Who gets invaded next?

[DeltaElite]

I vote for Brazil, I have seen the topless beaches in Rio and I want to go there to surrender.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Let's see how things wind down in Iraq first. I'm still not sure nationhood will come easily to a country that has been so recently run by a government based on such a savage kind of evil and so successful at producing some sons adept at committing such evil and other sons at accepting it.

Human society in Iraq was a food chain.
S-

 

[aikidoka-mks]

How about Chicago?

Mark

 

[Bahadur]

I hope we can starve North Korea into submission rather than invade.

Starvation starves the people, not the leaders.

North Koreans are already starved. Though there have been some persistent confirmed reports that foods riots had to be put down with army troops with much bloodshed, it seems unlikely that ordinary North Koreans will rise up and overthrow the dynastic "communism" of the North.

The North Korea situation is very unpredictable. There are so many different paths:

1. Implosion, followed by re-unification with the South.
2. Aggression, defeat and re-unification.
3. Coup, anarchy and intervention by the South (or China).
4. Federation with the South (one country, two systems), with eventual normalization and re-unification.
5. Status quo.

I could go on. But no one can really predict what will happen. There are just too many unknowns to make a reliable prediction.

 

[Dave Bean]

My vote:

1. France
2. Iran's nuke facilities only
3. Canada
4. Syria

In that order.

Dave

 

[ahadams]

I think Azrael has the list prioritized essentially correctly, but a lot depends on how the outcome in Iraq is perceived by other nations. I doubt Syria has any delusions about being able to stand up to us directly, and a serious pan-arab jihad against the west would almost certainly topple all of the current arab governments in the process, so lip service may be given to the idea, but I expect the Pakis, Egyptians, and so on to be doing their level best to prevent any such thing from gaining legs, simply in order to save their own hides.

I also think the point about looking for renewed proxy wars is well taken. Funny part is that our first party allies appear to still be with us - although the Aussies are a little bit funny about choosing their bombing targets, and the Canadian government has been making all kinds of noise of late, the Aussies are still with our guys and gals in Iraq, and if you look carefully there has been an increased Canadian presence in Afghanistan, thus allowing more Brit and American troops to be moved to Iraq.

With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents. They don't like President Bush, because they can't intimidate him, and they sure don't want the NK's starting some sort of a war right now. I expect them to come down as hard as neccessary to keep the NKs from nuking Japan or some such, at least until we end up with another wimp liberal in the White House.

 

[ahenry]

Starvation starves the people, not the leaders.

I agree. Wouldn't you agree though that, in part, a failing of the existing system of gov't is a failing of the people of N. Korea*? At least to the extent that every person always has the choice to live under their existing gov’t or seek to change it. Granted, N. Koreans have a much more difficult row to hoe when it comes to changing gov’t systems than a more democratic system, but in the end who really bears the responsibility for a nations gov’t, the people of that nation or the people of some other nation?



*That is not to say I want to see the people of N. Korea starve.

The North Korea situation is very unpredictable. There are so many different paths:

I agree with that also for the most part. To me that means that it is time for us to help ensure that an option that is acceptable to our survival occurs. Just another step in the path from talk to war while seeking to avoid the last option.

 

[2nd Amendment]

I'd expect some of these problems to take care of themselves. Pak and India WILL go at each other someday and what remains won't be a serious threat to much of anyone. NK IS going to piss in their own Cheerios and get the smack down from China and China is going to do bad things to Tiawan...while we sit back and let it happen because we aren't ready to deal with them yet.

The Arab states are going to think long and hard before any of them want to chew off a piece of us after we're done with iraq and, in the meantime, it wouldn't surprise me to see one or more try to get a piece of Israel...and wind up a glowing coal for their efforts.

Our next big worries are China, in a true military conflict, and Mexico because a of a much more subtle conflict. A civilian invasion. How we'll come out of either intact is open to debate.

 

[Bahadur]

With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents.

China's strategy is multi-pronged. The main strategic aim of the PRC is to become the pre-eminent power in East Asia. This includes subsidiary goals of:

1. Bringing Taiwan into the mainland control.
2. Keeping Japan as de-militarized as possible.
3. Prevent collapse of North Korea and possible stationing of American troops on the Manchurian-Korean border.
4. Domination of the South China Sea.
5. Developing hegemonic influence over Southeast Asia, particularly those with large or influential ethnic Chinese population (Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Burma).

Chinese leaders do believe that a conflict with the US might be possible in the future, because their aim of the Chinese pre-eminence in Asia will be in conflict with the traditional American objective of preventing the rise of continental powers.

