|
Who's Next?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
So, now that Iraq's been taken care of, who are Bush and his chums going to set their sights on next?
Syria would have to be the early favourite, but I reckon a CIA backed coup in Venezuela to remove Chavez Frias might be an outside chance as well. After all, it may well have been the political disintegration of that nation (as one of the main suppliers of oil to the US) that made up the Bush government's mind about the need to go to war with Iraq last September.
Anyway, what do the rest of you think? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| Syria is definitely the most likely, at this point. But it's difficult to predict the decision making of an administration that so many times has proved itself to be completely irrational. |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
Other (please specifiy)
ya mum.
also, prolly syria |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I almost forgot about Venezuela and the coup against Hugo Chavez there. But still, my top candidate is Syria. Iran is currently making some positive progress, so I guess it would piss off a lot of people if it was attacked, and besides, it is a large country because it has population of 66 million. NK has nukes and a huge loyal army, so attacking them is most likely out of the question. |
|
|
| PeacefulWarrior |
| Maybe we should ask the people in Tel Aviv. They appear to have a direct line to Washington DC and they have already stated that Syria should be next...so...I guess Syria will be next. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
- I think Syria is next, yep, It's all over now, the US too claims they have the "chemical weapons". Plus, is a small country, and will be much easier then Iraq. So im taking Rumsfelds shoes and saying, let's beat the crap out of Syria as well!
I heard some military action could be taken against Cuba because of the disidents that got arrested. |
|
|
| Cracka-X |
Other: France
Naa: I said Syria |
|
|
| IronDragon |
| Syria. Within 6 months. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
I donno about you, but I'd love to live in a world without Saddam(done), Assad, Kaddafi, Abdullah and Kahtami.
1st: this would 100% lead to a mid-east peace
2nd: this would mean a new chance for the region, a post WW2 like situation (and we all see how Europe recovered)
3rd: this would make the job for terrorists much more harder |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
I donno about you, but I'd love to live in a world without Saddam(done), Assad, Kaddafi, Abdullah and Kahtami.
1st: this would 100% lead to a mid-east peace
2nd: this would mean a new chance for the region, a post WW2 like situation (and we all see how Europe recovered)
3rd: this would make the job for terrorists much more harder |
agreed, hopefully this can be brought about peacefully. regardless i dont think we should just sit idle and be complacent to those you mentioned. there is much to be gained for the mid-east and the world if such tyrants were removed. |
|
|
| Tranex02 |
sure makes me feel better!;)
I wouldn't say the U.S. plans on going INTO Syria just yet. There is ZERO justification for going in....esp. when the diplomatic route hasn't been used yet....
For now, the US is putting a lot pressure on Syria to cooperate....also threatening economic sanctions and military force...
There have also been too many rumors going around... i.e. Syria is hiding Saddam's WMD, or that it's providing a safe harbor for Saddam and his officials...and that it's got Chems wpns.... but very little has been proven. It's pathetic.....
... I DO think there's going to be A LOT of negotiations tho....
and I think the president is smart enough to make the right choice.
So overall, i'm still optimistic!:D |
|
|
| Cracka-X |
| I bet they got spec ops n all over that place. |
|
|
|
|
