POLL: Who's next?

Remove all ads!

Now that terror, the responsibility of Saddam Hussein for 9/11 is undisputed anyway, has been hit so hard and now that the imminent threat to the survival of world peace and freedom has been reduced (even when not yet eliminated) the cunning planners in the pentagon most certainly aren't "shaking their balls" atm and are likely preparing further options in the eternal struggle to rid the world of the axis of evil.

Now that Iraq is going to be dealt with the upcoming new question is: "Who's next?"
Here are the candidates:

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 36 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Who's next? (36 votes.)

Who's next? (Choose 1)
* Syria (my hot candidate, promises an easy victory) - 47% (17)
* Lebanon (home of evil hizbollah and the palestinian refugees) - 0% (0)
* Iran (very evil Mullahs, but stronger than Syria and a harder nut to crack) - 3% (1)
* France (they eat FROGS there! Can you imagine??! FROGS!!!) - 6% (2)
* Massachussets (too many @#$%ing liberals there! and I hear some of em are colored!) - 8% (3)
* Cuba (they are a commie pain in the ass for soooooooo long now ....) - 8% (3)
* Pakistan (they have the bomb, and they are muslim - that should be reason enough) - 6% (2)
* North Korea (they have nukes too but they are really insane - no money to earn there) - 22% (8)

 

Sorry, I couldn't post an answer as there was no choice for "There won't be a next one because Bush is too afraid to spoil his high poll numbers before the election, which he will lose"

Ragusa, are you are feeling a little fiesty today?

 

after elections, Bush will win, i think N.Korea is next. besides maybe they'll make a new M.A.S.H. series

 

My money is on Saudi Arabia.
I just found out that the "Pact of the Quincy" (hi Sprite ) which guarantees US monopoly on Saudi Arabian oil ends in 2005.
My scenario: with military bases, huge oil reserves and a common border in Iraq, the US can attack (oops, sorry "liberate" ...) Arabia without difficulties. Convincing the opinion won't be hard: bin Laden is Saudi, most of the kamikazes of 11/9 were, they support terrorism, the regime is eeeevil, they have WMDs, they oppress women, Oussama is there, Saddam is there, Jacques and Gherard are there ... blah, blah, blah.
With Iraq under control, the US can go without Saudi oil for a little time, little time spent invading ( "liberating" damn it, I don't get used to ) the peninsula just before those evil Russians and Europeans have a chance to begin exploiting oil in the region.

 

Yeah, I say invade Germany.

Just so we can take back Chrysler.

 

Please let them liberate Poland from the morons winning elections here and let them install some CIA-paid despot instead.

 

Here's my plan if I could have everything I wanted. I think it would go a long way towards world peace...But since most of the players are insane, it'll never happen:

1) Northern Iraq down to Kirkuk will become the Republic of Kurdistan.

2) Jordan agrees to accept an equal amount of land from Western Iraq in exchange for land in Western Jordan used to create the nation of Palestine.

3) Israel agrees to give the West Bank to the nation of Palestine.

4) Jerusalem becomes a Free City and neutral. Anyone from anywhere can hang out.

5) The remaining land in Iraq is left to the Iraqi people and we (the US) give aid to rebuild their nation.

I think the climate is right for a little radical thinking...We'll see what happens. The outcome would probably be increased security and stability in the region...If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

 

Yes, Ragusa, the word coming from media talking heads today is that Saddam sent his WMD to Syria (that's the offical reason why they are having such a hard time findng them). I agree Syria is high on the list. Shrub will do all he can to keep Americans from thinking about how badly he and the republicans have screwed-up the economy, so he will probably attack someplace where he can score another easy win.

Remember that big Bush enjoyed the same high poll numbers that Darkwolf has been ranting about in 1992, and Bush still lost the election to Bill Clinton. If Shrub's incompetence continues and the economy turns worse, even Ralph Nader may finally stand a chance. Maybe then some of the conservatives on this board will have to acknowledge the Green Party in their rants -- a genuine liberal-progressive party, instead of carping about the want-to-be liberal Dems.

