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" :p

Ragusa, are you are feeling a little fiesty today? ;)

Yeah, and there was no "all of the above at the same time" either ;)

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

I couldn't vote. There was no entry for Germany. :D Seriously, I think Bush will turn his focus to North Korea, but would not turn to military methods for obvious reasons.

My money is on Saudi Arabia.
I just found out that the "Pact of the Quincy" (hi Sprite :wave: ) 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 ( :doh: "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 :roll: :spin: . 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 :shake: ) - 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 :D

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

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

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

[ 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 :eek: . 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. :D

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; :D

After that I believe that Greece is coming up because we don't support the Liberation of the world plan invented in USA 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 (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000252)

The shortest way from Berlin to Paris is still BelgiumAnd from Berlin to Moscow is through Poland. ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shortest way from Berlin to Paris is still Belgium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

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

Darkwolf -- Because I'm not really a democrat. But I posted here because I think Shrub will start another war as soon as this one is over for the reasons I stated above. By the way, I don't recall the stock market being at 8100 when Clinton left office. Nor do I recall the unemployment rate being at 5.8 percent. Nor do I remember the mounting federal deficit that we now are faced with as a result of the biggest expansion of the federal government since Ronald Reagan was Prez. I guess I don't get your logic either, Darkwolf.

[ April 12, 2003, 20:38: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Sir Belisarius -

That makes WAY too much sense. The Middle Eastern Leaders will not agree with it! ;)

But honestly, Palenstein should have been in the poll. If one nation support terrorism and evil - that is Palenstein.

This might not be popular, but with regards to the economy debate above - I don't think any President is in charge of the economy and therefore deserves the blame or credit. Or maybe it is better said that there are about 6 billion people in charge of the economy. The government trys to poke and prod the economy in the right direction but there are a million factors. The President can do things which impact the economy, like invade Iraq, but he doesn't control the economy. He doesn't pass the budget. He has a prod and is something of a steer wrangler but there are millions of steer wranglers, you are a steer wrangler too and prod the economy every time you buy something.

See, Congress has the ability to tell the Pres to go f himself with regards to fiscal policy so to heap all the responsibility on any one Pres is just too much. Also, there is a lag time with any fiscal policy of, what, 18 months for even the quickest impact policies? The only fiscal policies I know of in that time frame were some tax cuts. Do you think that those policies are responsible for the current anemic growth? If so, how? Now, some are scared about interest rates because of deficit increase but those haven't gone up yet.

I'm not exactly a Bush supporter, I recently stated I'd vote in the next election for whoever has the best chance of ousting him if the state is in play, but IMO, can't blame any one Pres. Nor can you credit any one Pres.

Chandos,

I hope you don't mind, but we are getting off topic, and I don't want to risk Tal's wrath ;) so I quoted your response and question above, and responded here:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000252#000011

Ragusa, you forgot to put the moon on your poll. I guess you saw that atricle recently showing how it poses a threat in that it might crash into the earth. It's one big WMD.

It's a conspiracy anytime a boat leaves harbor. The engineer has to consipire with the navigator and harbor pilot. The quartermaster has to conspire with the chef and longshoremen.

It's a conspiracy to fly a plane. Or drive a car. Or work at a company.

So, I do not quite understand why people find the connotation of a conpiracy so negative. When everything is a conspiracy, why are people so shocked when another one is added to the list?

That said, there are some that are better than others. And what I really like are the people who truely do believe in the conpiracies; they aren't just the other people who actually just like arguing, and will argue that the sky is green just for the sake of attention whoring.

Anyways.

So, the Mexicans and Cubans routinely swim for the US shores. Koreans would head to China, if China didn't shoot them on sight. It's not going to be a problem with Iraq for 10 or 15 years. But word will get out about a democracy, run by Muslims. Mind you, Turkey is a democracy like Cuba is a democracy. It is, but only if you squeeze your testicles really, really hard, and squint.

Iraq will either have to turn people away at the borders, or Iran and Syria will either attack, or start killing their own people. I think the latter. Saudi and Syria and Iran and Turkey will be just like East Berlin.

East Berlin seriously rocked. There was this little 15 foot tall platform across the moat from the wall, and I could see the guard towers. And a bombed out church just a block or so away, with pock marks from all the 1945 bullet impacts.

It's going to get nasty. But just not today. Like pasta on a stove, it needs to simmer for a while to absorb all the hate.

And there's the Kurd thing. It's unlikely, very, very unlikely. But it's possible that enough Kurds could pull enough sway in Iraq, to setup their own Kurdistan. It'll get nasty like that, too.

The Middle East is a rough town. Where wimps eat flaming plasma death. It's not for those dependant of spirit.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists

Syria, according to the buzz among the conservative intellectuals both inside and outside of the government, is next up. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the Syrians were supplying military equipment to Iraqi forces - potentially "hostile acts." Days later, intelligence officials told Newsday there was no evidence of such Syrian complicity. Nonetheless, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz then declared Syria would be "held accountable" for its support of the Iraqi regime and said "there's got to be change in Syria, as well." First, we change Syria, then we change Saudi-Arabia.

EJSmith wrote:

Saudi and Syria and Iran and Turkey will be just like East Berlin.
Ahm, Turkey is a NATO-member. The British, Canadians, French and Germans have sworn to defend it versus any enemy that attacks it.

[ April 12, 2003, 16:33: Message edited by: Yago ]

Are we talking about who will be pre-empted next, who the US will pre-empt next, or who should be pre-empted next?*

India would like to see Pakistan get its butt kicked, now that a precedent for pre-emptive attacks has been set, and I will be interested to see what form the argument against it will take. In fact, I'd pay good money to see Dr. Rice deliver a lecture on the subject.

Does the US take requests? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030411/wl_sthasia_afp/india_pakistan_030411095309)

I voted France. Americans seem to believe that we're just kidding about being a nuclear power, and that really, we'd surrender to a single Marine if he looked at us the wrong way. There would be 99.9% approval ratings for an attack on France, and it would assure Bush's re-election. Oh, who am I kidding? I just want to wear a black beret and a trenchcoat and be Michelle de la Resistance. :p

Saudi Arabia, which is not on the list, should have been first in the "war on terrorism". It seems to me that al-Quaeda has been far more demonstrably linked to the Saudis than to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

*Yes. I realise "empt" is not a verb.

Though I really can't say who might be next, I think we should realize that there likely would be a next one. After all, what about the rest of the Axis of Evil? After Iraq, will containment be an option?

Also,

North korea is not another third world country Correct. It is a second world country, just like Cuba, China and the former USSR, etc.

Interesting article on this threads subject:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7588