Who will the US target next?

[Lonyo]

We've had Afghanistan, terror generally, Iraq, who's next?

 

[PsychoAndy]

NK?

 

[MacBaine]

Mars.

 

[Morph]

Anyone George W Bush damn well pleases.

In terms of the power he now claims, without significant challenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world.

Quote above from this article.

 

[deftron]

Marines Itenerary

Actually, I'd bet Iran :frown:

 

[Phuz]

The question is: Who will target the US next? (considering...)

 

[Czar]

How about building up Iraq and Afghanistan like the US promised?

 

[faZZter]

North Korea/Iran

 

[Siddhartha]

North Korea fits Bush's criteria for invasion:

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: Morph
Anyone George W Bush damn well pleases.

In terms of the power he now claims, without significant challenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world.

Quote above from this article.

Yeah I know, he uses nasty weapons to kill his own people.

 

[udonoogen]

i support the United States. i am glad i live here. it's a good place to be.

 

[colonel]

you have to look his finger when he 's speaking (rarely) if the finger point of you , you are doom. Next will be cutting aids and closing international bank assets to those countries who vote againt us.

 

[CaptnKirk]

The Democrats

 

[dejitaru]

Belgium.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Iran in 2 years.

 

[SilverThief]

Iran, Syria, North Korea
Lets Roll!

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Czar
How about building up Iraq and Afghanistan like the US promised?

The US is easily capable of handling more than one thing at once when it chooses to. But of course, the media will focus primarily on the most exciting and desregard all the other important news going on.

Currently, the United States still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan trying to keep the appointed ruler in power and keep the country from falling apart into Tribal rule. The Mujahideen have all turned against one another, struggling for power in the bloodiest ways. We've done what we can to provide them with a benevolent system of democratic rule, and over 4 billion in aide every year for at least the last ten years. After the Taliban took over, we welcomed their regime because they seemed to be able to hold the respect and consolidation of most of the country. Then, they started slaughtering their own people when people opposed their authority. A regime of terror encompassed the nation. America opposed. The Taliban were starting to look like the Ba'ath party =\ They wanted the US-backed democratic regime completely out of the country in order to consolidate their strength. 9/11 ensued, we gave them a 1 month warning, then ousted their regime. AIDE TO THAT NATION DOUBLED. Women were no longer publicly raped by hired government rapists, genocide ceased, and people began to taste freedom for the first time in a LONG while. Yup- 1980's->Present: history of Afghanistan in a nutshell

<~ East Asian Studies minor

As for Iraq, they had the cash and didn't need AID. We did not cripple their infrastructure in the first Gulf War. certain key government buildings were taken out, and a TON of military installations. The mechanized battle happened in the middle of the desert where more than 700 Republican Guard tanks met 1000 coalition tanks in between Iraq and Kuwait. They could've easily recovered on their own- and indeed they did. Recovered all too well, Saddam flourished after the Gulf War, continued his weapons development, killed more people who didn't agree with him, and expelled the inspectors. 2 Million people died under Saddam's regime, and if we leave him in power, A greater number is sure to follow. But a worst case scenario during war would be ~20,000 collateral damage, but as a whole, we will be liberating a couple million more from sure death in the future.

my 2c

 

[T2T III]

Yes, North Korea. Why are some of you saying Iran?

 

[Grey]

just because Iran has the nuke development going on. I don't think the US will invade NK, they are just rattling their sabres and nothing will come of it. Bush's term is up soon and the Democrats will probably regain office and the world appeasement will begin anew. Hopefully this time they understand the importance of stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[SlowSS]

France. j/k.

I hope this war with Iraq will make other rogue countries realize that US isn't messing around anymore, so, hopefully none.

However, I just don't see NK/Iran/Syria/Libya changing their ways, therefore, I'm afraid that we or UN may have to confront these countries eventually.

 

[Czar]

ed21x,
very good post there

But I'm more worried about the cost, rebuilding those two countries is going to cost alot of money and then fighting another war is just going to cost even more. Also it is a question about support, if the US starts to jump from one country from another without finishing, or showing some realy good early results, rebuilding the country they demolished then the world is going to get more afraid than it is now.

 

[Grey]

Like someone pointed out Iraq has the ability to produce and make its own money from it's oil. They can fund a rebuilding if given the chance and the right government. The US will stick around and provide security like the Japan situation and reducing that expense. Afghanistan on the other hand doesn't have a (legal)cash crop to rebuild with.