Syria could be next ...

[No Worries]

Bush Adds to U.S. Litany Against Syria
Apr 13, 5:53 PM (ET)

By SCOTT LINDLAW

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush warned Syria on Sunday not to harbor Iraqi leaders and charged that Damascus has chemical weapons, but was careful not to threaten military action.

"They just need to cooperate," Bush said.

Bush sought to strike the kind of measured tone he has used when discussing the North Korea crisis.

"We expect cooperation, and I'm hopeful we'll receive cooperation," he told reporters after returning to the White House from Camp David.

Syria's foreign ministry spokeswoman, Buthayna Shaaban, seemed to strike a conciliatory tone in a telephone interview with Al-Jazeera television.

She said Syrian's borders with Iraq are now closed and reiterated that none of the Iraqi leaders had asked to come to Syria.

"As you know Syria's history with the Iraqi regime have never been cordial, but we have always been keen about the Iraqi people," she said.

Shaaban said Syria had opposed the war against Iraq because of potential harm to the Iraqi people.

"I believe we are conducting continuous dialogue with the American officials," she said. "The problem is all the accusations against Syria come from Israel. Israel is the primary instigator to undermine Syrian-American relations, but I don't believe Israeli will succeed in its attempts.

"Syria knows best how peace and stability may be secured in the region, and I believe that there is an advantage in consulting with Syria and that Syria play a role in achieving peace and stability in the region," she said.

However, some top administration officials made plain the administration is increasingly frustrated by Syria.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq were from Syria, brought in by the "busloads." On one bus, military authorities found leaflets that offered rewards for killing Americans, and several hundred thousand dollars, Rumsfeld said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

Rumsfeld also said top members of Saddam's government had fled to Syria.

U.S.-led forces captured one of Saddam Hussein's half brothers in northern Iraq, and said he was planning to cross the border to Syria.

Rumsfeld last month warned Syria to stop sending military equipment - including night-vision goggles - to Iraqi forces, saying "We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments."

Asked Sunday whether Syria had heeded those demands, Rumsfeld said, "Not noticeably."

Bush and Rumsfeld were ambiguous about what price Syria might pay for defying the United States, but seemed eager to make sure that Damascus understood the message in the coalition's toppling of Saddam.

"People have got to know that we are serious about stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction," Bush said.

Noting during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Syria is on the State Department's list of countries that sponsor terrorism, Rumsfeld said: "Being on the terrorist list is not some place I'd want to be. The (Syrian) government's making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgments calls, in my view, and they're associating with the wrong people."

Following Rumsfeld on the NBC show, Syria's deputy ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said the administration's flurry of charges was a "campaign of misinformation and disinformation" meant to divert attention from the "human catastrophes" taking place in wartime Iraq.

Moustapha called the administration's charges "false accusations."

No member of the Iraqi leadership has fled into Syria, he said.

However, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Al-Douri, arrived in Syria Saturday, a day after leaving New York. It was not immediately clear when or whether he would return to Iraq.

Moustapha said Syria has a liberal immigration policy, and did not deny that Al-Douri was in Syria.

The deputy ambassador also invited international inspectors to scour his country, but seemed to tie the offer to similar inspections elsewhere in the region, including in Israel.

"Israel is the country that is stockpiling nuclear weapons," he said.

Asked about reports that Syria would welcome international inspectors to ascertain that Syria does not posses weapons of mass destruction, Shaaban said in her Al-Jazeera interview: "I don't know who is the source of this report. I am surprised by it."

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Heretic]

So what reasons are we going to make up for invading Syria. Let's get the spin machines working overtime to drum up support for this. I imagine we'll start seeing the breaking news reports soon that feature such juicy titles as "startling new evidence of Syria's WMD program" among other similar titles.

The simplicity of this game amuses me. Bring me your finest meats and cheeses.



Bush has the reverse midas touch. Everything he touches breaks.

[CndDrr]

And everyday, this looks more and more like a war on the Islam. Who controls our foriegn policy anyway?

[Heretic]

I could tell you who influences foreign policy but I'm just a leftwing nutcase with unreliable sources only interested in slandering Bush.

[ZRB]

Great! Keep it up Bush! If we could have one war per month, that would be great!

[No Worries]

So what reasons are we going to make up for invading Syria.

For those who like the notion that this current war with Iraq is a continuation of the Gulf War, we could change the mandate from the current war to "destruction of Saddam's WMD, no matter where they roam".

[CndDrr]

Bush-"Saddam once sneezed in Antartica, meaning if we don't invade, his germs might get into the hands of taraists.

[robbie380]

Give me a break we won't invade Syria. The suggestion is just silly. Did we invade Brazil after WWII? Didn't a lot of the Nazis go there?

[KingCheetah]

Bush can't be Syriaus can he? :confused:

[No Worries]

Originally posted by robbie380
Give me a break we won't invade Syria.
I hope you are correct, but those crazies NeoCons have Syria (and Iran) in their sights.

[pasox2]

We should invade Syria, it is a natural extension of the war on terror.

[Heretic]

Who's going to pay for this war? Oh wait, we are.

[DaDakota]

The world has always responded to a show of force.

Don't think for a second that the countries that have been openly supporting terrorist camps are not on our list, they are....

All they have to do to get off the list, join us in denouncing terrorism.

Simple, and now that Iraq has fallen, I will bet we hear a lot less rhetoric by idiots like the North Korean moron etc..etc..


Words mean things...but ACTIONS speak louder then words.


