Which country will be next on the Bush Hit List?

[bluestateguy]

[Democrats unite]

1. The good ole U.S.A.

It's the only way he will retain the White House.

[Lakhim]

2. Sure...

Economy...lookie at that growth rate, eh?

Damn poor 7.3%, it is definitely in a recession now.

[alcuno]

11. The recession ended in November 2001.

This is what is known of as a jobless recovery. We had a similar upswing in the GDP last year with no negligible effect on the job market. Right now, to simply keep up with the demand of new workers entering the market, we need to see a minimum of 125,000 new jobs each month. Hopefully that will happen. Even better would be the prospect of the creation of good jobs. Unfortunately, the bulk of the recent jobs created were part-time/lower paying jobs.

[Yupster]

18. Really more

Just to stay even in jobs, we need 125,000 to keep up with population growth and pobably another 50,000 to 100,000 to keep up with the jobs leaving the country for India, the Philippines, etc.

[leftofthedial]

40. we are due for another Bus-GOPNAC spanking

look at the polls. Even lying and spinning incessantly for the Boy Who Would /Be King can't keep him above 50%. Time for another MIHOP.

[LibertyorDeath]

3. The United States of America

[Silverhair]

4. Iran. Three reasons. Oil, Oil, & Oil. Syria doesn't have any.

There are some other reasons too:

They are also building nukes - WMD issue again.

Oh, did I mention oil?

A lot of Americans are still pissed over 1979 and feel like we "owe" them a whipping.

Oh, did I mention oil?

They were named as an Axis of Evil.

And of course there is oil.

[bluestateguy]

5. kick

:kick:

VOTE!

[jpgray]

6. Might want to put Cuba on that list

Although I doubt that will happen next, I'm starting to believe it will happen eventually.

[xJlM]

9. They're drilling for oil off of Cuba's coast!

If that's not a prerequisite, I don't know what is. After all, why didn't we go after North Korea? They've not only got weapons of mass destruction, they brag about them.

[FrenchieCat]

7. U.S. was first,

Aghanistan 2nd (only because of 9/11), Iraq 3rd (only because), Syria next (because PNAC says so).

[liberalmuse]

8. The U.S.

He needs another 9-11 to justify more wars. Then it will likely be Iran.

[lcordero]

10. Venezuela

[JailBush]

12. I think Syria is often cited because it's seen as a relative pushover.

However, attacking Syria could jeopardize Bush's bigger goal of annexing Iran. It would only increase a global backlash and piss off a lot of Americans to boot. Plus, it would give Iran a little more time to prepare for a war that it would be even more confident of experiencing.

My hunch is that they'd want to invest everything in an all-out assault on Iran - possibly attacking Syria at the same time, but probably not earlier. I'm just speculating, of course.

[Silverhair]

13. Iran would be easier.

Like most countries where ideology takes presidence over competence, their military has to have their theology in order first, then military competence. They would be mincemeat. Whether you like our military or not, they are very good nowdays at taking apart somebody else's conventional military.

[IranianDemocrat]

21. Actually Syria would be easier.

The Iranian forces are thological wackos, the Iran-Iraq war proved how they could bring the Iraqi army which overpowered them and caught them by suprise to their knees.

Plus don't forget about the Shahab 3's Iran has plus theyve done some major military spending in the last 20 years.

[Donna Zen]

32. Syria's strike force

While easily put down can be quite lethal for Israel. I remember this being discussed some while ago. Syria can launch and iirc, they have an air force that might do some damage. Also, being a charter member of the axis of evil, they have probably been on high alert for some time. After the election would be the soonest we will see it.

[wuushew]

14. France?

n/t

[EdGy]

15. Lebanon

much easier than Syria, and a way to warn and pressure and threaten Syria at much less risk. Israel will help in this strike too, Sharon and Bush are using the same extremist violent tactics these days.

[rbnyc]

16. We're not going to attack anyone else...

...we're going to manipulate Israel into attacking Iran.

[Resistance Is Futile]

19. Backwards

Israel is manipulating America into attacking Iran.

[mountebank]

20. Wouldn't take much manipulation. Anyway CUBA.

Not that I don't agree with the gist of what you're saying. I just think we'd be more complicit in a major attack from Israel on Lebanon, Syria, or Iran than actually at the helm of planning such an attack.

But I think CUBA is next - or Venezuela, clandestinely of course.

[The Raven]

17. bush is going to take over this country

and proclaim himself as a fascist dictator. :mad:

[Don_G]

22. None

He can barely control the US now and can only pour lives and money into Afghanistan and Iraq.

[solinvictus]

23. Next

I'd have to say he's done a good job at screwing up the US.

[Donna Zen]

24. Syria

But I was surprized to see Clark list Somalia. I've been waiting for bush to go after that one. Look on the map. It is perfect base positioning, plus there is untapped oil off the coast.

The second term is going to be hellish to live through.

[TOhioLiberal]

25. Iran...

Just gotta feeling about it. I have a suggestion for *-- Go back to Afganistan and FIND Osama bin Forgotten!

[newyawker99]

36. Hi trekkerlass!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Hippo_Tron]

26. The only time Bush might possibly attack a country is on his way out...

Otherwise he wouldn't dare an Iraq repeat.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Syria; PNAC equates "terrorism" with attacks against us and Israel

This is repetition to get us to make them synonomous with us. Defending Israel is then defending ourselves.

Much of the PNAC's shadow agendum is not just world domination and seizure of the world's oil supply, it's guaranteeing the State of Israel. Syria is Israel's biggest strategic, tactical and immediate problem. I truly believe that we'd have done it in April if we only had managed to deploy more troops and had less guerilla resistance in Iraq.

