The next country the US will take military action against is in SA or ME?

[Poll_Blind]

This is a pretty straight-forward one. Where do you think the next country the US will attack is- South America or Middle East? Now, I'm sure about 80% of you are wondering why I would post such a silly thing- "Everyone knows it's going to be Iran!". Maybe. Iran is a very large country with a modern military as Syria is, for instance. Attacking those countries requires a herculean effort and could lead to the use of nuclear weapons, likely on our part, if we are trounced on the conventional battlefield. However, Venezuela and a number of other South American countries are "not playing ball" as our administration would like them to. They would be a much easier target and could be used to give an example, a warning if you will, to other "rogue states".

What do you think?

[Poll_Blind]

1. My bet is there will be another attack on US soil, paid for by...

...Middle-Eastern terrorists but smuggled into our country and having a trail from South American countries. In which case we attack the South American countries we decide are responsible and threaten the Middle East with agression if further attacks continue. I.e., the "Have the cake and eat it to" plan.

PB

[alittlelark]

3. Quite plausible. Millions of US Hispanics would still turn on him.

I would think that scenario is years down the road. They have yet to stir up significant animosity against SA. Scary thought you have there..

[Poll_Blind]

6. "scenario is years down the road"...I would normally agree, however...

...our economy simply may not last that long! I admit, I'm fresh from reading "Operation Northwoods" pdf and wonder if the administration isn't, infact, itching to get a piece of their pie.

PB

[alittlelark]

2. I'm sure b*sh would LOVE to invade Venezuela...

But millions of Hispanics in the US would turn on him en masse. That's why I'm sure it will be in the ME.

[Poll_Blind]

5. I understand what you're saying! But with 40 million latinos...

...in America, there's alot of room for difference of opinion. If "terror" were tied to a South American country, do you believe that a majority of those latinos would "see through the ruse" or "go along with the Administration"?

Remember the unity behind the president that 9/11 brought. If we were attacked and "acted quickly", do you think they would have time to see through the Tonkin-style facade?

Not trying to change your mind here, just wondering what you think about that angle.

PB

[BlueAlert]

4. Well Iran has already been pretty well vilified

Less work for the RW propaganda machine!

[Poll_Blind]

7. Yes, but it's much, much more costly than invasion/takeover of a South...

...American country. I'm not saying you're incorrect on any point but I've seen how quickly the administration and it's filthy communication organs (FOX, et al.) can put out a talking point and SPAM it across the airwaves.

It's the rapidity with which they could steer public opinion, especially shortly after another terrorist attack that makes me believe that they would not need to put a huge amount of "work" into it.

[Poll_Blind]

8. One other thing- the SOTU is coming up and this could be his...

...chance to add some more countries to his Axis of Evil(tm).

Remember, if he adds just two more countries is becomes the Pentagram of Evil!!!

PB

[IndianaGreen]

9. Ahhh, the Pentagram of Evil!

Excellent idea, Poll_Blind! The "Pentagram of Evil" will solidify support from the religious wackos, the same bunch that is convinced that the Procter & Gamble logo is satanic in nature.



As to the poll, Bush will attack Iran first hoping that the Iranians turn against the ayatollahs. The result will be quite the opposite! Even the Iranians that hate the yoke of religion, will rally all around once they see their loved ones being killed by American bombs.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi BlueAlert!!

Welcome ot DU!! :toast: