B

Assad of Syria has indicated he doesn't want to wait. He may jump the queue.

North Korea unless Syria keeps misbehaving.

Hollywood

I plan to occupy the Media HQ in DC, after that the Print Bureaus in various cities shall feel my wrath!

i honestly hope none of them after this one. im sure the american people will not be as high on envadeing another crazy muslum country.{im an american born and bread} but there still is the chance that one of those countrys i would say b will more than likely do somthing to start a conflict...or even all 3 the more the muslums see of this war, from arab tv the more inflamed the situation can get...and korea there a parasite country..

Bush.

Short term -- nobody. This is it for warfare for the next 5 years, unless someone makes it absolutely unavoidable. Patching up some solution in Israel is the next step.

Long term -- something has to change in Saudi Arabia. That's the real unfinished business from 9/11. And we're about to become a lot less dependent on their oil...

after sdaddam dies, syria gets an ultimatum to exit lebanon, and to desist supporting all terrorist groups.

All of the above, plus saudi Arabia, and add France to that too, and Turkey,
Clean up time, lets not stop, for if we do, they will just align and get worse.

I think Syria is not next. IMHO, Syria's statements are aimed at satisfying militant muslims within their own state. As for letting "holy warriors" through their borders and into Iraq, I see that as a cynical ploy to get rid of fanatics that pose a potential threat to Syria's secular dictatorship.

As for the sale of arms and other things to Iraq, Syria is doing that for the same reason as everyone else: $$$.

Syria is no worse a threat ot the U.S. in this conflict that the U.S. "ally" Turkey. At least Syria is not massing troops on its border, threatening to "secure" areas within Iraq.

I think Syria is not next. IMHO, Syria's statements are aimed at satisfying militant muslims within their own state. As for letting "holy warriors" through their borders and into Iraq, I see that as a cynical ploy to get rid of fanatics that pose a potential threat to Syria's secular dictatorship.

As for the sale of arms and other things to Iraq, Syria is doing that for the same reason as everyone else: $$$.

Syria is no worse a threat ot the U.S. in this conflict that the U.S. "ally" Turkey. At least Syria is not massing troops on its border, threatening to "secure" areas within Iraq.

Too easy. France.

We're not even dependant on Middle Eastern Oil, most of ours comes from Canada/Mexico and Venezuela... Saudi has to be dealt with though, and Syria too, but not immeadiately.
The Israeli/Palestinian question really needs to be patched in some way in the near future.

N. Korea

i think we'd be pushing our luck to put public pressure on another muslim country in the near future...unless, perhaps, the liberation of iraq is shown to the (muslim) world to be stunningly great for the iraqi people.

C. Hopefully we cam handle them with a treaty, but if Bush manages to actually win a national election, all bets are off. He's burned entirely to many bridges to do much without bullying.

Regime Change In Washington 2004

Peter Arnett

However well intentioned, we may have smacked a beehive with this one...we may not even have till this one is resolved before the next one starts...

I think that strategically it would be in our best interests to bend our focus onto Iran. A peaceful solution to a regime is what we need next, it would be rejuvinating for not only our "image" but also for our souls. Endless conflict is not good for the mind, and it needs a breaker.

Not only that, but a democratic Iran would mean you now have a more contiguous region of influence. This would grant us the ability to track our enemies movements across the border of the region in a much easier fashion. There are also many other obvious and not so obvious benefits of a free Iran.

D. Arafat.

Regime change?
Bush is the best president the USA has had in 20 years!
Before you's all get rid of bush, come up to Canada and get rid of our liberal dictator first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I'm serious! JC is a dictator, anyone in the liberal party that votes against him gets booted out.
Canada has been under seige for 10 years now.

Well, NONE, unless one of them does something really stupid, which could only be a direct attack against the US or it's allies. So, Syria, Iran, and North Korea can feel free to attack apparently everyone in the world except the US, the UK, Spain, and Australia. Oh yeah, the former eastern bloc satellites/countries (Vilnius group). The allegedly now 52 other unnamed and unknown countries who "support" (whatever that means!) are fair game. No Soup (intervention) For YOU!.

