...scary.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by Gogeta
I think your wrong about the Germany part, they learned their lesson from WWII (im Jewish so dont say anything, I belive that they have learned, I have proof if you want to challange my opinion :) ) I think Germany will be more like Switzerland and stay out of the war. Their finantial situation is not that great, and they dont want to be involved in war, it doesnt seem to logical that they would be involved in THIS war... My understanding is that Germany is still very anti-semitic; their current leader ran a very anti-US campaign, and like France, they have a sweetheart oil deal going with Iraq.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
Sorry to double-post but that's notion is kinda scary. :( Fortunately if the US focus is on the Al-Quida now we might be able to end it before it comes to that. Then we can concentrate fully on Iraq/Geramny/North Korea.

As youve probably heard before, battling Terrorism is a completly different type of warfare...its MUCH more difficult to get a hold of the people and stop them from killing countless amounts of people

we live in a scary world...

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by EinBebop
Remember who was president for eight years between the gulf war and now. And don't forget that even anti-military Bill Clinton saw fit to launch a strike on Iraq in 1998, for the same reasons that Bush is taking action now. And the same democrats who are opposing Bush now supported Clinton then. But that's a whole other can of worms.

well, you do have a point there. but i was refferring moreso to the military anaylst type people and the media...but then again, the media is indirectly controlled by whoever is president...but thats another topic.

as for germany, i think they'll just stay out of this war. the general european opinion of america is bad, anyway, so germany and anti-US is not that suprising.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by EinBebop
My understanding is that Germany is still very anti-semitic; their current leader ran a very anti-US campaign, and like France, they have a sweetheart oil deal going with Iraq.

Germans have strict rules involving anti-semitism unlike the US and GB. People who worship anti semitism (like the KKK) would be imprisoned. Many nations have anti-US leaders, but that does NOT mean they want to go to war with the US, South Korea is really annoyed at us, but theyre not going to necessarily attack us or become our enemy....

[Parallax]

Actually I don't really see them none of them fighting side by side. I could see them targeting the US but I doubt that they would become allies, but I could see the US trying to get allies because if they don't finish what they start they're going to have 2 or 3 wars on their hands.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
Actually I don't really see them none of them fighting side by side. I could see them targeting the US but I doubt that they would become allies, but I could see the US trying to get allies because if they don't finish what they start they're going to have 2 or 3 wars on their hands.

...and that cant be good...

[Parallax]

Originally posted by Gogeta
As youve probably heard before, battling Terrorism is a completly different type of warfare...its MUCH more difficult to get a hold of the people and stop them from killing countless amounts of people

we live in a scary world...

Exactly, we kill Bin Laden and he becomes a hero. That's why we need to target it first, it's better then concentrating on something we are not even sure of and having 2 wars on our hands.

[EinBebop]

I realize my bigger picture is a LOT of speculation, but I don't think I'm reaching too far to think that North Korea will ally with Iraq. Their blackmail hasn't worked, and they know that we're going after them as soon as we're done with Iraq. And just yesterday they threatened a pre-emptive strike. I'm sure both Iraq and North Korea realize they stand a better chance against the U.S. if the U.S. is fighting on two fronts rather than one.

See this article (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030130-allies01.htm) for a little info on the U.S.'s allies. I've heard that we have 50 countries willing to support us in some form in this conflict.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by EinBebop


See this article (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030130-allies01.htm) for a little info on the U.S.'s allies. I've heard that we have 50 countries willing to support us in some form in this conflict.

If there are 50 Nations involved in this there will DEFINETLY be a World War III

[Parallax]

Originally posted by Gogeta
If there are 50 Nations involved in this there will DEFINETLY be a World War III

Yes, no doubt of that. If the US would of have that many allies against the Al-Quida it would have all ready been over. Now it might not be that easy against Iraq. Especially if Iraq can get other countries against us. Now that would be bad.

