which would be america's next target after iraq???

I fear Iran ....

I'm not sure but I know one thing ... this targeting countries crap is getting old to me. Pre-emptive strike is a dumb policy I think. I think if the U.S. goes after anyone it would be of course first Iran then Syria.

Iran and then syria and then then palestine and other african coutnries but i can tell you that , no country would protest. They would only protest about killing from so called *fundamentalits or jehadis* who kill people in small numbers , but not for coutnries who wipe out the entire nation

The funny thing is, Bush is being criticized right now because he's seeking diplomatic answers to both Iran and North Korea. Apparently, he can't do anything right. If he goes to war, it was the wrong decision. If he doesn't go to war, it's also the wrong decision. Must be an election year.

I don't know which country they will target. But Pakistan must be sent to stone age first, then only the world will live in peace.

Hillary Clinton's knickers.

Seem very like to be North Korea since they dare to start a nuclear test.

may be palestine.

seattle washington

iran

Iran, but maybe North Korea!

the philipines or north korea

Not sure of the next target.But I think India is in the list.

i believe america's next target would be iran.

Without a doubt it's got to be France. Everyone forgets just how much flack they gave the Frogs a couple of years back. Possibly because France gave them the Statue of Liberty and it's a constant reminder to them of the thing they've turned their backs on.

You mean, after Iran?

syria

Any attack on the American soil will only result in the American people asking for justice and favoring an operation similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what the American administration wish for but can’t find the necessary support inside and outside America. The reaction of the international community would be not very important at such circumstances, but America is expected to get some good support if it’s attacked again. Now the terrorist are stupid and insane people, but their leaders and most importantly their financier are not that stupid when it comes to risking their power and control over their countries. So if the terrorist decide to act alone they would not only lose the support of these dictatorships but also would risk that those regimes might well, hunt them down in their countries and hand all the info they have about the terrorist to America just to prove their innocence and avoid a very probable serious American strike. Bin Laden realized that his hands are cuffed now and he has lost the initiative and thus came his reactionary speech just before the elections in trying to retrieve some initiative or to excuse his cowardice for other Muslims who might still support him, saying that he’s not Attacking America because now there are two Americas and one of them is friendly! All he could do and all he can do as long as he’s depending on Arab governments in his finance and logistic support is to keep threatining America but he knows that he can never turn these threats into asctions. This makes Bush’s repeated statements that American troops are in Iraq to fight terrorism so that Americans won’t have to fight it in America very true with only slight error. He concludes with two options that are available to America: focus on solely on Iraq, or broaden our engagements in the Middle East to force democratic change in the region either from within or by force. He believes the latter option is best for Iraq, because it takes the fight off of Iraqi soil, and best for America’s safety and long-term interests. While I agree with his conclusion, taking such an aggressive strategy might be beyond America’s means at present. A couple areas come to mind: 1. Politically: How do we engage our nation to undertake military action against another problem regime in the Middle East, when taking on the most vulnerable nation in the region almost proved to be George Bush’s political undoing? 2. Militarily: Who do we strike next? And how do we strike them? What means are at our disposal to strike the target? While George Bush has already won re-election and can proceed with impunity, his fellow Republicans in the House and Senate can not. Politically, the Bush Administration would need a solid case to present to Congress and the nation to establish why the next Middle Eastern target is a threat to American security. I would dare say most Democrats in Congress and their supporters won’t go along with the President should he present a case for war elsewhere in the Middle East without some pretext. Even though many Americans support the cause of expanding democracy in the Middle East — I among them — there are a sizeable number of people equally disposed to Kerry-style isolationism.

I would say it is back to the USA with a minimal presence globally just to put down bullying. Because it's not gonna be worth it. Let these countries do their own things, with the exception of the nucalr race, which is not only America's problem, the UN and NATO will take care of that.

hahaha... the country which have a lot oil :)) lol