In regard to the US, their goal is to derive maximum commercial, economic and scientific advantage from the trading relationship while they build up their military-industrial base. A military conflict with the US is to be avoided at all costs at least until Chinese military-industrialization reaches a certain point where the PLA has a semblance of technological parity with the US forces.

With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents. They don't like President Bush, because they can't intimidate him, and they sure don't want the NK's starting some sort of a war right now. I expect them to come down as hard as neccessary to keep the NKs from nuking Japan or some such, at least until we end up with another wimp liberal in the White House.

It can be argued that the Chinese have derived benefits from Republican administrations as well as from Democratic ones. A number of prominent Republican policymakers and power-brokers (including Henry Kissinger) maintain unhealthy commercial relationships with key figures and politico-economic entities in China.

Then there is the odd coalition of Republicans who oppose China on moral-strategic ground and Democrats who oppose China on economic-protectionist grounds.

 

[faustulus]

How about we free the people of the United States next.

 

[griz]

Our actions are "hypcritical" only if we claim to be consistent. We do not. We are quite open about refusing to be boxed in by a false and dangerous notion of consistency.

I hope you can see that rampant inconsistency is hypocritical in itself.

We make up the rules for each situation, regardless of whether those rules are 100% opposite in similar situations. That is the logical thing for us to do. That is the ethical thing for us to do.

Why would you defend a policy of pretty much doing whatever you feel like as ethical? At best that sounds like situational ethics to me.

 

[SDC]

Please, please, PLEASE let it be Canada; we sure could use an "Operation Canadian Freedom" up here, and most of us wouldn't mind too much if you lined the government up and shot them en masse.

 

[cuchulainn]

I hope you can see that rampant inconsistency is hypocritical in itself.

No it isn't. It is hypcritical only if we claim to be consistent. Hypocrisy is not inconsistency. Hypocrisy is claiming to do one thing but doing another. We are quite open about our inconsistency. We are quite open, for example, about having polar opposite rules for Iraq having WMD vs. England having WMD.

Why would you defend a policy of pretty much doing whatever you feel like as ethical? At best that sounds like situational ethics to me.

We are applying the exact same ethic to all situations -- that ethic is doing what is best for the USA, which leads to different responses to different situations

England has weapons of mass destruction. Gee, we aren't bombing London. Hypocrisy? Obviously not. All the other nations run along a spectrum between England (we're happy to let them have WMD) and Iraq (we refuse to allow it).

edited to add: It would be unethical for our leaders to fail to put U.S. interest first, even more so if this failure was an appeasement to the bugbear of consistency.

 

[Ol' Badger]

Ice Land. I saw a picture of what the common Icelandic babe looks like. I saw lets go get some

 

[Chairman Meow]

If we are going to bet our national security upon intimidation in lieu of friendship, which it would appear that we are, then I would prefer a "speak softly and carry a big stick" policy over a "speak harshly and carry a big stick" policy. If we didn't attack people so often but then stomped the living dog **** out of them without mercy when we did attack, then we'd get sort of a "sleeping giant" image, which is more respect demanding and intimidating than the "mouthy unleashed pitbull" image we're getting right now. I guess all I'm saying is that talk is cheap and that the real top dog keeps his mouth shut until he's ready to eat you.

 

[griz]

Well I see what you mean as far as the overriding factor is "what is best for the US." As a matter of fact I agree with that.

After the war is over we might discuss the nuances of inconsistency and hypocrisy, but as long as we have troops over there I’ll wait.

 

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Free Kaliforny!

Pleeease! I offer low-priced avocados, and prime beach-front real estate! Disenfranchising Hollywierd on anti-American grounds frees up a lot of nice property!

I will personally slap a big wet sloppy kiss on the first burly bohunk marine who comes here to scrape the liberals off this coast!

Provided she's cute, and amenable. Just to be clear. (Impressed by that sharp-toothed 19-yo POW, I am.) Wouldn't want to give the wrong impression here. A gentleman, first, last and always, me.

I would agree that this post is a bit dis-jointed, but consider the source, and where I live. People are willing to say ANYthing after enough torture. Also refer to sigline.

 

[Zorro]

YES! PLEASE FREE CALIFORNIA FIRST!

I and 25 Million others want to see Grey Davis hang for Corruption and EXTREME! Mismanagement of state Finances!

I want the U.S. State Department to enforce bribery laws here.

I LONG to pop a LEGAL Firecracker in this state!

Or, Smoke a Cigarette in a bar without being arrested.

Or, LEGALLY FISH IN THE OCEAN!

 

[CZ 75 BD]

on to.......

Damascus, Syria