Where will the US invade next?

[Thande]

The choice is yours.

[Grey Wolf]

I don't know about 'invade' but I see some sort of operation and intervention against Iran in the offing

Grey Wolf

[Scarecrow]

people of the untitled slates of armenia, the time has come to stand up and invade the country of Frnace, which will now be named Freedom, after those Freedom Fries. this is for Louisiana, you Frog eating Freedomers!

[Kit]

Given Rice's comments in London yesterday I'd have to agree and say Iran. Apparantly Jack Straw's smile became rather strained at that point. Oh well, it's only a couple of years hard diplomacy down the drain.

[Thande]

I'm not sure that isn't a double bluff. Iran is too large to try and hold down - the US could choke on that morsel, and the clerics do enjoy some popular support (though not that much). An Iranian resistance would probably be better organised and less localised than the current Iraqi Sunni one.

Which leads me onto my next point. Aside from that brief business with Muqtada as-Sadr, there's really been little Shia insurgency in Iraq; it's all been Sunni and mostly Baathist. this leads me to believe that it's Syria, not Iran. that is the prime sponsor of the insurgency. Syria is also smaller and would be easier to hold down, though it would be less easy to make Bashar al-Assad the same figure of hatred as Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs. In any case, the more countries the Americans remove, the fewer will be left to support the insurgencies in said occupied countries.

[Grimm Reaper]

Iran? No, Iran will not be invaded. It may be bombed to interrupt the move towards atomic weapons, with no preconceptions as to whether the US or Israel will be the 'bomber'. However I would not rule out the real possibility that keeping the lid on the population will slip at some point in the next few years and the mullahs will go down sans intervention.

France? Does not this term 'invasion' assume the virtual certainty of at least a moderate degree of credible resistance?

North Korea? Top probability. The regime appears to be in deep trouble, the 'nation' is going down in flames, the Times of London reports that even the secret police fear for the future, the royal family...cough cough, the communist elite have no reason to expect to live much past the collapse and they have nukes. The only question is whether the US will invade or counter-attack.

[Leo Caesius]

Which leads me onto my next point. Aside from that brief business with Muqtada as-Sadr, there's really been little Shia insurgency in Iraq; it's all been Sunni and mostly Baathist. this leads me to believe that it's Syria, not Iran. that is the prime sponsor of the insurgency. Syria is also smaller and would be easier to hold down, though it would be less easy to make Bashar al-Assad the same figure of hatred as Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs. In any case, the more countries the Americans remove, the fewer will be left to support the insurgencies in said occupied countries.
AFAIK, the insurgents are completely cut off from the outside world and the Pentagon has stated numerous times that there is no reason to assume that they are being "sponsored" from outside. Bashar al-Asad is an unlikely candidate; not only do they have a good record destroying Sunni insurgencies in their own country, but he and his family themselves are Shiia. Why would the Syrians, dominated by religious minorities, be supporting Sunni extremists in Iraq? If anything, given his cosy relations with Iran, he'd be supporting the Shiia in Iraq as well.

No, there's no reason to assume that Syria is involved, and absolutely no reason to invade them.

[carlton_bach]

No, there's no reason to assume that Syria is involved, and absolutely no reason to invade them.

Which is different from the relationship between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 how? :)

I don't think Syria makes a good target, myself. perversely, any easy target invaded now (and by comparison it must class as one) would prompt the suspicion that the attack was ordered for purely political motives. That's why I fear IF the US starts another invasion rather than react to some unforeseen or foreseen provocation (which would be foolish, but what else is new), it would have to be against a difficult enemy (such as Iraq or North Korea, and I would much prefer the latter) because simply because nobody could suspect such a move to be motivated by anything other than stark necessity.

[NapoleonXIV]

Iran. Before 2006.

Syria and North K have no, or very little relatively, oil.

Bush saw 9/11 as basically a license for the US to go and take what it could from the Arab world, connected to 9/11 or not. He sees his recent election as approval of the American people for that policy. He has, it seems, about the same grasp, understanding and even beliefs concerning military matters as Adolf Hitler; believing firmly that since God will not let his Holy Cause fail he must take on as much as he can before non-believers and defeatists, the real enemy, begin their inevitable sabotage of God's plan.

[MerryPrankster]

I read the 2/7 "Newsweek" at the gym this morning and it talks about how the insurgents smuggle foreign fighters into Iraq via Syria and how the Ba'athist wing of the insurgency has money squrreled away there.

I don't know if a US attack on Syria would be to impose "regime change" or simply to strike an insurgent bases within Syria's borders, but that seems more likely than a very risky move re: Iran.

[Leo Caesius]

I read the 2/7 "Newsweek" at the gym this morning and it talks about how the insurgents smuggle foreign fighters into Iraq via Syria and how the Ba'athist wing of the insurgency has money squrreled away there.
I've also heard that is the case with Jordan, too, so I guess we had better invade them as well. We wouldn't want to appear inconsistent.

Admittedly, thus far the Pentagon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5886-2004Dec16.html) has recognized that Asad has nothing to do with the Iraqi insurgency, and in fact has been policing his borders to the detriment of the insurgency, but I guess he hasn't been doing a good enough job. I'm sure if we invade and topple his government, we'll be able to do better. :rolleyes:

[MerryPrankster]

I've also heard that is the case with Jordan, too, so I guess we had better invade them as well. We wouldn't want to appear inconsistent.

Admittedly, thus far the Pentagon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5886-2004Dec16.html) has recognized that Asad has nothing to do with the Iraqi insurgency, and in fact has been policing his borders to the detriment of the insurgency, but I guess he hasn't been doing a good enough job. I'm sure if we invade and topple his government, we'll be able to do better. :rolleyes:

Well, perhaps the US and the Syrian gov't cooperate to destroy insurgent bases within Syria? The Alawite rulers of Syria can be our friends--remember Hama and the Muslim Brotherhood? Think of al-Qaeda as the Muslim Brotherhood 2.0.

That's a bit different than a "US invasion of Syria" but it would certainly involve US forces fighting in-country.

[Susano]

Iran. Before 2006.
I sure hope so. Exactly this: Before 2006. For, uhm, reasons of domestic politics.

[LordKalvan]

AFAIK, the insurgents are completely cut off from the outside world and the Pentagon has stated numerous times that there is no reason to assume that they are being "sponsored" from outside. Bashar al-Asad is an unlikely candidate; not only do they have a good record destroying Sunni insurgencies in their own country, but he and his family themselves are Shiia. Why would the Syrians, dominated by religious minorities, be supporting Sunni extremists in Iraq? If anything, given his cosy relations with Iran, he'd be supporting the Shiia in Iraq as well.

No, there's no reason to assume that Syria is involved, and absolutely no reason to invade them.
Just a lil nitpicking: the ruling clique in Syria is Alawite (which is mostly Shiia, but not completely mainstream).

[Othniel]

Heck as a US citizen I say invade Columbia! Free coffee for everone and a major part of the war of drugs is over!

[Leo Caesius]

Just a lil nitpicking: the ruling clique in Syria is Alawite (which is mostly Shiia, but not completely mainstream).
I'm aware of that, but at the behest of Hafez al-Asad, Hassan Nasrallah has issued a fatwa declaring them to be Shii. So, they have not only identified themselves with the Shii mainstream, but one of the premier Shii religious leaders of the Levant has declared them to be within the fold. Rather than get into the rather complicated history of the Nusayris/Alawis, I thought I'd leave it at that.

[Othniel]

Wasn't Syria also getting oil shipped to them secretly? I remeber a nine year old complaining about how Syria was on the human's right commitee :D good times high school was...lol