DD

[Bigman]

Exactly DD, this war just may be the deterent needed to avoid other wars. We've shown our willingness to strike. We're already mobilized. It's time to bring all the players to the table and let them decide if they are for peace or still in defiance and continue to fund and support terrorism against the U.S.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Bigman
It's time to bring all the players to the table and let them decide if they are for peace or still in defiance and continue to fund and support terrorism against the U.S.
Iraq funded terrorism against the US? Syria? Please help me connect the dots.

[pippendagimp]

A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

Such a regime's primary goal and greatest headache, is how to keep the people under control. To do so, it always needs an enemy, against whom it can constantly mobilize his people.

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by No Worries
Iraq funded terrorism against the US? Syria? Please help me connect the dots.

It would be easier to connect the dots with Syria and terrorism than it has been to connect Iraq to terrorism.

I dont have the link immediately available, but I did read a story awhile back about how many terrorists groups operate out of Syria, and it is more than one.

Normally these groups are against Israel only, but still...to the current Admin and most people these days, any terrorist group is a bad terrorist group.

Also, one last thing I know about Syria and terrorism, according to the Woodward book on Casey's CIA years....Syria was involved with Iran in the Beirut embassy bombing in the early 80's..their involvement with terrorists goes back at least that far.

[pgabriel]

Originally posted by Bigman
Exactly DD, this war just may be the deterent needed to avoid other wars. We've shown our willingness to strike. We're already mobilized. It's time to bring all the players to the table and let them decide if they are for peace or still in defiance and continue to fund and support terrorism against the U.S.

THROW IT DOWN BIGMAN,

Actually, I think this administration has more legitimate reasons to go after Syria rather than Iraq.

[a la rockets]

Originally posted by pippendagimp
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

Such a regime's primary goal and greatest headache, is how to keep the people under control. To do so, it always needs an enemy, against whom it can constantly mobilize his people.

Wait,who are you talking about?US...euh...Syria right?



ALA

[PhiSlammaJamma]

I think we should at least wait until a terrorist act occurs that we can link to Syria. We can't just invade them without some cause to justify it. Even if they had weapons of mass destruction that is no reason to invade. A direct link to terror. That's a good reason. But we need to wait until we have a link to 911, Al Qaeda, or some future act. Maybe we already have those links. But I have not seen them.

[robbie380]

One more important reason why we won't invade Syria...They have not invaded any countries or used chem or bio weapons. That is also why we are dealing with North Korea diplomatically, because we don't view them as a true military threat. They are more like a barking chihuahua.

[Timing]

The administration looks to be making a seamless transition from Iraq to Syria now (all of a sudden) having chemical weapons. I guess now that Iraq has been dealt with we can replace it with Syria in the Axis of Evil.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by PhiSlammaJamma
A direct link to terror. That's a good reason.
Hizb'Allah, the terror group based in Lebanon, is a Soviet-style proxy of the Syrian government (they also receive support from Iran). Until 9/11, Hizb'Allah was directly responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world.

I am not advocating invasion, but the Assad regime must be dealt with.

[111chase111]

Just a suggestion here... but remember all that time that Bush waited for Iraq to <i>finally</i> comply with the U.N. resolutions and all the time he waited on getting the U.N. to do something? Maybe Saddam used all that time (at least 9 months to a year) to move and hide everything incriminating.

It could be that the biggest mistake that Bush made in this whole ordeal was <i>waiting</i> and that if he'd gone in immediatly things would be different.

Just a though...

[Heretic]

I noticed in the article that Donald Rumsfield implies that they're tracking the movements of Iraqi regime officials and know exactly where they are. If ole Don knows so much about the movements of Iraqi officials then shouldn't his claims be backed up by arrests?

I'd like to see some resolution.

[CndDrr]

Syria wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be a threat to America. Neither was Iraq, but we invaded anyway. Ignorance is fatal, please research about these countries before blindly following his NeoCon Hawks. Syria pays for Hizbollah, but they are considered, by those who do fund them, militia due to the fighting they do. Now, I want an answer, who is controling our foriegn policy, us or them?

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by CndDrr
Syria wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be a threat to America. Neither was Iraq, but we invaded anyway. Ignorance is fatal, please research about these countries before blindly following his NeoCon Hawks. Syria pays for Hizbollah, but they are considered, by those who do fund them, militia due to the fighting they do. Now, I want an answer, who is controling our foriegn policy, us or them?
You and "those who fund them" may consider Hizb'Allah to be "freedom fighters" or whatever, but a vast vast majority of Americans, including the CIA, State Dept, DIA, NSA etc... consider them to be bottom-feeding douchbag terrorist scum.

By "us or them", I'm assuming you're referring to the U.S. government vs. those evil hook nosed Zionist sons of monkeys & pigs who secretly run the world's affairs, right?

If I'm waaaay off base in reading between the lines of your post, I apologize in advance. Somehow I think I'm not, sadly.

[CndDrr]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
You and "those who fund them" may consider Hizb'Allah to be "freedom fighters" or whatever, but a vast vast majority of Americans, including the CIA, State Dept, DIA, NSA etc... consider them to be bottom-feeding douchbag terrorist scum.

By "us or them", I'm assuming you're referring to the U.S. government vs. those evil hook nosed Zionist sons of monkeys & pigs who secretly run the world's affairs, right?

If I'm waaaay off base in reading between the lines of your post, I apologize in advance. Somehow I think I'm not, sadly. Buck, I don't fund Hizballah, it's not my style. Us, is the educated people, them are the lobbyists. Also, there are jewish lobbyists no doubt, but only the uneducated would call them that(and the really racist/bigot)

[CndDrr]

us-The educated American, them-lobbyists

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by CndDrr
Syria wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be a threat to America. Neither was Iraq, but we invaded anyway. Ignorance is fatal, please research about these countries before blindly following his NeoCon Hawks. Syria pays for Hizbollah, but they are considered, by those who do fund them, militia due to the fighting they do. Now, I want an answer, who is controling our foriegn policy, us or them?

one question....is an embassy considered the territory of the country that occupies it?

because most foreign experts/CIA types claimed to have evidence that it was Hitzbollah(sp) that hit the American embassy in Beirut...and at the time they were funded by Syria with some logistics help from Iran

is that or is that not an attack on a country's territory and their representatives?

Do a little research yourself..

[SamFisher]

Syria is so yesterday. They're as good as invaded. Hopefully we can finish off Iran before this term is up, and then second term, W and Rummy can take the gloves off and do some hardcore invadin'. I say we go for a real challenge and take on Russia at long last; a successful invasion of Russia would really show up those failures, Germany and France.

[Rockets2K]

Impressive start to your Hangout career rookie...

:rolleyes:

http://home.earthlink.net/~myputersok/_uimages/newbies.jpg

[SamFisher]

maybe I am a rookie; or maybe I've always been here......

[CndDrr]

Originally posted by Rockets2K
one question....is an embassy considered the territory of the country that occupies it?

because most foreign experts/CIA types claimed to have evidence that it was Hitzbollah(sp) that hit the American embassy in Beirut...and at the time they were funded by Syria with some logistics help from Iran

is that or is that not an attack on a country's territory and their representatives?

Do a little research yourself.. Looking at it that way though is similar to looking at it as we fund Israel, IDF kill European citizen, we have a grudge against Europe. Also, when did the embassy bombing happened? Recently? I think not, so what's the point of using it as a blanket for war. Why not have Britian invade all of ireland because of the IRA.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Syria is so yesterday. They're as good as invaded. Hopefully we can finish off Iran before this term is up, and then second term, W and Rummy can take the gloves off and do some hardcore invadin'. I say we go for a real challenge and take on Russia at long last; a successful invasion of Russia would really show up those failures, Germany and France.
LOL.
We could name it Operation Barbarossa II : Unfinished business, just like Gulf War II...

Heck, then we could go for the trifecta, invade China, we'll see if we can invade successfully even with 10:1 odds against us! (Rumsfeld says they're unmotivated and not loyal to a dying regime. )

[Woofer]

OK, this may or may not be true ( as with all these breaking news stories... )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937105,00.html

Bush vetoes Syria war plan

Julian Borger in Washington, Michael White, Ewen MacAskill in Kuwait City and Nicholas Watt
Tuesday April 15, 2003
The Guardian

The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday.
In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad.


.
.
.

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by CndDrr
Looking at it that way though is similar to looking at it as we fund Israel, IDF kill European citizen, we have a grudge against Europe. Also, when did the embassy bombing happened? Recently? I think not, so what's the point of using it as a blanket for war. Why not have Britian invade all of ireland because of the IRA.

first....embassy bombing...

beirut embassy bombing (april 18, 1983):
Sixty-three people, including the CIA's Middle East director, were killed, and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in beirut, lebanon. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/beirut-marine-barracks.html

and just to limit confusion because of the different name..

hizballah terrorists

hizballah (party of god)
Other Names of hizballah: Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine. Alternative spellings are hizbollah and hezbollah.

description
Radical Shia group formed in Lebanon; dedicated to creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon and removal of all non-Islamic influences from the area. Strongly anti-West and anti-Israel. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran.

activities
Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon.

location/area of operation
Operates in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon. Has established cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia.

external aid
Receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria.

http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/hizballah.html

now, with the background info out of the way...

wtf point are you tryin to make?

I brought up the embassy bombings becasue you said..

Syria wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be a threat to America.
I disproved that...what do you mean , "looking at it like that"...dont change the subject..

Tell me how Syria and the terrorist groups they fund and direct are not a danger or have never struck against us?
That is the topic I'm talking about..

[Rockets10]

Originally posted by robbie380
That is also why we are dealing with North Korea diplomatically, because we don't view them as a true military threat. They are more like a barking chihuahua.

I don't mean to change the subject of the thread, but any comparison between the situations in Syria and North Korea is absolutely wrong. The reason we are dealing with North Korea diplomatically is because they actually are a military power that have joined the nuclear club already and can level Seoul in a matter of minutes. Syria however, has no such capabilities, even if they do have some chemical weapons.

In the end, almost everyone I have spoken with up here in DC believes that there is no way we would attack the Syrians. The political ramifications of such an act would be disastrous and we would lose any few allies we have left.

[underoverup]

Operation Barbarossa II : Unfinished business

May I pitch this, absolutely pure gold - starring Ben Affleck and Bridget Fonda... :)

Seriously though we will come to an agreement with Syria, their capabilities are much greater (to my surprise) than Iraq at their peak. We would win the war, but the casualties would be much higher. I think Syria will cooperate with the US in the short term, they don't want to deal with a possible invasion.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
You and "those who fund them" may consider Hizb'Allah to be "freedom fighters" or whatever, but a vast vast majority of Americans, including the CIA, State Dept, DIA, NSA etc... consider them to be bottom-feeding douchbag terrorist scum.

By "us or them", I'm assuming you're referring to the U.S. government vs. those evil hook nosed Zionist sons of monkeys & pigs who secretly run the world's affairs, right?

If I'm waaaay off base in reading between the lines of your post, I apologize in advance. Somehow I think I'm not, sadly.


Buck...I refer you top Contras, see terrorist and/or freedom fighter actions, sub-heading US funding of...

One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist...

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by Rockets10
In the end, almost everyone I have spoken with up here in DC believes that there is no way we would attack the Syrians. The political ramifications of such an act would be disastrous and we would lose any few allies we have left.

in the end, even if I sound like I advocate attacking...I dont.

I agree that the political and practical considerations would deter me from flatout attacking Syria or Iran.
If they are doing something wrong(Chem weapons et al) then at least lets have the good sense to try to get some international pressure on them to ateast agree to help shut down the terrorist organizations..

[VesceySux]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Syria is so yesterday. They're as good as invaded. Hopefully we can finish off Iran before this term is up, and then second term, W and Rummy can take the gloves off and do some hardcore invadin'. I say we go for a real challenge and take on Russia at long last; a successful invasion of Russia would really show up those failures, Germany and France.

Yeah, and maybe we should send in "Splinter Cell" to deal with those rogue countries. Right... Sam Fisher? :)

[Cohen]

Syria's regime is much different than saddam's was, IMO. Syria will probably respond to economic pressures.

Then again, you'll probably have some countries who won't support US-led economique ;) actions against Syria, thus leaving war as the only viable option.

(Actually, don't think we're remotely close to war w/ Syria, but the admin will take this opportunity to try to straighten Syria out...wonder when the carrot will be offered?)

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by VesceySux
Yeah, and maybe we should send in "Splinter Cell" to deal with those rogue countries. Right... Sam Fisher? :)

Hehheheheh, I've been waiting for somebody to grab onto that one all day long. Maybe I just registered today, but maybe I've been secretly hanging out in the shadows all day long, and maybe I'm not even here now.;)

[Heretic]

I'm sorry, but threats to Israel DO NOT equal threats to the U.S.

Yes the bombing of the marine barracks was a scumbag thing to do, but it was a military target and we knew what we were doing when we went over there.


Israelis aren't heroes. They play the assassination game just as dirty as the islamic fundamentalists play the terrorism game.

[treeman]

[/I]Who's next?

(Washington, D.C.): The Bush Administration is obliquely serving notice on Syria that it could be the next country liberated in the war on terror. Mr. Bush's critics at home and abroad are horrified at the possibility that this conflict might take such a turn. If they wish to avoid such a step, however, they should learn a signal lesson from the now-nearly- accomplished liberation of Iraq: War is more likely to be made unnecessary if would-be critics support the President, than by their opposing him.

Lessons from Iraq

After all, it now seems clear that Saddam Hussein made the latest -- and probably last -- of his famous miscalculations by believing that the United States would be talked out of, or otherwise forestalled from, launching military operations against Iraq. In the end, he bet his regime on the ability of peace activists and sympathetic veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council to prevent Gulf War II. If all else failed and President Bush actually initiated hostilities, Saddam evidently felt confident of his forces' ability to shed enough American blood to inflame anti-war movement and assure his survival yet again.

With the swift and decisive destruction of the Iraqi regime, things should look very different to the remaining members of the "Axis of Evil" (North Korea and Iran) and other rogue states like Syria. If not encouraged to believe otherwise, these countries' governments --which are no less odious than the one ruled until recently by Saddam Hussein -- have every reason to believe that they are at risk of meeting a fate similar to his, unless they undertake significant and far-reaching changes.

Why Syria?

Syria most especially has cause to take seriously President Bush's demands for behavior modification. Like Iraq, it is a long-time sponsor of international terrorism. Most of the world's terror organizations have long been given headquarters, branch offices and/or training facilities on Syria's territory or in Syrian-controlled Lebanon.

Like Iraq, Syria has also been involved for decades in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In addition to its own chemical and biological stocks, and considerable quantities of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles for their delivery, Damascus may have acquired some of Saddam's WMD spirited out of Iraq.

Lately, the Syrian regime has foolishly offered Mr. Bush several further justifications for the use of force against it. It appears to be granting refuge to members of Saddam's ruling clique; on Sunday, U.S. forces captured his half-brother, Watban Ibrahim Hassan, near Mosul on one of the principal roads leading to Syria. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said other Iraqi officials have been allowed to elude capture by transiting Syria for third countries.

The U.S. government has alleged that Syrians have also provided night-vision equipment and presumably other war materiel to enable Saddam loyalists to attack American servicemen and women. Worse yet, they have permitted another deadly export: "busloads" of non-Iraqi death squads, some of whom have been apprehended with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and leaflets offering bounties for those who kill U.S. personnel. These are indisputably unfriendly acts.

An Object Lesson

President Bush has said that, in the war on terror, countries are either with us or against us. While some in the CIA and State Department insist that the Ba'athist regime in Syria qualifies as being among the former insofar as it has provided us with some helpful intelligence, a net assessment suggests that such assistance is more than offset by Syria's ill-concealed efforts on behalf of our enemies.

Should the Syrians fail to end such hostile activity forthwith, the United States and a coalition of the willing should bring to bear whatever techniques are necessary -- including military force -- to effect behavior modification and/or regime change in Damascus, as well. By so doing, freedom stands to get a two-fer: liberating both Syria and Lebanon, the country Hafez Assad rapaciously colonized in the mid- 1970s and that Damascus has brutally dominated ever since, despite a formal, international commitment to relinquish it some twenty years ago.