[The Landstander]

i think N. Korea & Iraq would be willing to team up. they're probably not enthuistiatic (wow, that was spelled badly) about it, but would do it for their countries. and the 50 nations thing...i dont think this is going to be WW3. this is going to be another gulf war (if we just fight iraq) if anything. saddam really doesn't stand a whole lot of a chance against us. n. korea (who i think is a much bigger problem and should be a bigger concern) might have a better chance, but still not a great chance. the 50 nations are all just looking to get on the US good side (a good idea), and there wont be that much of a problem.

but i have to work on my website, so that

[EinBebop]

From the article I linked aboveabove: "But when the administration talks about a coalition against Iraq, it's pretty much people allowing the U.S. to use their bases. When it comes to fighting, it will be really only Britain and Australia and maybe Spain."

That article only lists about a dozen countries; I should've made sure I could confirm that fifty number before I posted it, but I don't think the source of that info would just make it up. But as the quote states, very few of those countries would actually be supplying troops.

[Parallax]

Yeah, after reading the article it would seem that the US has a very good chance against Iraq. As For North Korea we wouldn't have so many allies so DrWeird is right, North Korea is a bigger threat especially if they have nuclear weapons.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by DrWeird
i think N. Korea & Iraq would be willing to team up. they're probably not enthuistiatic (wow, that was spelled badly) about it, but would do it for their countries. and the 50 nations thing...i dont think this is going to be WW3. this is going to be another gulf war (if we just fight iraq) if anything. saddam really doesn't stand a whole lot of a chance against us. n. korea (who i think is a much bigger problem and should be a bigger concern) might have a better chance, but still not a great chance. the 50 nations are all just looking to get on the US good side (a good idea), and there wont be that much of a problem.

but i have to work on my website, so that


TRUE ALLIES
Britain, Australia, Spain, Czech Republic, Poland, and Canada


"The United States would want anybody on board at this point," said Patrick Garrett, an analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, a military think-tank. "But when the administration talks about a coalition against Iraq, it's pretty much people allowing the U.S. to use their bases. When it comes to fighting, it will be really only Britain and Australia and maybe Spain."

OFFERED USE OF BASES/MILITARY FACILITIES:
Every Arab nation on the Persian Gulf, including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Oman

KEEPING ITS DISTANCE
Jordan, Turkey, and other Islamic friends include Uzbekistan, now a close U.S. ally, which has pledged its support for war.

AGAINST MILITARY OPERATION
Germany and France, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Luxembourg.


But even these countries are likely to show some support in the event of war. When the United States moves its troops out of Germany, their bases will be protected by German forces and the move will be facilitated by German logistics.

Even French opposition is qualified. The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is heading toward the Gulf and French forces could swiftly be in place if Paris chooses.

"In the 13th hour, the French will probably come on board the way that they did in the Gulf War," said retired Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

POTENTAL EUROPIAN ALLIES:
Spain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and Lithuania, as well as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic

Spain has agreed to allow the United States to use its bases as has Italy, whose Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, meets with Mr. Bush today after wobbling a bit on his commitment to join in a non-UN-approved war.

Earlier this month Franco Frattini, Italy's Foreign Minister, said: "Italy will support the United States in the unfortunate event of a war."

A chemical and biological warfare unit of the Czech military is already in Kuwait, although, embarrassingly, 27 members of the 250-man unit headed for home when their Defence Minister visited and said that those "who did not feel ready" for war could leave.

Poland is rapidly emerging as, in Mr. Bush's words, "the best friend we have in Europe," and has said it will back Washington.

"Poles are reliable allies," said Aleksander Kwasniewski, Poland's President. "If after all the talks and proceedings are held, and all other possibilities are exhausted, we will have to stand up and fight; we will do it."

Hungary is allowing U.S. forces to train up to 3,000 members of the Iraqi opposition at its Taszar military base.