For my part,I'd love to see Iran go next, although I don't think we need to do much there, and North Korea I think is also imploding under the weight of it's own bankrupt systems and ideologies. Syria is a pissant little country that wouldn't warrant much international debate (No OOOOOOIL there, you see), so we can put them in the Cobra Clutch at a later date of our choosing without too much hoopla.

Ah, it's fun to spin.

D. Nothing

Next?

Chaos and suicide bombings in Iraq for years. The West Bank, only further east.

Not to bring down the jovial nature of this post set. . .

But my answer is. .

Anywhere tribal idiots may be cooking up bioweapons.

Keep your eye on THAT ball.

We had twelve smallpox vaccines in the US in 2000. Now we have 220 million. You tell me what the USG is worried about. . .

If the SARS/Virus X situation doesn't have your attention by now, it should.

Our imbecilic media, seems to be too cheap to hire qualified experts AND to take the time out from selling advertising, to actually let them give you the full technicolor skinny on bioweapons.

There are a lot of talented virologists floating around. And probably some rogue cultures in black market play.

I have absolutely no inside information about this, but doesn't it make sense after the billions spent 1950-1990 on this stuff?

The Islamofascists have already told us they will die gladly to take us out. For them the bioweapons are the ultimate weapon. A few sweating idiots on a plane . . . Since they are really tribal nihilists at heart, not legitimate political fighters with a set of real political goals in mind, they don't care that an unstoppable strain could reduce the world's population by half.

Islamofacsist mental illness + bioweapons = bad scene.

THAT's where we should go next. And next, and next.

B-2's on bioweapons.

FAST.

D) Iran via Syria/Lebanon

American Leftist-Socialists.

We should add that category to the "terror watch".

This is of course unless they somehow get themselves listed as an endangered species...

The Palestinian/Israeli situation would be easily diffused if the United Nations would pull its head out from between its legs and realise that there has never been a Palestine, and that said "Palestinians" are citizens of other Middle Eastern countries. To add to this answer, the U.N. needs to realise that Arafat and the P.L.O. are terrorists, not freedom fighters. They're not fighting to free anything.

If you're talking about Gaza and the eastern territories around Jerusalem, then Jordan and Egypt are the only ones that could actually claim any ownership to the land, and even then, Israel won the land in a war with them while Jordan and Egypt were the aggressors.

Kind of puts a better light on history, doesn't it?

Also, I hate people who jump in without anything better to say than "Bush" or "Regime Change 2004".

I don't like Bush, but anyone who responds like that is an idiot.

I said American Leftist-Socialists because their policies are a big cause of the losses of freedom we're suffering from, not to mention the economy and government deficit.

See, I'm not a hypocrite. I have a reason. Not only that, but I also hate Religious-Republicans and Socialist-Democrats equally. It's just Socialist-Democrats have done so much more to destroy America.

D) Peter Arnett

I'll take Syria, with a side of Sa'udi Arabia.

Iran is too ripe for internal revolution; an invasion would be counter-productive, as it would almost certainly push the secularists and the ayatollahs together out of nationalism.

China won't permit the extension of American influence that an invasion of North Korea would represent. OTOH, Beijing realizes that Dear Leader is a loose cannon; they're pressing him to quiet down himself, lest he touch off Gõtterdammerung.

Yes, a yak is good once in a while, mityadk

N korea, he's a child, jumping up and down for attention, and all he does is starve his own.
Bush is right to ignore him, and let the east deal with him.

Pyong is only a threat if he makes himself one, ie attacks someone. The wrath is already there, Japan, south K, etc. The USA has enough stuff in the pacific to quickly deal with Pyong.

The other post is right, Pyong will fall on his own, Implode.

B. But it won't be "next" it will be during.

Oh Blah, in your wildest dreams. The donks are dead!

"SARS"
Yes, a new, and potentialy dangeous virus, but it's more dangerous to Arabs, since they like to gather in tight places, Ie: mosks. Places like china, hight traffic areas, and countries with poor medical suffer worse. poor health makes you a victim as well.
The scary thing about it is that it is a virus, and viruses change, just like the common cold.