 

The funny thing is that Syria has a mature chemical weapon program of its own. When finding and taking away the ... err ... hidden iraqi gas shells and missiles the US could easily mix up these with Syrias.

Syria is said to have a gas weapon program of its own. So has egypt, which, for their luck, fortunately is pro-US.

"We can't find anything because it all has been brought to another country" ... is a great back-up option for iraq as the US don't even need to find anything in iraq . More, it probably needs another war to proove that claim right or wrong.

Syria will face serious US pressure in the next time. When they deny to have hidden Iraqi WMDs they lie, when they confess they are rogues deserving punishment (they are rogue states on the axis of evil anyway ) - but if they have nothing to confess they'll be liars again deserving even more punishment. After all the Iraq mess I can hardly imagine the US accepting UN inspectors for syria - as that would question the necessity of their war in Iraq.

I think it's more that the US are out to eliminate regional powers in the middle east one by one and Iraq is offering a base very well suited for that purpose - as a jumppad. Better get used to war in the middle east.

 

Hm,I must say, I really agree with Oxymore. Saudi-Arabis has the most oil, so, it has to be the next target.

Ragusa, you just forgot to list Saudi-Arabia.
But I think, they invade Saudi-Arabia through Syria.


The shortest way from Berlin to Paris is still Belgium

[ April 11, 2003, 10:59: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I also forgot Lybia, Gaddafi gives such a wonderful villain What was that again from naked gun? "This solution is not bloody enough for Lybia!"

And I'm looking forward to americans in syria: "No you ******' @%&?#§!!! - these are our *own* scuds and our *own* sarin warheads!!!"

[ April 11, 2003, 11:07: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I don't think that Bush will ever attack North Korea because he cares for his own skin too much and a nuke is still a nuke. Furthermore the North korea is not another third world country. Her army is well equipped and the jungle still gives the shivers to the USA . But the Syrians is such a lovely target they are right next door with many "excuses" to help the invasion and by whipping them out they help the eternal ally Israel by eliminating another muslim country near Israel borders.After that i believe that Greece is coming up because we don't support the Liberation of the world plan invented in USA.

 

Mithrantir, don't forget that Japan and South-Korea would be rather upset to be drawn in a nuclear-conflict, they haven't asked for.

And those South-Koreans and Taiwans build our computers.

[ April 11, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Mithrantir please with a T not a D and yes every country in the world would be upset in the prospect of nuclear bombs landing near them wouldn't they; That is what i implied to. We (Greece) don't have nuclears though so are we still candidates;

 

Why not Canada? The USA is not happy about our failure to support their war.

Second, given that the USA's main concern about the middle east is the oil supply why not secure Canada's oil fields.

Third, we are right next door so they would have a relatively easy time staging their troops for the invasion.

Fourth, Canada has no armed forces worth speaking of and would probably be an even easier fight then Iraq.

Finally, given that the US are currently re-fighting an old war they may decide to continue this practice and try to re-fight the war of 1812. Hell, they actually won the first Gulf War while they lost in 1812 so avenging that loss would probably be mighty tempting

 

Chandos,

Exactly how has Bush screwed up the economy? The economy went south while Clinton was still in office. The economy is better today than when Bush won the election and was sworn in. I don't get your logic.

Since this is of topic, if you wish to reply, why don't you post your response here:
The war is going too well and the Dems are getting desperate

 

And from Berlin to Moscow is through Poland.

 

These statements are of course both true, so how did the Germans end up in Oslo???

Wrong turn somewhere?

More seriously though:

Sir Bel,

Nonono. Turkey could not and would not as things stand with their own Kurdish minority.

To say potential civil war in the Southern areas of Turkey is not inconceivable.

Otherwise I quite like your plan.