Few steps would do more to create an opportunity for a real, just and durable Arab-Israeli peace than to accompany the liquidation of Saddam's support for suicide bombers and other forms of terror with the elimination of the Syrian/Lebanese base of operations of and much of the support for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which Attorney General John Ashcroft has described as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world." The region's transformation -- and its hopes for a more peaceable future -- could be decisively advanced if behavior modification and/or regime change were to follow in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Bottom Line

It should come as no surprise that there will be other fronts in the war on terror. As George W. Bush made known shortly after September 11, 2001, this is a global conflict that will take years to wage. With luck, by making an object lesson of Iraq to other enemies in that war and by garnering the broadest possible support for doing so, we can accomplish the conditions required for the Free World's victory without further resort to large-scale military operations. [/I]

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=03-D_15

Personally, I don't think that a military campaign will be necessary against Syria. I think that we will pressure them in other ways and that our primary demands will be that they A) withdraw from Lebanon, B) cease their support for Hizbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (and Hamas), and C) renounce terrorism as a legitemate form of political action. I think that Bashar will cave eventually, before a military campaign becomes necessary.

After all, most of the demands center around the idea that they simply withdraw and stop fu*king with their neighbors (and us), and their new strategic reality - surrounded by hostile Israelis to the south, hostile Americans to the east, and hostile Turks to the north - would indicate to them that it might be wise to assume a defensive position and cut their extraterritorial ambitions...

All that said, I do not think it would be wise to positively rule out military action against them. Just realize that it probably isn't necessary and is probably unlikely.

Seriously though we will come to an agreement with Syria, their capabilities are much greater (to my surprise) than Iraq at their peak

Dude, you really ought to keep your military analyses to yourself. Syria has a third of the manpower Iraq had at it's height, fewer tanks, artillery, and aircraft, and far less sophisticated air defense and EW capabilities than Iraq ever had. Just because they can give the Israelis fits in the urban terrain of Beruit does not mean that they would give us Americans anything to worry about in Damascus. Militarily, they would be even easier to defeat than a weakened Iraq.

[Timing]

Originally posted by Heretic
I noticed in the article that Donald Rumsfield implies that they're tracking the movements of Iraqi regime officials and know exactly where they are. If ole Don knows so much about the movements of Iraqi officials then shouldn't his claims be backed up by arrests?

I'd like to see some resolution.



I want to know where all the evidence of WMD is that this administration says it had. All the tons and tons of WMD. The missiles to threaten neighbors (ha!). This fleet of chem carrying drone planes. Chem artillery shells being given to the Republican guard. It was said prior to war that we couldn't expose our intelligence sources to actually prove the existence of WMD to justify this war so where is all this intelligence now? Seems to me they either flat out lied their asses off or they seriously exaggerated what they did know.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Timing
I want to know where all the evidence of WMD is that this administration says it had. All the tons and tons of WMD. The missiles to threaten neighbors (ha!). This fleet of chem carrying drone planes. Chem artillery shells being given to the Republican guard. It was said prior to war that we couldn't expose our intelligence sources to actually prove the existence of WMD to justify this war so where is all this intelligence now? Seems to me they either flat out lied their asses off or they seriously exaggerated what they did know.

Re: this and tree...


tree, without getting into the latest extension of , er, Pax Americana, and how I was sooo wrong when I said that the war in Iraq was the beginning of the US deciding what's right for the rest fo the world, and before you tell me why this case is another exception, let me ask you one question...which can be verified, if needn be, but I'd like you to just own up, if you can, and agree with mu perspective:

Haven't you shifted your stance on the WMD's? Weren't you, just prior to the war, and in the first couple of days of it , predicting both that SH would use them, and that we would find them quickly, as the gas masks found showed that they were being deployed, and as we knew of massive amounts, and if they had any intention of using the damn things they'd keep them in a position of strategic readiness...and now you are saying it's logical that we can't find them, as they have neeb moved, and are buried...But doesn't the 'logic' of that just slightly contradict what you earlier stated?


If so...doesn't it raise, just for a second, any of the following options:

1) He never had, or had destroyed them.

2) He never had them, or had destroyed so many of them that the few he hadn't destroyed yet ( before the process was halted by the war) are so insignificant that they are easy to hide, and posed no real threat.

3) That even if he had more than a little, he must have had them in such a level of low strategic readiness that he himself thought them extrememy unlikely to be used, so they could be burried....knowing a war was coming, and burrying them...which would refute the arguments that the commanders wouldn't fire the out of fear of the US, as this would have to have been done before all that.


Combined with whatever way you rationalize this, with the fact that the WMD search/usage has not gone accoring to what you expcected when you felt the threat of SH's WMD was a legit argument for war, have you has even the slightest inklings that you've been had? Not conclusions, but do you have enough of an open mind for all these things to give you any pasue for doubt about your almost automatic acceptane of whatever Rumsfeld, Bush et all say?

[underoverup]

Originally posted by treeman
Dude, you really ought to keep your military analyses to yourself. Syria has a third of the manpower Iraq had at it's height, fewer tanks, artillery, and aircraft, and far less sophisticated air defense and EW capabilities than Iraq ever had. Just because they can give the Israelis fits in the urban terrain of Beruit does not mean that they would give us Americans anything to worry about in Damascus. Militarily, they would be even easier to defeat than a weakened Iraq.

Didn't mean to upset you treeboy, left out WMD in my post. BTW- have we found any WMD in Iraq yet?

From Slate: you enjoy nitpicking so you can go dig up the link if you doubt the numbers.


Syria
Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities and Programs1

Chemical3 Largest and most advanced CW capability in the Middle East.
Reported to have chemical warheads for Scud ballistic missiles, and chemical gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft.
Estimated CW stockpile in hundreds of tons.
Agents believed to include Sarin, VX, and mustard gas.
Major production facilities near Damascus and Homs, with hundreds of tons of agents produced annually.
Program remains dependent on foreign chemicals and equipment.
Not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

[FranchiseBlade]

Just a few things to remember about Syria. They had troops that helped fight against Saddam in the first gulf war.