Be carefull, no schmoozing, keep distance, and nip this in the bud before it gets worse. travel is obviously a dangerous thing to do right now, avoid closed containers

D) France, before it becomes the world's first Islamic nuclear power.

D. Privacy

I think Syria is itching to get it in the shorts next, if not during this one. If that happens I suspect the Islamic world to go very quiet for a while. If we establish the rule, mess with us get flattened they actually might listen.

I have a vote for Morrocco too. They love suicide bombers and hate Metal-heads. What better reason to nail 'em. Free the Metal 14!

B Syria

Iran is falling on its own and China is now showing signs of getting North Korea in line particularly since the dictator there is afraid of a missle attack directed not at his nukes but at himself.

If we have any brains we will use the Syrian help of Iraq as a Causus Beli and get them while we have the Army in place. This will not only free Syria but Lebanon as well.

It will secure our left flanks and the Israeli Northern flank and pretty much finish the PLO's ability to do some things as the Saddam money and the northern coordination will be eliminated

France

Last week, I blogged my husband's suggestion of California:

Paul just suggested that our armed forces liberate California after we're done with Iraq. The territory is about the same size, with a great deal of desert. And Californians are living under a repressive government. Furthermore, the repressed minority of conservatives in the areas north of San Francisco would likely be willing to take up arms to overthrow the Davis regime. I just hope that the Liberals don't set the oil fields on fire...

diana.

They could liberate Maine too, our legislature agree with France on the war. And some of our teachers think its cool to abuse the offspring of those who are in the armed services of our country.

North Korea, if any of them offhand.

Iran is in the process of taking care of itself. At most, a little extra nudging in more non-invasive ways. Syria and others should domino, if Iraq goes properly.

North Korea ought to be substantially able to be handled by China and others in the region, with us backing them up as needed. IMHO anyway.

Who knows; D might be the answer, and might be someone not on everyone's radar yet. It does work that way sometimes.

Anyone seriously answering "Turkey" is an marooon. I won't elaborate but please do some reasearch on the region before picking Turkey. Maybe read a few books or something, or try understanding how utterly eff'ed Turkey has been since we screwed them after GW1. Get yourself some Clue on this issue.

Iran is also a bad idea, because of how many 3rd generation Iranians are already pro-US and looking to overthrow their government. They need our help, they can do it, unlike the Iraqis. Ledeen has been writing on this for a year, he even sees eye to eye with that windbag Thomas Friedman, whom I think has it right on Iran as well.

Syria is big, but Israel might take care of them if they ditz around too much with rockets and Lebanon. Or not..

N. Korea and Syria in my opinion are the real possibilities.

But please, spare me this crap about Turkey.

Syria, but not because we want to. Assad the Lesser wants to prove to the Islamic 'hood he can be a player--a "strongman"--like his daddy was. He's part of the Ba'ath cult and it's been rumored Saddam's wife and sons (what does he have? 30-40-50 of the little bombers?) are in Damascus. Sometime after Saddam goes down and during the reconstruction of Iraq, the Ass-man won't be able to stop himself from jumping up and trying to make a splash by taking on the U.S. "in the name of the martyr Saddam." With a little luck we'll make sure Assad experience his very own "blinding revelation" on the Damascus Road.

And as an exile from Califonia, I say AMEN DIANA!!

Chances are Iran could be done without a traditional armed conflict. That is PRECISELY why they should be next.

I really think SF needs reform.
The gay and "happy' community is embarrassing to the USA, I don't think they have a clue why they are protesting, other than it's the "in thing to do". Civil disobedience at it's finest. prtest, have fun smash and destroy, then hang out in a gay bar, get lucky. EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
Try post anything positive at SF indy news, and see how long your post stays on.
SF is Sin City as far as I'm concerned, There are good people living there that want to be liberated from the liberals as well.

Ultimatum to Syria - Out of Lebanon and end terror support (many others seem to like this as well) or they are next. Simultaneous Palestinian state on west bank. Then on to Saudi Arabia unless they get control of Jihadi extremists and quit allowing terrorists to use Saudi Arabia as terrorists main breeding ground.

