US troops are ALREADY IN PAKISTAN.
How many times must I repeat it?

Venezuela...

"How many times must I repeat it? "

perhaps until you provide the appropriate context. US troops are in Germany it doesnt mean we are going to war with them

@ Sicarius

Santa is right. Just because we are in a country does not mean we are at war with them. If that is the case, than WWII is still going on.

well technically, if you consider the payment of war debt, wwii is still going on, and WWI ended in the past year

US troops engaged in active conflict, plus drone strikes?
its not like their hanging out at the base peeling potatoes. JSOC has been operating in pakistan for quite awhile now.

to all those mentioning Libya:
we are already at war with them...

If Mexico's government falls to the cartels and becomes a new Somalia (only controlling parts of the capital) I can see the US trying to sort that out. They don't want a failed state on their borders.

i was going to say as well, but I doubt mexico will fall to the cartels

Well, not fall completely, but its losing control of more and more areas. After all, the Somali government does control part of Mogadishu. I think the US will step in to prevent that happening if things go south there.

To all of those people who are saying "oh we're already at war with x country," just because we're at war with them now (which we're not at war with Pakistan, war being defined as actions against the government) doesn't mean they can't be the next country we go to war with. Imagine this conversation taking place in 1918 in the US, and someone said "The next country we're going to go to war with is Germany" Well that turned out to be true, even though we were already at war with them, no? So, though we are "at war" with Libya, they can still be the next country we go to war with.

but it becomes less likely...

fasces:

some people dont consider what the US is doing to be a war.

certainly what is happening in libya is a war. but that does not mean the USA is "at war" with gadafi's govt.

mostly because it isnt. it is enforcing a UN resolution, which is usually not considered a war. in fact western journalists continue to hang around tripoli. that doesnt happen in regular wars. there is a conflict that involves arms, but that is not always the same as wars.

the definition of war is of course flexible, what i am pointing out is that there are plenty of people myself including that dont consider what the US is doing there a war.... yet

Well while we sit comfortable in our priviledge, debating about what is and isnt war, all those people in the countries we arnt at war with are getting bombed.

afghanistan
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/179983.html
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/11/drone_killing_civilians
http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2011/03/24/us-kills-more-civilians-in-afghanistan-despite-progress-propaganda/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752310,00.html

or iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-WRipsF8dE&feature=related
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/11/27/22207/us-military-kills-civilians-in.html
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3796
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/Mar/07/Bomb-targeting-US-kills-civilians-near-Basra.ashx

Libya
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/9113812/at-least-40-civilians-dead-in-tripoli-strikes-vatican-official/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/libya-air-war-pilots-civilians_n_838733.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-russia-libya-statement-idUSTRE72J27320110320
http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1756
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/31/american-orchestrated-air-strikes-in-libya-kills-innocent-civilians/

pakistan
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/22/us-drone-strike-in-pakistan-kills-26-including-civilians/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=141Qknrz-5k
http://tribune.com.pk/story/133842/drone-strike-kills-8-in-datta-khel/
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/04/17/dozens-of-pakistani-civilians-killed-in-recent-us-drone-strike-2/

Yemen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBrwZDXjadI
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/02/cable-reveals-airstrike-killed-21-children-yemen/
http://yemenite-shorts.blogspot.com/2011/05/yemen-killing-of-civilians.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/15/us-yemen-rights-idUSTRE5BE5G220091215

Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzRAmgaSqg&feature=player_embedded
I could fill volumes with this shit. Do some research. alot of civilians seem to be getting killed in these not war zones.
Whatever, call it croquet for all the fuck I care, But the fact of the matter is that US troops are fighting in countries all over the globe. Billions of dollars spent on bombing campaigns, destroyers and battleships, etc. huge collateral damage.
he US has no antiwar movement in sight,
we're like the Empire

http://cdn.imgfave.com/image_cache/1250832327580378.jpeg

"if you have an all inclusive defintion that includes like army guerilla groups or whatever then thats just boring because that happens every day."

good to see you're numb to it. Thats says something about this country eh?

That it's awesome?

Eliminate the possibility of the U.S. going to war with any nation that could actually fight back effectively. So definitely NOT NK or China. The Ball-less Wonders of America are certainly not up to those tasks.

Greece - very soon the country will be so broke that they will elect a government that defaults on its debt, pulls out of the euro and reduces its corporation tax to 3% to attract new businesses to go there. Many key companies begin to shift their head offices to greece and they become super rich as the rest of the world loses tax dollars/pounds/euros. All out war starts when the now rich greeks shun american and uk pleas to raise tax rates.

oh but then we have to capture hellalt and make him work in the camps


greece.... seriously? lol

again sic - what i said is no comment on whether its good or bad. its a comment on whether its remarkable, and its not.

its not something that really bears talking about in this thread, akin to asking "what highway will the dept. of transportation start building next?"

this thread as i see it has nothing to do with the morality (or lack thereof) of state violence, it exists to soberly predict the USA's next war. so that's what i did.

you want to talk about the morality, start another thread

Honestly, it's impossible to predict because we don't know what fuckups like Kin Jong Il are going to try or who the victim of neighborly aggression in the unstable Middle East will be.

Next war? Probably none for a long time. Secretary Gates said a future president would be crazy to get involved in another land war in Asia. Obama then precociously started an air one in Africa, but the wider point that direct American involvement in wars is going to be avoided in the future is probably still true. This doesn't mean we won't keep launching strikes in Pakistan from much reduced bases in Afghanistan for many years to come, but it does mean Iran you won't see US tanks rolling through Tehran. Everything's gonna be on the DL and be much more of a balance of power game through a still stronger navy anfd lots of support for key US allies (the arms deal with Saudi Arabia is a clear example).

But in the spirit of the thread, I'll guess a deeper involement in the Mexican Drug War if things continue to deteriorate. Who the next President of Mexico is and what policies he pursues will determine what happens there, and if the Mexicans can't reassert government control i nthe worst areas I fear America will be drawn in somehow. That would be a dreadful scenario, but unfortuately I think it's quite possible.

"Eliminate the possibility of the U.S. going to war with any nation that could actually fight back effectively. So definitely NOT NK or China"

Oh mapleleaf. Leaving aside China (which, while it would be a serious war, the United States could handily win conventionally), North Korea poses no conventional threat to the America. The main concern against fighting the North is what happens after the government is destroyed and millions of refugees flood into a ruined Seoul and a freaking out China. The nuclear missiles, while a serious, serious threat, would likely be aimed mostly at Japan. We also have the technology to shoot them down pretty well. It would still be dreadful, but to say North Korea could fight back effectively is quite wrong. If there's a Second Korean War there will be no North Korea at the end of it.

Eliminate the possibility of the U.S. going to war with any nation that could actually fight back effectively. So definitely NOT NK or China. The Ball-less Wonders of America are certainly not up to those tasks.

you mean the balless wonders that defeated the third largest army in the world 20 years ago in a span of weeks?

HA!

Revisionist claptrap.

Had Hitler continued to bomb hapless England instead of committing military suicide by advancing into Russia in the winter, things would have gone VERY differently.

Russia won WW II. You american war criminals simply murdered a lot of Japanese civilians. If the slopes hadn't fought bravely against those lazy american cowards at Pearl Harbour, then Roosevelt never would have involved the u.s.a. at all.

Nobody really gave a fuck about a bunch of dead jews.

You know it, and I know it.

The invasion of Russia took place in the middle of the summer. It wasn't suicide because the Soviets would have invaded the German Empire had Germany been bogged down with an invasion vs Britain. The Soviets had about 250 military formations along the German border, in attack formation, prior to Barbarossa (so much for the Soviets being "ill-prepared"). The reason the initial German invasion was successful was because the Soviet divisions were not in defensive position. The Soviets were considered the bigger military threat precisely because of the haplessness of the British and because the Soviets had been putting pressure on the Germans in Romania, Yugoslavia and Turkey. The Germans felt that if they knocked out the Soviets the British would be forced to make peace and end the war.

"you mean the balless wonders that defeated the third largest army in the world 20 years ago in a span of weeks?"

4th largest army with out-dated equipment, with little to no air defense system. Plus the US had a bunch of other advanced countries helping them out. This is a specious argument.

@maple leaf:
first of all, there were a lot of people who cared about "a bunch of dead jews," my family espicially since almost two thirds of them were wiped out because assholes like you didn't do anything to stop a murdering freak from killing millions of innocents.

secondly, us americans are not the war criminals. If you actually take a look at what really happened, the Japanese bombed us, a nation they were not at war with, after killing millions of koreans and chinese from 1910 all the way to the end of the war and during the rape of nanking. Add to the list of japanese war crimes the baton death march which included the ruthless toture and killing of american soldiers in complete violation of the "conduct of war."

If you want to go about voicing your incredibily stupid opinions, at least get the facts straight. the Japanese we fought wern't civilians, they were a bunch of battle hardened soldiers who had gone on a six month rampage in the pacific. The only actual civilians killed were from the fire bombing of japanese cities and of course the two atomic bombs, which was necessary to put an end to the war, which had gone on for far to long.

Maple is a troll dont feed him.

"4th largest army with out-dated equipment, with little to no air defense system. Plus the US had a bunch of other advanced countries helping them out. This is a specious argument."

Do you have any evidence that they had no air defense system, I personally know an inividual who flew jamming missions in the first pesian gulf war, and I think he disagrees.

:The only actual civilians killed were from the fire bombing of japanese cities and of course the two atomic bombs, which was necessary to put an end to the war, which had gone on for far to long. "

Oh yes small detail there. And of course nobody has been able to demonstrate that the bombs had anything to do with the end of the war.