Who's next?

Laser Eyes

Which country will the US invade next?

LURCH

Whichever one uses WMD next. Or launches the next unprovoked attack on the US, whichever comes first.

Do you know which country that will be?

kat

none of the above?[?]

GENIERE

I'd vote France as known enemies are easier dealt with than those disquised as allies.

drag

Greetings !

Libya and Syria are the "hornets' nests" of
international terrorism. They are the reasonable
next choices. But, I'm not sure that force
should be applied there.

Live long and prosper.

Njorl

Well I personally thought it was a very good album - not as good as "Quadraphenia", but that is a tough benchmark to beat.

Njorl

kyleb

well France is a thought, but Turkey is much smaller politically and has been rather unhelpful lately as well; so using the "if you are not with us you are with the terrorist logic" and considering that they don't have nearly as strong as a military as we do, it seems like an obvious choice to me.[s(]

Mulder

Although it would be nice to wipe out 50 million frogs, it's probably a little unrealistic [;)] . Syria however haven't done themselves any favours in the last day or two...

Andy

Kill the frogs its about time this european union rubbish is got rid off! lol

And if you go by the logic of if your not with us your against us then the United States will attack pretty much every country that doesnt speak english.

Nicool003

My answer too!

We don't invade for fun lazer despite what you think and we don't go to war for fun. We most likely wont invade or go to war with anyone else as long as they don't THREATEN us and as long as they dont have ILLEGAL weapons and as long as they don't KILL AND TORTURE their own people and as long as they dont use TERRORIST attacks on us then we will GLADLY leave them alone


exactly my thoughts!

damgo

None of the above. An invasion of France, Iran, or North Korea would be utter folly. France has lots of those nuke thingies, and an invasion of Iran or North Korea would be a catastrophe: tens or hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, maybe a million or so dead civilians. Syria and Libya would be less nasty I think, but at this point, the Arab world would (probably rightly) unite behind them against the USA.

PS - Nicool, have you looked at the history of US military interventions? We often attack based on realpolitik and geostrategic goals, not just to defend ourselves. eg:

Granada
Panama
Nicaragua
Vietnam

Also, there are plenty of countries with brutal repressive regimes and/or WMD that we are allied with. We armed OBL way back when because fomenting Islamic fundamentalism in the region was deemed to be good Cold War strategy; we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war when Iraq was using chems; and I noticed both El Salvador and Uzbekistan are on board the Coalition of the Willing... neither of their governments are much better than Saddam's.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~alis/rumsfeldnsaddam.jpg
^^^ Yup, that's Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. He was a special envoy sent to Iraq in '84 [date?] to "improve relations"; ie to see how we could help Iraq win the war. Iraq had begun to use chemical weapons when he was sent. Charming, eh?

Greg Bernhardt

This topic is highly offensive and insensitive to people who might live in those countries listed. We throw around countries like it was a game of Risk.