They've given us information in the war on terror that has lead to apprehension of suspected terrorists.

They are under no world orders or resolutions restricting them from having WMD, as long as they aren't nukes. They signed no agreements forbidding them, and no such conditions have been imposed upon them.

If Syria does have WMD it could arguably and perhaps justifiably claim that they are a matter for their own national security given that their neighbor Israel has nukes.

[treeman]

MacBeth:

Weren't you, just prior to the war, and in the first couple of days of it , predicting both that SH would use them

Personally, yes, I did think that it was likely that they would be used. I also thought it was highly possible that they would not be used, and said so in at least one post on the subject. My reason for think so? I thought it likely that at least some of his commanders would refuse the order to use them against us, since doing so would effectively sign their death warrants. Not all to inconsistent with what I've been saying since, is it?

and that we would find them quickly,

When did I say that? I said they would be found, I did not say when. It could take months. Or days. Since we do not know exactly where they are, we don't know exactly how long it will take for them to surface, do we?

I did say that one of the first things we would do would be to hit those sites where we believed they would be, and we did. They just weren't there. Could it be that in the six-month long runup to the war they actually had the brains to move them? Gee, I dunno...

as the gas masks found showed that they were being deployed,

The gas masks showed that they were preparing for a chemical environment, nothing more. Draw whatever conclusion you want from it.

and as we knew of massive amounts

We know of massive amounts that at one time existed and that there is no record of their destruction. The Iraqis are meticulous recorders, so why wouldn't they record an event that could get the sanctions lifted and get them off the international hook? Doesn't compute, unless they were never actually destroyed.

and if they had any intention of using the damn things they'd keep them in a position of strategic readiness

With UN inspectors running around flipping over every damn hiding place they could think of? Do you think it would occur to the inspectors to check army ammo dumps - where they would need to be if they were ready to use? How stupid do you think the Iraqis are?

and now you are saying it's logical that we can't find them, as they have neeb moved, and are buried

I am saying that it's logical that Saddam didn't set them right out on the front doorstep of his palaces with a sign reading "Americans, left these for you, please dispose of for me, Thanx" attached... I have given you and others at least four plausible reasons - very probably reasons, any mix of which might account for what we've seen - that you somehow fail to even acknowledge as possible.

For some reason, your logic appears to be "We did not immediately find them, therefore they must not exist". Do I need to point out how ridiculously false this logic is?

But doesn't the 'logic' of that just slightly contradict what you earlier stated?

Not at all. How do you figure it does? Please explain it to me without trying to draw circles...

He never had, or had destroyed them.

Well, we know that at least at some point he had them, so that is not an option unless we're rewriting history here. And again, if he destroyed them, then why A) kick inspectors out before getting a clean bill of health, and B) not record the events so as to prove to those pesky Americans that they were no more? Doesn't compute. That is probably why no one seriously believed(s) that they are/were WMD-free.

He never had them, or had destroyed so many of them that the few he hadn't destroyed yet ( before the process was halted by the war) are so insignificant that they are easy to hide, and posed no real threat.

Well, the "He never had them" is not an option, as we know as a matter of historical fact that he did... If he destroyed most of them but kept some? How much is "some"? A harmless jarfull of botulinum that he kept on his dining room mantle as a reminder of the good ole days? Or a mere single barrel full or sarin that was only capable or killing 300,000 people? Exactly what level of lethal capability qualifies as a threat to you?

It would not be difficult at all to hide large amounts of extremely lethal substances. Not difficult at all. Give me one sealed 20'x20'x10' room, and I will store enough chemicals and beasties in there to kill ten million people. Not hard at all. They don't take up much space, you know. That's one of the great things about them.

That even if he had more than a little, he must have had them in such a level of low strategic readiness that he himself thought them extrememy unlikely to be used, so they could be burried

I pointed this out the other day, but it was ignored: How many days elapsed between the departure of the inspectors and the arrival of the US Army? Five days. Do you think he had enough time to break open the vaults and get the stuff to those who could use it? Knowing what I know about how chemical weapons are stored and military logistics systems, I know that he probably would not have had enough time. Even if the weapons were already ready-to-fire, it still takes time to sort them out and get them to the artillery units who wopuld use them.

It would take us weeks to do a similar distribution.

knowing a war was coming, and burrying them

Uh, "knowing the inspectors were coming", duh? Use your head.

which would refute the arguments that the commanders wouldn't fire the out of fear of the US, as this would have to have been done before all that.


Even if your [previous assumptions were correct, and they are not, no it would not. The act of actually firing the munitions would be the final act in the decision making process, the previous ones having no bearing on the final one. The factors that would influence whether or not a commander would fire would be:

1) Orders from higher up. They would not use them without permission/orders.
2) Reliability of crews. The gunners/lower commanders could also refuse orders.
3) Proximity and attitude of Americans. The closer they are, the better surrender looks.
4) Psyops. There was a very concerted and directed psyops campaign initiated with the sole purpose of getting their commanders to refuse such orders. It looks like it worked.

MacBeth, you seem to fail to understand that it could be any one of these factors or a combination of several of them. Your preferred explanation seems to be "He never had them/He destroyed them all", which no one really takes seriously for the reasons I have highlighted. We know that he had them at some point, so the only possible option would be that he destroyed them and just didn't record the act. As I have already pointed out, this would make no sense at all considering that the Iraqis recorded anything, and recording such an act would have gotten him and his regime out of the whole 12-year long mess.

