Who's Next

My bet is on Syria or North Korea. Prolly Syria first, then N. Korea. Although there is going to be some “payback” for Canada, France, Germany, Russia, etc. for non-support. BAD COUNTRIES!!!

I don’t think you see a “new war” very soon. America still has to finish rebuilding the first two. Besides, you run the risk of stretching the US military too thin.

Nah, I wouldn’t worry about our military.

It has been designed to fight multiple wars at the same time.

Here’s my $0.02: I’d say Syria (they’re sending troops to fight us in Iraq), then economic sanctions on NK (logicically it will be up to the US to solve the NK nuclear conflict, because we all know that the UN security counsil won’t do anything.)

I doubt there will be a war before the 2004 election, a major one at least.

@Yanny:

I doubt there will be a war before the 2004 election, a major one at least.

why not?
Bush is on a roll here . . . .
I mean, he must be improving in popularity with the Springer-watching American population, no?

Because he’s on a high now and he doesn’t want to risk losing it. Not to mention that Syria isn’t really in the minds of the voters, Iraq was. Now that the familiar cities and names are used up, Bush will find it harder to gain support for military action.

I think a side-advantage of the war with Iraq is that it will give us better bargaining leverage with North Korea. We’ll point to Iraq and say to Kim Il Jong, “you still wanna keep those weapons…?” :wink:

if there is no major event ro drive us to war with in the next two years, i doubt bush will go to war untill the next election. (if hes reallected)

Bush doesnt really have big enough motivation for the People in order to get support. he almost publicly ruined himself over the Iraq issue. and im pretty sure he knows if we go into another country with not a strong reason. its going to drive the world to hate us even more. and we cannot afford any more.

Almost publicly ruined himself? By who’s calculation? His approval rating was always very good. :(

Always very good? I remember certain months in Winter where Bush’s ratings weren’t always very good.

@F_alk:

@Deviant:Scripter:

I think a side-advantage of the war with Iraq is that it will give us better bargaining leverage with North Korea. We’ll point to Iraq and say to Kim Il Jong, “you still wanna keep those weapons…?”

@Deviant:Scripter:

His approval rating was always very good.

:roll: :o
i wonder which news agency you use, D:S…. his approval ratings before 9/11 were pretty much desastrous.
The way to go against N.K. seems to be “multilateral talks”, without the threat of military action. (well, N.K. actually has carrier systems and most probably WMDs, so attacking there could be actually dangerous and create more than 10 handfuls of casualties).
I mean, while Hussein tried to avoid the war as much as possible, Kim was more or less begging for it (in their diplomatic behavior etc)… but the US decided to go for Iraq…

no oil or Arabs in N. Korea . . . .

North Korea has nerve gas and the ability to deliver it to Soeul. Estimates range in the neighbourhood of 37% of the 12 million citizens could be dead in 24 hours.

NK can fire about one half to one million rounds per hour into sourth korea…… The US can’t make the choice to go to war alone on this one.

BB

I don’t think we can make that choice either, at least not without NK making a bold move first. However, I’m certainly not going to rule it out. When dealing with people like that, the threat of force always has to be present, otherwise all your strong language goes right out the window if you’re not willing to back it up eventually.

A agree 100%, as Theodore said, talk softly but carry a big stick. NK’s ‘mission statement’ is in effect ‘forced re-unification under NK rule’. If the other guys religion is to crush and rule you then you are a fool to do anything to help him towards this goal.

IF NK makes a bold move the plan is regime change also a bold and correct move in response. However, with 10, 000 long range artillery pieces all in range of hitting Soeul it would be a blood bath for everyone. Some plans call for 750, 000 troops to invade the North.

BB

well i listen to FoxNews but i have a habbit of Twisting facts once there in my head :roll:

Cystic is right. There’s no oil or arabs in NK, therefore no reason for us to rush in there. And Kim Il Jong isn’t a complete moron. He knows that if he opens fire on SK that his days are numbered. It seems lately we’ve been having to clean up our old messes. We gave Saddam shitloads of $$$, equiptment, and training to fight the Iranians in the 80’s. So he gassed them and used the equiptment and cash to further his own crooked cause. And now we’ve got to deal with NK who didn’t have nuclear power until we gave it to them. Our US policymakers need to get their collective heads out of their asses. :evil:

There’s no oil or arabs in NK

LOL! After all, it IS the arabs that we want a piece of… :wink:

I’m sorry, it’s just the way you said it that made it seem funny. :P