You want to pay for the next one, then?
Yup, everything points to Spain
Since the Iran one was sponsered by us, we get an assist on that one. Our invasions of two arab nations needs to get a non-arab state done next to stop the anti-muslim conspiracy theories, and needs to be an economic sinkhole to quiet the US imperialism theories. Since it looks like now we are threatening Syria, i don’t see that happening. Good thing Shrubya united, not divided, the world.
No one’s next – as long as Bush can keep Cheney on a leash.
What matters now is the next 12 months of opinion polls. As always, foreign policy is subject to the demands of the domestic electorate. Bush will adjust according to the numbers and if the economy doesn’t perform, the military might, or at least threaten (a little jingoistic patriotism, the GOP loves a little flag-waving – hey, it worked well for the mid-terms).
I fear that the good ol’ USA will be next. I think there is going to be some serious payback from various terrorist groups.
$5 on Syria.
It connects the Eastern Med with the new American Protectorate of Iraq and it provides a strong and close ally to Israel in the region (something which they have been sadly lacking.)
Then Lebanon when no-one is looking – “Oops, was that a stop sign?”
Tars: Which 2 Arab nations? Kuwait? I wouldn’t call that an invasion. Afghanistan? Not Arab.
Well, we obviously need to restore order in Nigeria. Oh, and Venezuela’s been a bit dicey lately, too.
Then there’s Syria and its Weapons of Mass Destruction that we know exist because we know Iraq had them and we can’t find them, ergo they are in Syria. If not Syria, maybe they’re in Iran (only time, and a few infantry divisions, will tell).
North Korea? Now, there’s a problem. Can’t invade them. They’ve got weapons, you know. Real, honest-to-the-God-who-guides-our-President weapons. It’s one thing to drop bombs on Iraqis that can’t even see our troops, but quite another to attack a bristling porcupine of AA missiles, artillery, and (possibly) nuclear weapons.
Well, there’s Belorus, they’ve got a nasty dictatorship going there. And Libya, of course. We can’t forget Khadaffi.
Yes, earth is what the administration likes to call a “target-rich environment.”
Scupper: Sadly, you are correct. Our world is full of petty dictators and quite a few large repressive regimes. But I’d be willing to bet my next months pay that, barring some 9/11 type of terrorist act, you will not see the US pull another “Iraq” before the next election. And I pick that date, not because of the election per se, but just to put a date out there in the future but not so distant future.
The 4th Infantry Division will be heading to Tikrit in the north of Iraq. They are the most technology advanced division ever. They will park in the north right by Syria, Turkey and Iran. If Rummy and Wolfie and shaking their fists right now in the general direction of Damascus - perhaps they might use the A-word - Annex!
The “Bush Doctrine” - “You’re with us or against us” might have Iran ringing the “on your side” first. They know they’re still the 800 lb. Gorilla of the Middle East - even if we’re the 2900 lb. Gorilla. Iran knows they could do border incursions with Mad-Max vehicles all along the Iraq-Iran border - and much worse now that vengeance is in the air.
Syria, of course. France, logical n’est ce pas? Iran, Axis of Evil: part II. North Korea, the trilogy. Switzerland, nobody would see it coming. Saudi Arabia, the awakening, “who blew up the WTC?!”–GWB Germany, for old times sake.
Not even necessary. Lebanon is effectively occupied by Syria - that’s how their civil war was ended; by invasion.
Perhaps it can be a pretext? Liberation of the noble, oppressed Lebanese people, who want only peace, including with Israel. Remember those 200 Marines who Reagan got blown up in Beirut - let their sacrifice not be in vain.
Sigh. Look if you really just want to randomly throw out countries that might be invaded by the US at least give us a rational as to how and why such a thing would happen. Otherwise put me down for, let’s see, the Vatican.
Obviously the dictatorial edits of its strong man “the Pope" preventing his subjects the full and free expression of their human nature is evil and should be over thrown. Besides, the Vatican has a history of suppression, invasion, and outright genocide that cries out for correction to protect our future.
Whee! That was fun. :rolleyes:
Sure, sure. You know all the right answers. Don’t trust the public. They’re gullible sheep. They’re all wrong, too stupid to know who or what to support.
Right?
Er… I like my country’s system of government just fine, even though it depends on the will of the gullible sheep.
Thanks.
- Rick
I propose Djibouti as the next step on the liberation tour.
It has the following advantages. It’s an extremely small country and we can probably wrap things up in about 2 hours, most of which will be used to find it on the map.
It is stratigically located on the south end of the Red Sea and is on our way home. Nobody in the US has heard of it but many of the citizens speak French, so such a move is likely to garner great support here.
It will only take a few people and a printer to hold the country–if any natives cause trouble just issue them a check from the Turkey fund which is still available. And being on the ocean could make it a great spot for our military personnel to take shore leave.
Ok. So much for this debate.
What’s there to debate? The US has abrogated to itself the right to attack anyone it chooses if it thinks it might have the ability to present a threat to it’s interests sometime in the future.
Beginning with Syria it seems.
Well, one good thing has come out of it all. Americans can stop bitching about Pearl Harbour and concede Imperial Japan was within it’s pre-emptive self-defence right.
Look ElvisL1ves asked for a debate on the likelihood of the Bush administration overthrowing another regime within the next 18 months or so.
We’ve seen a bunch of joking about Greenland and some more serious talk about Syria but nothing that backs up why people think that way. If we’re just throwing names out randomly this debate is pointless.
If you can layout exactly why you feel the Bush administration will invade country X with points that can be debated and not hand waved away, lets hear them.
And from the same article
Wow! The US administration wants terror sponsoring states gone but not necessarily through force. I’m shocked! shocked to find rationality going on here.
So we’re still looking for some evidence of the Bush administrations desire to invade countries at the drop of a hat over the next 18 months.