Combined with whatever way you rationalize this, with the fact that the WMD search/usage has not gone accoring to what you expcected when you felt the threat of SH's WMD was a legit argument for war

Well, I'm glad you've added "psychic" to your resume, MacBeth. How do you know what I expected? Since I did not say "I expect them to find the WMD as soon as they set foot in Baghdad", how do you know whether my expectations were met or missed? You don't. You're grasping at straws, and it's sounding sort of pathetic.

have you has even the slightest inklings that you've been had?

Me? Are you serious? Jee-zus. This is getting stupid, MacBeth. You're making up my "expectations" after the fact in an attempt to make my views seem discredited. Show me a prediction I made regarding the war in Iraq that did not come true? Keeping in mind that I never predicted that we would find WMD the instant the war ended. Hell, the shooting hasn't even stopped yet. I am not saying that my record of prediction here has been perfect, but it has been pretty damn close. I don't think I'm wrong on the WMD either.

Do I feel like I've been had? No. Alot of the antiwar folks apparently thought that the outcome would in some way be different than what we're seeing. Not that we''d lose the war necessarily, just a different kind of victory. I'm sure alot of them feel like they've been had right now. Do you?

Not conclusions, but do you have enough of an open mind for all these things to give you any pasue for doubt about your almost automatic acceptane of whatever Rumsfeld, Bush et all say?

It might surprise you to learn that I don't automatically accept anything that anyone says. I didn't vote for Bush. I am not even a Republican. Before 9/11 I wanted Rumsfeld gone. I still dislike Ashcroft. Just exactly what do you think that you know about me, MacBeth?

You seem to think that because the WMD haven't surfaced yet, I should accept your theory that they were never there to begin with. Does that jibe with what you just asked me?

underoverup:

Didn't mean to upset you treeboy, left out WMD in my post.

Didn't upset me, it's just that reading your "analysis" was like what I imagine hearing Roseanne call a Rockets game to be. Painful.

What does WMD have to do with it? Are you accusing the Syrians of having WMD? :D

Not arguing with you on that one. I would say though that they're about as militarily significant against us as would be a group of Boy Scouts with spitballs.

Syria's chemical weapons:

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/syria/chem.html

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syrscud.htm

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_syria_1.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/view.html?documentid=667

http://www.fas.org/news/syria/960808-il.htm

http://www.meib.org/articles/0001_me2.htm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/biochem.weapons/

http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp093-xs.html

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/pfs/pfs9exe.htm

http://www.pais.org/hottopics/2002/January/resources/database.stm

[treeman]

Just a few things to remember about Syria. They had troops that helped fight against Saddam in the first gulf war.

They've given us information in the war on terror that has lead to apprehension of suspected terrorists.

They are under no world orders or resolutions restricting them from having WMD, as long as they aren't nukes. They signed no agreements forbidding them, and no such conditions have been imposed upon them.

If Syria does have WMD it could arguably and perhaps justifiably claim that they are a matter for their own national security given that their neighbor Israel has nukes.

This is all true, and these are good points to keep in mind. They should be balanced against what we know of Syria's support for terrorism (both anti-Israeli and anti-American), destruction of Lebanon, and duplicity when it comes to dealing with Iraq (and Iran). Does one outweigh the other? That is for everyone to decide personally.

Personally, I think their behavior has been schizophrenic, if a nation's behavior can be. If it were up to me I'd just tell them "dismantle the Beka'a Valley and leave Lebanon", and call it a win if they complied. That would probably be sufficient to spell the death of Hizbollah, which is the main target when you're talking about Syrian support of terrorism.

I actually think that the administration is going to work somewhere along those lines, too. I don't think a military operation against them is really planned at this point.

[MacBeth]

Tree...


You pretty much said what I had expected, and yes, to a degree hoped you would say. So, based on your logic, I have but one question...

If, in fact, Saddam Hussein had hidden all of his WMD so effectively from the UN inspectors, so out of reach that it would, in your estimation, take well more than the 5 day window afforded him by their departure, so well beyond his strategic capability to use them that it would take, in your words, 'weeks' to deploy...well, then, just that one question:


How can we tell the UN that it's inspections were useless, and that war was the only solution, when Hussein himself apparently feared them so much that he made whatever WMD he does have so inaccessible that he would be unable to use them in the event of any conflict? Could we not have achieved our aims,( keeping him from being able to use WMD ) by simply continuing the inspections if, as you say, he did that himself because of them...and with the added bonuses of not accruing the incredible expense of the war, and avoiding even one death, let alone the thousands it cost?

You can argue other reasons for the war now, but it would appear, by your own words, that SH had eliminated his own strategic capacity to use whatever WMD you sat he still possesses because of the very measure the UN was advocating, and we rejected...and, as such, that argument for the war evaporates...unless you think that semantics are worth fighting a war over.

[No Worries]

Maybe AP should retitle this article: U.S. Now Wants to Kill Innocent Syrians Via Sanctions

-----

U.S. Threatens Sanctions Against Syria
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030415/D7QDSSS80.html?PG=home&SEC=news

Apr 15, 5:18 AM (ET)

By BARRY SCHWEID
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is sharpening its rhetoric against Syria, demanding it stop sponsoring terrorism and harboring remnants of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime or face diplomatic or economic sanctions.

"It is time to sign on to a different kind of Middle East," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Monday as Syria took another public pasting from the administration.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Iraqis who have knowledge of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi political leaders "are the kinds of individuals who should not be allowed to find safe haven in Syria."

"And this is a point we have made to the Syrians directly and will continue to make to the Syrians," he said at a news conference.

"They should review their actions and their behavior, not only with respect to who gets haven in Syria and weapons of mass destruction, but especially the support of terrorist activity," Powell declared. Raising the threat of punishment, he said, "We will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward. ... We'll see how things unfold."