Iran, the student movement is strong, they support America, but they also want to change their regime themselves.

The other post is probably right, it will fall on its own.
But, America can't be too carefull either, it's a touchy situation, considering the past.

Saudi Arabia: I wish.

Most likely: none of the above, because it won't be necessary. A win in Iraq will cause a cascade of desired behavior by the rest of the Middle Eastern regimes--and North Korea is just blustering, and will also be cowed.

Your all forgeting about pakistan, thats terrorist training ground, worse than the saudi's

Russel.....the PUNK who answered Bush......I'll kick your ass so hard your IQ will go from 50 down to zero!!

D. Michael Moore

James has a great point about Pakistan.

To the fella who wrote this:

"Chances are Iran could be done without a traditional armed conflict. That is PRECISELY why they should be next."

But we *are* talking about conventional conflict, that's the point. We are already operating clandestine operations willy nilly, that's not really what this poll is about.

Of course Iran needs some help, the students need some backup and a push, but they most definitely do not need an invasion.

D. Antarctica

What might make a difference is how the siege of Baghdad goes...if it goes well, other strong men might not be too willing to throw sand in our faces.

Civil Liberties

Bagdad will be anything BUT easy. The best thing to do is AVOID the street fight, remember somolia?

Best to cut off the city and draw the civilians out, better to use food than to go in and shoot the place up, and causing alot of casulties on our side as well.
Tent city has to be built outside of the city to house the civilians, and also it will give commanders info of whats is where in the city so they know where to go and do a good Job.

We can all relate to a street fight. Imagine if a foriegn force tried to take new york. That would be insane, wouldn't it? wouldn't it be better to draw out people with food and water?

Why do you think in Basra, Saddams troops are shooting civilians trying to escape?
They are trying to draw in the brits to street fight.
Saddam is responsible for killing his own, not our side.

They britts right now are trying to make enough inroad so people can find their way out, thats as far as they have to go.
Also, thats a half million people to put in tent cities till they truly liberate basra.
War is hell, make no mistake about it.

Now, having said all that, for 100,000 men in our troops, they have kicked ass against 500,000 saddamists, and the casulties, both troops and civilians, is lowest in history.

saddam kill more in an average saddam day than that.

The Rule of Law.

I pray we don't see the resurrection of the White Man's Burden.

But, if I had to choose an Empire, Pax America isn't all that bad...

Central America. This is a relatively quiet area where terrorists are "vacationing". I believe that was the excuse used by the IRA guys found there.

France is the obvious answer.

But the spineless Governments of New Zealand and Canada are high up the list.

I think the Venezuelans might think twice about their recent behaviour if the war in Iraq goes well.

I think the next thing the US Goverment has to do is a war against the use of petroleum. The world needs to get energy from another source. I think the solution is to support the use of hydrogen as the fuel of the soon future.

D: Geraldo. At least make him get rid of that stupid hat.

Really, I would hope Saudi Arabia.

I would let Israel take care of Syria, and let South Korea and Japan worry about North Korea. Let the Iranians deal with Iran.

Yes yes, Jose! Let's go to war against the use of petroleum... using those military vehicles that get gallons to mile rather than miles to the gallon!

Great idea!

For those of you who voted for 'liberation' of Syria: check out what Assad Jr has to say, if you haven't already:

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD48803

I KNOW: LET'S INVADE 'TREACHEROUS' ISRAEL!!!!!!!

I'd like to see Zimbabwe, but with the American Army in the Middle East, I guess the task falls to Australia. If they could deal with that, and Canada would handle Qebec, and China would deal with NK, things would be good. We would have the time to and energy to work on Syria/Lebanon--if Hizbullah wants to force a confrontation. I suppose it's all in Nassrallah's hands right now.

D. France.
Invasion would be easy, mark all the troop carriers 'bulk soap and deoderant' to avoid attention.

Michael: sorry mate. Australia's regular army (note: not the SAS, they're in Iraq) are too busy ridding New Zealand of the terrorist sheep problem there currently.

Anti-War protesters in Melbourne are saying it's all about the lanolin and wool, but I don't buy it one bit. Those sheep are ruthless.