The problem for most of the pro-American leaders in Europe is that public opinion is strongly opposed to war. Even in Britain, polls show 85% are against a war without UN backing and Tony Blair's Labour Party is splitting over the issue.

Canada is on the fence, a subject likely to be raised when Bill Graham, the Foreign Minister, meets today with Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State. But with Canadian officers in Florida discussing logistics with their U.S. counterparts at Central Command who will be in charge of an invasion, the U.S. calculation is that Ottawa will be on board diplomatically, if not militarily.

And there are our ALLIES

[Parallax]

Which is quite alot even if only about a dozen will actually send troops, and if they start bombing Iraq they'll have a place to keep the missles and planes.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
Yeah, after reading the article it would seem that the US has a very good chance against Iraq. As For North Korea we wouldn't have so many allies so DrWeird is right, North Korea is a bigger threat especially if they have nuclear weapons. It's all a matter of perspective, not to mention a big balancing game. The critical factors in focusing on Iraq now are

a) We know Saddam has these 'weapons of mass destruction', and that he has used them in the past, whereas

b) We don't know for sure that North Korea has nuclear weapons; they could only be trying to blackmail us, and

c) We'd already begun to commit ourselves to Iraq when the threat from North Korea arose. I think that's why it came up at that time; North Korea banking on the fact that we would try to appease their blackmail rather than us juggling two balls.

[Parallax]

Well I guess your right it is kinda suspicious that they claim to have "weapons of mass-destruction" when were worried about Iraq. Or they could all ready be working with Iraq and we don't know it yet. They could be in co-horts with the Al-Quida too. I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

[Zach Logan]

Well i heard the reason for the alert was increased electronic "chatter" and large quantities of cash (suspiciosly) being transported

[EinBebop]

Oh yeah... we were talking about the alert! :)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20030207/homeland_advisory207_graphic.gif

ORANGE: High risk of terrorist attacks.

--Coordinate necessary security efforts with armed forces or law enforcement agencies.

--Take additional precaution at public events.

--Prepare to work at an alternate site or with a dispersed work force.

--Restrict access to essential personnel

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by EinBebop
Oh yeah... we were talking about the alert! :)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20030207/homeland_advisory207_graphic.gif

I bet you we go to Servere in March -_-;;

[EinBebop]

AP - The State Department advised nonessential U.S. diplomats and family members on Friday to leave Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Private U.S. citizens also were advised to leave those countries and Americans were cautioned not to travel to Israel.

I wish I could go back in AP news to 1991. I'd be curious to see how long before Desert Storm this same warning was given.

At the risk of getting off-topic again.... where's our cool operation names this time around? :tom:

[Zach Logan]

UNtil we destroy the Alquida network we will be at AT LEAST an elevated state...which means we wont be "Guarded or Low" for a while

[The Landstander]

i doubt that at any point in the future existance of this warning system we will be at "low".

and one more thing about North Korea is that we know they have a nuclear weapons program. they announced it. they seemed to be bragging about it. i still say they're worse of a problem than iraq.

as for cool operation names, i dont know either. i liked the name Operation: Enduring Freedom. sounds powerful and patriotic at the same time.

[EinBebop]

Okay... went back to Google groups in 1991. I found a report that said the US ORDERED nonessential diplomats out of the middle east on January 15th. The Gulf War officially began at 7PM, January 16th.

But the current report only has the US ADVISING nonessential diplomats out. Does the change in wording mean anything, or is the party getting started this weekend? Perhaps that's why the alert was raised; because the US is anticipating a backlash from the impending operation?

All just speculation, of course.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by DrWeird
i doubt that at any point in the future existance of this warning system we will be at "low".

and one more thing about North Korea is that we know they have a nuclear weapons program. they announced it. they seemed to be bragging about it. i still say they're worse of a problem than iraq.

as for cool operation names, i dont know either. i liked the name Operation: Enduring Freedom. sounds powerful and patriotic at the same time.

