2006-10-14 06:44:22 · 25 answers · asked by fellowcomp 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
north korea
2006-10-14 06:45:06 · answer #1 · answered by macy5 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The United States will not, in the near future, go to war with North Korea.
Going to war in North Korea will upset the entire order of things in Asia. By order of things, I mean China.
North Korea is protected, either overtly or incidentally, by its proximity to China. China would never allow a war to happen so close to its shores, especially at this crucial time in its economic push.
China will take care of North Korea. It will step in and rein in its little black sheep cousin, and will be lauded as the savior in this crisis. This will help drive China into its near-future status as the world's major superpower.
The next country that the United States will go to war with is Venezuela.
Cuz that Hugo's a big thorn in the side of American pride, and OOOH LOOK! he has oil!
2006-10-14 07:07:25 · answer #2 · answered by idlewarship 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hope we don't have to go to war with anyone. The problems of the world belong to the "entire world", not just the United States. The United States and it's allies have given too much already. Global participation would make a significant difference.
2006-10-14 06:53:19 · answer #3 · answered by Paige2 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
North Korea
2006-10-14 06:51:15 · answer #4 · answered by a-man 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before the spring of 2007, Bush will invade Iran for the very same reason he invaded Iraq: Cheney wants all that easily-accessible OIL underneath all that sand.
Before the end of 2007, Bush will attack Venezuela for the very same reasons he attacked Iraq. His family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, and Cheney wanted all of Iraq's OIL. Now, Bush has a personal vendetta against Hugo Chavez, and Cheney wants more of Venezuela's OIL (only 5% of our oil comes from Venezuela now; Cheney wants it all).
A final prediction: If it appears that a Democratic landslide might be a real possibility in the 2008 elections, Bush handlers will fabricate another 'terrorist' attack on U.S. soil, then order Bush to declare martial law, claiming a new administration would not be in the best interests of national security. This will give the Republicans time to groom Jeb Bush for a Presidential run.
Don't think so?
Print this out and save it. See if I'm not 100% correct! -RKO-
2006-10-14 07:08:07 · answer #5 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i do not think that USA will go to war bec of the big failure in Iraq , USA had lost a lot of soldiers and money and reputation in the middle east which a big economical lose
the next president will not have an Agneta full of war solution
i think he will have an Agneta of political solutions
2006-10-14 06:50:23 · answer #6 · answered by elmeesk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
North Korea-Weapons of mass destruction,associate with terrorist,have a corrupt leader,need a good old texas style azz woopin
2006-10-14 06:48:11 · answer #7 · answered by super stud 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Either North Korea, somewher wit oil, or sumwher in tha middle east.
2006-10-14 06:52:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm gonna go with N Korea, but reserve the right to use Mexico as a wild card.
2006-10-14 06:47:51 · answer #9 · answered by Pumpkin Head 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
andorra. it's a pretty small country, has no military of its own (though it's protected by the french army), and would give the govt a pretty convenient mountainous place to start lobbing missiles into both france AND spain.
2006-10-14 06:57:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tough call. prob north korea or some middle eastern country.
the US govt hates communists and terrorists
2006-10-14 06:52:12 · answer #11 · answered by Mark T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