I heat to see my country name there. So please remove it from your list. You are welcome to talk about Mullahs whom ruling our land, but please be carefull when you talk about Iran or Iranian. You can simply find that Iran never did anything bad to any nation in its long history. But it was attacked by many others. Our people are still suffring from what SADDAM did to us during 8 years Iran Iraq war.

can it PLEASE be san francisco?

I hope it's Cuba. It gives us more moral authority since there's no national security/imperialism reason to do it - it's just a moral imperative. Plus we don't need to neogotiate basing or overflight rights. The Cuban people should be free too. Then there's the fact that we stop having boat people that we have to either send back to their deaths or put on public support.

If we handle Afghanistan, Iraq, and Cuba right, then we go on to Zimbabwe and Syria. By that time no one will be talking about imperialism because we'll have books full of quotes from the people we've freed from concentration camp countries. Then and only then should we consider fucking with the Chinese by touching North Korea.

though the more i think about it, i'd really like to see the mimes in paris totally eat it. they're way worse than anything in iran.

Saudi Arab and then Pakistan

Canada is a bad scene politicly.
French in power, French in Q-bec, or excuse me, in french its "k-bec"

Canada is the Only country in the world where you have a separtist provence like K-bec, who can vote in palement. To me, that's treason, and they have NO RIGHT to vote. They are also the ones who voted to NOT support the USA, along with the french Liberals.
We in the west are outraged!!!!! now we want to separate!! we have had it with them damn french ashole Liberals!!

The thing is, we CAN separate, because in western Canada, we have all the oil, all the farm all the electric,water, all the timber, all the resorces we (and americans) can possibly use.

what the hell do we need the east for? Damn french liberal dictators is all they are. we make all the money, and we keep getting pissed on.
A federal election comes, and it's over before we get to central time. no point voting in the west, we don't have enough seats to toss the liberals, all the power is in the east.
Thats fucked up!!!!

D; France

Anyone answering for any for any concurrent regime change is astonishingly naive.

The reality is, we can't afford any more wars for the foreseeable future. We'll undoubtedly have the Iraq problem to deal with for quite some time after the regime defeat; not to mention the ongoing endeavors in Afgahnistan, which is hardly stable.

Creating any kind of conflict with N. Korea would be arduous, and would entail numerous other sacrifices that would pale in comparison to Iraq.

The Pal./Israeli issue needs to be resolved ASAP. This reolution would do more for th credibilty of the U.S., and for calming the sentiments present there, than any outright war ever could.

Flexing our muscle anywhere else is not only impractical, but would create a very undesirable status for the United States. Needless t say, that status is already nearing boiling point around the world.

This is ahrdly in line with the idea of protecting our own citizens. Too many bridges have been burned already.

Some of you need a lesson in realpolitik.

This isn't a fucking board game. There are real costs all around.

The only actual war I'd be willing to fight for awhile after this one is North Korea, and China finally seems to be helping us.

Syria is just spewing a bunch of hot air for internal consumption within the Arab world. They are not a threat to us, and will soon be surrounded by strong-to-moderate U.S. allies.

Iran should not be attacked, but aided to crumble from within.

Having destroyed Saddam (and it's going to happen; sorry, Peter Arnett), will put us in a position of strength for handling the Palestine/Israel problem.

The big, bad long-term problem that no one is talking about much: Pakistan!

giordano

As regards Canada,

It is a fact that American Bashing has been the national pastime in Canada for generations. I was always able to take this with a smile for two reasons. First, there is an element of truth to much of it. Second, I always felt that if the chips were down, Canada would be at our side. Living on the US-Canadian border as I do, it is hard not to take this personaly. I am even more surprised that Great Britian has recieved the same treatment. I do not think Canadians will look back on this decision with pride.

I have to say Syria and Turkey.

they have both been making moves that have resulted in US combat deaths in this war.

Turkey screwed us at the end of Gulf War One, threatening to invade the Kurdish areas of Iraq if we toppled Saddam. We know that of all the accused sanction breakers in the interim they are the biggest.

Syria also remains high on the list and getting higher.