Syria next ? You bet.

(excerpt)

Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State under George Bush Senior, said American public opinion would not tolerate action against Syria or Iran.

He was speaking as Colin Powell, the current Secretary of State, ramped up the pressure on Syria not to shield Saddam Hussein or his cronies.

Washington hawks are spoiling for a fight with Syria and Iran following the collapse of the Iraqi regime.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday said there was "no question" that Syria was harbouring senior Iraqi figures. But Mr Eagleburger, who accused Syria of having an outrageous record on terror, said an extension of the war was unthinkable.

"You saw the furore that went on before the President got sufficient support to do this," he said. "This is still a democracy and public opinion rules. If George Bush decided he was going to turn troops on Syria now and then Iran he'd be in office about 15 minutes.

"If President Bush were to try it now, even I would feel he should be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in a democracy."

Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien arrives in Damascus today to tell Syria it has nothing to fear if it shuns terror and refuses to harbour Iraqi leaders.

President Assad denies any links to terror groups.
 
Quote from swoop[TR]:

You don't sound patriotic guys, you sound like a bunch of extremists. No wait, you sound like terrorists, or at least you think like terrorists. Think about why terrorists act, and think about how you act. See a similarity?
Nevertheless, have fun throwing fuel in the fire.
Does bombing a country and harsh talks make terrorism less likely? Or more likely?
You decide.

Also concerning those WMD, how is an Al Samoud missile a WMD? Should I raid my neighbor's house because he has a gun under his pillow? Grey stuff is all I see. I don't see the actual weapons of WMD, the kind North Korea has. Chemical suits are not WMD, they are made to protect yourself against them. Why would Iraqis have more faith in American invaders not to use Chemical warfare? Come on, bring some real arguments to the table, not some greyish BS that only Fox news is able to put together to build semi truthes. The fact is, the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to get rid of WMD's and there are none. So let's just say we saved the population from an unruly and evil dictator (which is true). We were wrong but we will never admit it.

If being an extremist means being patriotic, then let me tell you guys, patriotism is out.
More...

The above is merely the typical rhetoric of an Arab-loving loser....

God Bless Israel and USA... next target for regime change: Syria
 
Quote from swoop[TR]:

The fact is, the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to get rid of WMD's and there are none.
More...

Gosh, aren't you willing to give the "inspectors" more time?

Hans and his crew wanted months more, at least, to complete their work.

Just curious - why do you think the former Iraqi government refused to comply fully and proactively with UN demands, if there was nothing to hide?
 
Sooooo we won!! wowowowowow what a victory!!:cool:

The 800 pound gorilla armed with the latest weapons technologies, goes over to the sandbox and kills the helpless child:D Ahhhhhh I forgot!, the child was not helpless, was holding few sticks and grains of sand to throw at the all mighty US armor. Or was it the nose thumbing??? Must have been the WWI vintage muskets and slingshots ahh yes and that mighty airforce yeah that's it!!

Sooooo what the f%$k happened to those WMD's?? Didn't you idiotic warmongers say you had shitloads of proof about hundreds of thousands, litters, barrels and nukes of the nasty weapons??

WAIT WE KNOW WHERE ALL THAT SHIT IS!! Now we do!!

SYRIA has them now. Yeah that's it!! Syria, how dare they??. News already started talking about chems, satellite photos, harboring sodom and other terrorists, UN resolution violations blah blah blah... Ofc IRAN should be next with all the al-queda terrorist camps.!!! I'm soooo proud of how well the master plan is working out :D

a pic is better than few words

http://www.politicalstrikes.com/.images/ps838.jpg



Let's not forget,
Bush's Illegal Invasion: Day 27
The cost in American soldiers

118 Dead; Zero POWs ; 5 Missing *
( * Estimate )

I will not even bother with the Iraqi dead, nobody here seems to give a crap about them

Ofc the media censorship will not even show any of the dead pics to the viewing audience here. Let's enjoy our freedom fries, and don't forget to go shopping for the new 3 gallons per mile SUV's :cool:


WMD discovery managed info just like economic news

1. put out news release with gross favorable assumptions that produces a likeable evidence (econ numbers), which engenders visceral emotions in support of war effect (econ recovery)