The thing is we cant bomb North Korea or else well be in a hell of a situation

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by DrWeird
...and one more thing about North Korea is that we know they have a nuclear weapons program. they announced it. they seemed to be bragging about it. Iraq has a nuclear weapons program as well, but they don't dare admit that at this point. The question is, how far is either country from having a bomb?

[Zach Logan]

*listening to Tom Brokaw on Conon O Brian talk about this*

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by DrWeird


and one more thing about North Korea is that we know they have a nuclear weapons program. they announced it. they seemed to be bragging about it. i still say they're worse of a problem than iraq.


At least they are honest. They're wanting diplomatic leverage. Iraq isn't being 100% honest, here. They're wanting destruction.

I predict NK is next, after Iraq.

[Parallax]

Yes, I don't really think NK is wanting another WW. It seems they want something else that I can't put my finger on. Hmm...

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
Yes, I don't really think NK is wanting another WW. It seems they want something else that I can't put my finger on. Hmm...

This might explain it:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/030115/ramirez.gif

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
Yes, I don't really think NK is wanting another WW. It seems they want something else that I can't put my finger on. Hmm... Here's the situation: North Korea tried to start a nuclear weapons program in the early nineties, and it looked like we might have to go into North Korea to but a stop to it. Many countries were definitely about to begin sanctions against North Korea, which, like today, North Korea said they would take as a declaration of war.

Our savior :rolleyes: Jimmy Carter went over to North Korea and offered them all kinds of aid if they would drop their nuclear weapons program. And part of the deal involved replacing their old nuclear reactors with more modern, safe ones. But without forcing them to get rid of the old fuel rods that they could use to continue their nuclear weapons progam. Jimmy Carter won a nobel peace prize for this insanity.

So George Bush came into office, had hinted from the outset that he wasn't happy with the arrangement, because he believed that North Korea was secretly continuing their weapons program. In October, North Korea finally admitted it. U.S. stopped shipping fuel and food, and North Korea sent their inspectors home. North Korea says they will stop their nuclear weapon program ("Really! We mean it this time!") if we give them even more aid.

[Parallax]

Seems like all they want is help. But if we don't help them do we take the risk of them attacking the Us, one of our bases, or one of our allies? Or are they just bluff? It seems to big of a deal for them to be bluffing.

[wonderfly]

I just logged onto this board, and have found 5 pages worth of stuff to wade through. How is it possible to get 5 pages in less than 24 hours? I haven't even read through this all yet. I'm amazed.

:eek:

[Parallax]

Originally posted by wonderfly
I just logged onto this board, and have found 5 pages worth of stuff to wade through. How is it possible to get 5 pages in less than 24 hours? I haven't even read through this all yet. I'm amazed.

:eek:

Who knows. I guess we just have alot to share about this topic.

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by wonderfly
I just logged onto this board, and have found 5 pages worth of stuff to wade through. How is it possible to get 5 pages in less than 24 hours? I haven't even read through this all yet. I'm amazed.

:eek:

Well i got in this intense discussion with some of the members here last night on this thread :)

[Parallax]

Not like it grew as fast as the Giant-Robot week anouncement. Now that was fast.

[Zach Logan]

Yeah, my Jeopardy threads also usually grow to three pages in under 15 minutes :eek:

[Parallax]

I know that's why I avoid them. I can't tell which questions are left. Plus I stink at Jepordy unless its about stuff at school or in the news. You know stuff like that.

Well now back on topic, wait, what are we talking about now?

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
I know that's why I avoid them. I can't tell which questions are left. Plus I stink at Jepordy unless its about stuff at school or in the news. You know stuff like that.

Well now back on topic, wait, what are we talking about now?

The alert colors

[Parallax]

Originally posted by Gogeta
The alert colors

Ah yes that's right. I don't think they'll raise it again for a while though. Not untill they're absolutely sure of a terrorist attack is going to happen. Untill then...