The Nightstar Zoo

Given the current success in Iraq, who will be next on Bush's hit list?

Syria - Rhetoric seems to be targeting them now, accusations of chemical weapons and everything. They've also got the bad luck of being next to Iraq, ie. the troops are already there anyway.

Korea - They're generally not nice and have nukes. The latter one also being a good reason to avoid messing with them. Also, may be backed by China, which happened last time.

One of the former Soviet states - People have guns, and foreigners get kidnapped on a daily basis. They're still fighting in Tsjetsjenia, you know. This would however be equivalent to sticking your head in a hornet's nest. Plus, Russia may want to handle this one. While nobody really cares about what Russia wants, they're probably dangerous if you go playing in their garden.

France - Do I even need to explain this one?

Nobody - Don't look at me like that. It's POSSIBLE.

_________________
You know how dumb the average guy is? Well, by definition, half of them are even dumber than that. - J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs

I'm afraid that Bush will want to go after Iran - another country on the 'axis of evil'. They have a History with fundamentalism/integrism...But attacking them would, IMO, be a very bad move, since Iran is the only country in the Middle East (outside of Israel) where it looks like the progressists are gaining, slowly but surly, on the fundies.

hopefully.


Not likely, but still, the surge of hatred between these two countrues lately worries me. I've spent most of my life in France (altough I'm an Israeli), and I find the new franco-phobia ridiculous...

You have to consider that Americans remember WW2. They remember that Hitler promised to stop after a certain point, which he didn't. And I guarantee you Europe remembers. Bush has already been likened to Hitler more than once and the last thing he needs is to prove it. Of course, this presumes Bush and his advisors remember WWII, which is looking less and less likely. Basically if Bush starts going after the rest of the middle east it's gonna be hell with our relations with Europe, and maybe loss of most of the American support (though this last one pretty much shattered what hope I had left for the rationality of joe public).

The next target will be the United Nations. Bush will kick them out of New York and convert the building into the next Enron's corporate HQ.

Well, at least it would be an improvement.

_________________
This post is quad-ROT13 encrypted; reading it violates the DMCA.

The Crimson Terror

I think the next target's going to be right within our own borders. The noose has slowly been tightening, but not to the point of strangulation of our rights...yet.

How long that'll last, if it will last, though, I don't know.

I'm going to regret this...
Verm, the purpose of the UN is to prevent wars. It works, has worked and IMO will work again in the future.
How would the US withdrawing from the UN be an improvement?

(Yeah, I know that was supposed to be a 'funny' but I suspect there is a germ of your genuine feelings there.)

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

I'm scared that this whole deal might reduce the power of the UN. It was created to allow political conflicts to be resolved through discussion, and has actually worked some of the time.

Yes indeed. Calli: "not yet" depends on how you define strangulation.

definitely North Korea. Bush is probably gonna nuke them, with the support of Japan and South Korea, possible Russia. or not.

_________________
The sun won't set if you always walk west.

Raif: When the proverbial corpse has stopped kicking and is heading well toward rigor mortis, and any hope for revival is not bloody likely.

Even then, though, it can be revived - nations are kinda funny like that.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035780911063&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Syria's next. Everyone knows that being accused of having WMD is a crime.

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

It's already been demonstrated that Bush doesn't like fights that he may lose. He'll continue to negotiate with North Korea.

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

That's generally considered an intelligent thing to do.

Someone's accusing Bush of intelligence?

To ignore the big brute who can hurt you and has threatened to do so and go beat up on the wimp who can't? I guess some would call that intelligent...

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)

Hmm. Very few people seem to agree with me on this one, but I'm of the opinion that announcing they've got nukes and are willing to use them was the smartest move North Korea could've made when Bush started accusing them of being evil.

It's better to be recognised as an evil but relatively strong bully than as evil and wimpy. The latter invites trouble and has been known to shorten the expected duration life for one's dictators.

Sadly enough, North Korea could USE outside intervention. Conditions are really, really bad there.

_________________
You know how dumb the average guy is? Well, by definition, half of them are even dumber than that. - J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs

I think that fascist little crack monkey will go after Syria next. They have no means to stop him or do significant damage, but he can claim that Iraq shipped all its weapons there so it needs to go. Iran DOES have weapons, so attacking them could result in causalties that would make the public balk. Same with North Korea and France, whose army isn't as pathetic as many idiots would think. However, if he goes after Syria, he's going to start to get the world community strongly against him, and if we're lucky, they'll get rid of him before 2004.

Edit: I agree with you, M - by actually having weapons, North Korea poses a bigger threat if the shrub attacks it than if he leaves it alone. That's why he attacked Iraq - he knew damn well that there was no danger.

_________________
Yes, I'm the wierdo that does <A HREF="http://www.ucrats.com">UC Rats</a>.
And I'm Woap, not Woa, and very not Anne

Ah, so you go for the emotional appeal. Think about it logically. If both should be taken out, and the big brute won't do anything till you do, it would be best to take out the small one first, and then wait until you're strong enough to take out the big brute. Bite off what you can chew.

Pronto: I actually have to agree with Josh here North Korea is building up an arsenal not to attack america, but to protect themselves from america and give them a reason not to attack them. If america attacks NK, it gets nuked

_________________
Yes, I'm the wierdo that does <A HREF="http://www.ucrats.com">UC Rats</a>.
And I'm Woap, not Woa, and very not Anne

I agree that attacking North Korea would be very stupid - you don't attack someone with nukes.
As to France - I doubt anyone is seriously considering attacking it. First, there's no good reason/excuse, and second, it has nukes (and so do several countries who would object if America attacked).

Pfft. Excuse? We need an excuse to conquering France? Damn. There goes my life's dream of taking France and Canada!

And it would solve so many problems too...

Like what?

You're still forgetting the Syria/nazi parellels. Europe will do SOMETHING if they believe this is a prelude to WW3. Be it war, embargo, whatever. Even when it comes to prolongued war, the US steel industry isn't doing spectucularly. Steel, in part, comes from japan and germany.

Pronto, you know me, buddy... I'm an anarchist. The United Nations is a government of governments, by governments, and for governments. It is hideously corrupt and at best serves as a funnel for my tax dollars to pay for a bunch of questionable programs and services.

And don't get me started on the so called Declaration of Human Rights. If I weren't a strong advocate of the Zero Aggression Principle, I'd suggest destroying the building and salting the earth it rests on. UN Delenda Est.

_________________
This post is quad-ROT13 encrypted; reading it violates the DMCA.

The Crimson Terror

More and more, it seems that Bush will soon become a Syrial invader.

Tell me you weren't Syrious!

_________________
A religion is sometimes a source of happiness and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak.
The great trouble with a religion, any religion, is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fires of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason, but one cannot have both.

Robert A Heinlein (As Hartley M Baldwin, in Friday)