2. days later (one month later) retract the info by means of corrections after review (revisions toward reality)

the benefit of emotional initial response far outweighs the correction later after careful review and push toward reality

later, people will say we found evidence of WMD
when we didn't
they will recall the initial stories

this is how the Soviet Union sob's operated disinformation


We have began a new era, where questioning authority is viewed as unpatriotic,
where questioning falsification of documents is viewed as obstructive
where questioning Halliburton contracts is viewed as interfering with expeditious action
where questioning civilian death count (and sheer willingness to tolerate such high counts) is viewed as insubordinate to the field commanders
didn't Hitler operated in much the same manner??:confused:
we are fast building a fascist foundation


WAKE UP AMERICA:mad: :mad: Sad times indeed:eek: :eek:
 
As for the topic of this thread, there will be pressure on Syria, as well there should be, but until and unless the Syrians engage in some new, intolerable provocation, or there is some new, bombshell revelation about their current or recent behavior, the odds of a military invasion of Syria seem extremely low to me. Even if the US possessed the ability to de-stabilize or bring down the regime through covert action, it's not clear to me at all that now or anytime soon would be the best time to try it.
 
Quote from KymarFye:

Just curious - why do you think the former Iraqi government refused to comply fully and proactively with UN demands, if there was nothing to hide?
More...

the explanation given by an Iraqi spokesman a while back - cannot remember his name:

1) they did comply, and if they had not Blix would have simply said so.

2) they complied only reluctantly because of their belief that the US was going to attack in any case, compliance or not. therefore, to comply only makes it easier on their opposition.


(1) seems up for some debate. (2) makes more sense. remains to be seen what the Syrians do now that they know they've been slated for the gallows.
 
Quote from KymarFye:
As for the topic of this thread, there will be pressure on Syria, as well there should be, but until and unless the Syrians engage in some new, intolerable provocation, or there is some new, bombshell revelation about their current or recent behavior, the odds of a military invasion of Syria seem extremely low to me. Even if the US possessed the ability to de-stabilize or bring down the regime through covert action, it's not clear to me at all that now or anytime soon would be the best time to try it.
More...

do you mean it not being politically the best time to try it?

could also say it's the best time - strike while hot, approval ratings still high, the American people not bored with 'patriotism' yet, and before the dust settles around Iraq. plus, the gear's already over there, and the troops are warmed up. and once the media "unembeds" some unfavorable stuff might start leaking out and dampen support.
 
Quote from Madison:



the explanation given by an Iraqi spokesman a while back - cannot remember his name:

1) they did comply, and if they had not Blix would have simply said so.

2) they complied only reluctantly because of their belief that the US was going to attack in any case, compliance or not. therefore, to comply only makes it easier on their opposition.


(1) seems up for some debate. (2) makes more sense. remains to be seen what the Syrians do now that they know they've been slated for the gallows.
More...


As for 1, even Blix didn't claim that the Iraqis were complying: Do you have any doubt that he would have said so, with big bold-face capital letters, if he believed that the Iraqis were complying? All he ever said was that "progress" was being made, mostly on "procedural" matters. That was enough for the Coalition of the Unwilling, but no one claimed that the Iraqis were fully complying.

As for 2, what is the it that compliance would have made easier?
 
Quote from Madison:



do you mean it not being politically the best time to try it?

could also say it's the best time - strike while hot, approval ratings still high, the American people not bored with 'patriotism' yet, and before the dust settles around Iraq. plus, the gear's already over there, and the troops are warmed up. and once the media "unembeds" some unfavorable stuff might start leaking out and dampen support. [/B]
More...

The troops are busy, and many of them are exhausted. Much of the gear has been used up. A Syria operation would be a brand new thing for the public to consider. Unless some "clear and present danger" arises, there are many reasons not to take on another war right now.

I haven't noticed anyone who's much worried about post-embedded media - other than CNN revealing that it had been in bed with Saddam for years.
 
Quote from KymarFye:


As for 2, what is the it that compliance would have made easier?
More...

again, that was the Iraqi position, not mine - Saddam could have avoided this whole thing by playing the compliance differently, and saved a lot of heartache and destruction and death.

the *it* is war - by disarming/complying with an army that they believed would attack in any case. the choice was portrayed as dying with a fight, or dying without a fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top