Who's next?

[orange]

i can't imagine it being Syria...NK makes so much more sense

[KrazyHorse]

Canada's a distant 3rd.

Don't you guys care enough to threaten to invade any more?

[orange]

what's the point? You're just America Jr.

[Bereta_Eder]

ASSIMILATE EEEEEEEEEK

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by orange
i can't imagine it being Syria...NK makes so much more sense

Yes, it does. Except that Syria is going to force themselves into the fray.
I guess they feel neglected.

[realpolitic]

Definately an Arab or oil country probably Syria. Rummy says Syria now has Iraqi chemical weapons, soon he'll say we couldn't find any in Iraq because they're all in Syria.

[Bereta_Eder]

This is going to be very funny.

I suppose half of Syria's secret police is moving to Iraq by now.

[Bereta_Eder]

US won't even have Britain in Syria.


Highly unlikely that it will happen, although with the present US admin and unless someone starts stirring trouble in Iraq who knows

[Kuciwalker]

ACK!! Just after I voted North Korea I saw Cananda, but it was too late.

We should invade Canada. Moose taste good.

[Ben Kenobi]

We're coming after you, Canada, for all the bannanas you stole from us.

Mr. Fun:

You had your chance and failed...

Vietnam was just another Canada.

[Sava]

Syria or Iran most likely. North Korea won't be invaded. Not unless Bush wants a Nuclear exchange.

MONKSPIDER... IT'S IRAN FOR PETE'S SAKE!

[ThePlagueRat]

Iraq was a dictatorship, with a genocidal leader... Syria is not.
What rhetorics could Bush use to get any domestic support in USA?

[Sava]

Syria is just as oppressive. So is Saudi Arabia BTW.

[Spiffor]

Syria is far less oppressive than Iraq. I have just spent an hour reading on Syria (old articles, which date back before the hype), and the conclusion is clear : there is no comparison between Bachar's Syria and Saddam's Iraq.

The accession of Bachar at power in 2000 raised high hopes of a democratization. Free speech was high, and some old opponents (like Riyad Turk, the historical leader of the communist party) were freed from jail after 15 years. Some opponents even got elected in the Syrian Parliament.

However, this hope has been destroyed by the end of 2001, when two elected opponents were jailed (including Mr Turk). Today, the Baath party remains the only party allowed, and structurates the whole society with youth organizations, and labour organizations.
Despite an initial struggle against corruption (which can be confused with a struggle against high-ranked opponents to Bachar), corruption is now as high as ever. The power structure is paralyzed, because only personal friends of Bachar, or officials' children can hope to access a responsibility position. Almost all of Bachar's clan is made of Alaoui Muslims, who are only 10% of the population, in comparison with 2/3rd of Sunnis.

However, a few goods have come from 2 years of Bachar's reign : there are no more massive political arrests, these have become targeted and rare. Lebanon is a place of relative freedom of speech for opponents. An important modernization has taken place, with a new importance given to new technologies. The strategy of allying with the Sunni elites continues. Syria has withdrawn an old demand towards Israel, making peace deals more plausible. Some protests may now emerge without being monitored / initated by the Baath. Besides, like Iraq, the government doesn't enforce a strict religious policy, and many of the Syrian rich youth can go clubbing, for example.

The whole point is : Sure, Syria is an hereditary "Republic". Sure, there are political prisoners. But it is an ordinary authoritarian regime, where opponents are sent to jail, where there is no random torture, where the people can live rather freely. It is not Saddam's cruel and bloody dictatorship. Bachar's power lies on the population's apathy, unlike Saddam's which was based on sole fear.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Iraq was a dictatorship, with a genocidal leader... Syria is not.
What rhetorics could Bush use to get any domestic support in USA?

Bush could say how Syria is a terrible and dangerous expansionist power which threatens the region. To do this, they'll use ad nauseam the annexion of Lebanon by Syria (conveniently forgetting the many reasons besides expansionism why this annexation took place).
Bush could also use ad nauseam the political prisoners to explain the great American Democracy cannot tolerate such a thing. His team could find one or two political murders, and they'll exaggerate enough for the public to believe Bachar is a genocidial maniac.
Lastly, Bush could pretend Saddam has given all his Wommdies to Bachar so that he can avenge his death on the American people.