There's a problem, though: their army, although weak and out-of-date, is MUCH more intact than Saddam's was before our thievery.

[Cat Atomic]

28. Venezuela

An oil-rich country that's not playing ball with American Big Oil.

I think Syria is too well armed. They'd put up a real fight.

[0rganism]

35. Venezuela's behind Iran for 3rd place, IMHO

Syria is well armed, but so are the rest of the countries on the list. Syria could probably be toppled with the help of a trade embargo, which makes it appealing; plus, it's right next to Iraq, and could become a logistical link to Israel for overseeing western Iraq. Iran is also next to Iraq, but it's much too big to pacify in parallel. Venezuela has a lot of jungle, and we know what happens there. I think even the bush chickenhawks would think twice before making Chavez into the next Gueverra; they're counting on assasination, corruption, and/or bourgeois unrest to tip Venezuela back their way.

If I were playing this scenario out in a game of CivIII, Syria would be my logical choice given existing regional committment and the potential of bringing a client state along for a supporting role.

[LoneStarLiberal]

29. NOT North Korea

When they were a much graver threat all along than Iraq.

Why Iraq and not North Korea?

Easy. We'd still beat the North Koreans, but not before they fertilized their barren ground with the blood of thousands of American soldiers.

[Zero Gravitas]

30. Luckily

The US does not have the resources to unilateraly occupy Iraq and also unilateraly invade and occupy another country. If we did I'm sure we'd be in Theran and/or Damscus by now. Jr. is a miserble failure at pretending to be President just as he has been a miseranle failure at everything else he has done. His only success is to be the poster-child for why Aristocracy is a bad idea.

[MattNC]

31. None

I don't think they have plans to take out another country, but that's not to say a situation won't arise that possibly warrants it.

I just don't buy into the conspiracy theories of PNAC global domination like a lot of people here.

[JackRiddler]

37. Sigh...

PNAC is not a "conspiracy theory" for world domination.

PNAC is an openly announced plan for world domination, signed by every key member of the later Bush regime in the mid 1990s - when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and Co. began lobbying Clinton to attack Iraq yesterday, before Saddam uses his WMDs, and install an INC government there. See www.newamericancentury.org

I see you support Clark. As it happens, Clark is the candidate who has talked the MOST about PNAC in recent weeks. Just read what he said and then follow his leads to do some research on this.

Among other things, Clark said he was approached after Sept. 11 and asked to link 9/11 to Iraq, even though there was no evidence.

Cheney has SAID the "war on terror" will go on for 30-50 years and probably hit a couple of dozen of countries.

As far as world domination is concerned, PNAC is just ideological icing compared to the actual Defense Policy Guidelines written up by Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld in 1990 and in 2002. You should read up on those.

Do you know how essential it is to have people like you, who are always going to say, "oh, look, yet again a situation has arisen that possibly warrants it. Gee, funny how that ALWAYS happens." This is how a perpetual war can be justified.

By the way, what do you think the reason for the Iraq invasion was in the first place?

[Speed8098]

38. What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I just don't buy into the conspiracy theories of PNAC global domination like a lot of people here

Conspiracy theories????

Have you READ PNAC???

If you had, you would KNOW that it is anything BUT a conspiracy theory. All of the authors are in place, our military is in place, and the warmongers have their puppet regime in place.

What more proof do you need??

Is it paranoid to think people are after you.....when they really are?

[elperromagico]

33. Is there a country called Democratland?

I'm pretty sure that's next.

[JackRiddler]

34. Fairly incredible that you left off the one where it's already started.

Saudi Arabia. Much work has gone into demonizing it as the sole source of 9/11 (bullshit, unless you are willing to follow the implications all the way back to the U.S.) and also in saying a big break up is coming, we must be prepared to defend the vital oil supplies and prevent Qaeda from taking power, etc. And now bingo, the explosion comes right on schedule.

(NOTE: It may be a Democrat who ends up invading S.A. He might even be able to openly say it's about oil and get praised for it. He would say it was a horrible dictatorship that we have coddled for too long and maybe get applause from most of the people on this board.)

That's not a "Bush war," by the way, none of these are. Afghanistan & Iraq were on the elite agenda many years ago; preparations were underway for Afghanistan long in advance. Bush was only the right tool for the plan.

If a Saudi crack-up turns into a big ME destabilization (and things are close already), I expect Israel will be the one taking care of Syria (probably deporting the Palestinians in the process), with low-key U.S. murmurs of "understanding this, regrettably, sorry," perhaps a bit of "sympathy bombing" from the U.S. Iran may be hit, even nuked in the "inevitable process of escalation - oops," but it will not be invaded.

Venezuela destabilization & Colombia suppression are ongoing projects; they'd rather not see those escalate to open use of American forces at the moment. I see hope for these turning out okay. Chavez turned into a giant, the day the CIA finally failed to pull off a coup.

But CUBA! You've left it off your list. That one is definitely desired - if it can be done quick & dirty & big parades in Miami the next week. (This would be a 100-percent "Bush war," by the way.)

Please run this poll again with the following choices added:

Saudi Arabia
Cuba
California (fake plague attack)

Something like the latter two will no doubt be thought of as necessary to the overall plan. (Let's hope it's not a mininuke, instead.)

Bush has repeatedly and accurately described his crew for us: "They hate our freedom."

And in a few years prepare for:

World defense against simulated alien invasion.

[JackRiddler]

39. kick

k