In New York, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was "concerned that recent statements directed at Syria should not contribute to a wider destabilization in a region already affected heavily by the war in Iraq."

Syrian officials denied having chemical weapons and said the United States has yet to prove similar charges against Iraq. They also accused Israel of spreading misinformation about Syria.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected those denials, calling Syria a rogue nation and saying it is "well corroborated" that Iraq's neighbor has a chemical weapons program. "Syria needs to cooperate," he said.

Rice, in a parallel thrust at Damascus, said Syria's support for terrorism and "harboring the remnants of the Iraqi regime" were unacceptable.

But she indicated the administration was not contemplating military action.

Using the same formula the administration has applied to North Korea and its aggressive nuclear weapons program, Rice said at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "The president has made clear every problem in the Middle East cannot be dealt with the same way."

And Powell signaled President Bashar Assad that the administration still would like to include Syria in the Mideast peacemaking it intends to accelerate between Israel and the Palestinians.

"As we go down the road to peace, we want it to be a comprehensive peace, and ultimately, of course, that would have to include finding a way to settle the outstanding issues with Syria, as well," Powell said at a State Department news conference.
...

[Cohen]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Hehheheheh, I've been waiting for somebody to grab onto that one all day long. Maybe I just registered today, but maybe I've been secretly hanging out in the shadows all day long, and maybe I'm not even here now.;)

And maybe we can guess your age ;)

[Cohen]

Originally posted by No Worries
Maybe AP should retitle this article: U.S. Now Wants to Kill Innocent Syrians Via Sanctions
......[/i]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[underoverup]

Treeman:What does WMD have to do with it? Are you accusing the Syrians of having WMD?

They have WMD and acknowledge that they have them and would use them, causing a great deal more casulties than the war in Iraq which did not use any WMD against us. This surprised our top military brass who assumed Iraq would use gas or nerve agents against us. Nitpicking bits and pieces of others posts to prove yourself correct has failed again. I wish you would take the time to actually read and understand posts before blasting in with long winded diatribes.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by No Worries
Maybe AP should retitle this article: U.S. Now Wants to Kill Innocent Syrians Via Sanctions

-----

U.S. Threatens Sanctions Against Syria
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030415/D7QDSSS80.html?PG=home&SEC=news

...

You mean like those oh so effective Iraqi sanctions worked on ordinary Iraqis and not the ruling elite? :)

[Timing]

Originally posted by No Worries
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected those denials, calling Syria a rogue nation and saying it is "well corroborated" that Iraq's neighbor has a chemical weapons program. "Syria needs to cooperate," he said.



Fleischer is such a damn dope. We can't even corroborate Iraq's WMD but here we are on to the next corroboration.

I think one of the English newspapers had the opinion that the sudden shift of focus to Syria has to do with the "roadmap to peace" thing in Israel. They said Sharon refuses to accept anything until Syria is dealt with. Syria poses no threat to the US and they're not in violation of a single UN resolution but here we are putting them on the clock.

[treeman]

MacBeth:

How can we tell the UN that it's inspections were useless, and that war was the only solution, when Hussein himself apparently feared them so much that he made whatever WMD he does have so inaccessible that he would be unable to use them in the event of any conflict?

Oh my, we are getting desperate here. Now the mission of the UNMOVIC was to get Saddam to hide them well enough so that they would not be quickly accessible in wartime? Well, I guess "mission accomplished"... :rolleyes:

Just to play along, though: I would erase the word "any" from before the word "conflict" and replace it with the word "this". Most armies - in fact no other army in the world - can move as fast as we did. In any other conflict he would have had much more time. And for terrorism operations? Time is on the side of the terrorist, and it would not be an issue. So in answer to the flimsy insinuation you're trying to make, yes, they were still a threat.

Could we not have achieved our aims,( keeping him from being able to use WMD ) by simply continuing the inspections if, as you say, he did that himself because of them...and with the added bonuses of not accruing the incredible expense of the war, and avoiding even one death, let alone the thousands it cost?

So in other words, you would rather have A) let the inspections go on indefinitely, B) kept the sanctions in place indefinitely, C) kept our military forces there indefinitely, and D) kept Saddam and his line in power and the Iraqi people enslaved indefinitely? Yeah, great solution there, sporto. I'll pass.

You can argue other reasons for the war now, but it would appear, by your own words, that SH had eliminated his own strategic capacity to use whatever WMD you sat he still possesses because of the very measure the UN was advocating

I would agree that *it is possible* that the inspections forced him to hide his weapons and rendered them useless *against our military forces involved in the quick campaign*. Possible, in that we still do not know if they were not used because of their inacessibility, ie, it might be that commanders refused orders, they were in Syria, etc. There are a myriad of very plausible possibilities that I have presented; whether or not you consider them worthy of consideration is your problem. Their logic is consistent.

Your persistent attempts to argue that the war was unnecessary for this reason (WMD were too inaccessible and therefore useless) or that are irrelevant as they fail to take into account the realities of the situation - or even basic logic - mainly that a Saddam with any WMD and a terrorist connection (whether with Al Qaeda or someone else) is still an unacceptable combination.

I am simply baffled as to how you can continue to try to deligetimize the war after the fact, when even the people inhabiting the country we've invaded have acknowledged it as legitemate - and even welcome. This is the die-hard attitude within the antiwar crowd that I find so ridiculous and despicable. Not to mention just flat immoral and stupid.

No Worries:

Maybe AP should retitle this article: U.S. Now Wants to Kill Innocent Syrians Via Sanctions...

Yea! More sanctions! Wahoooo!!!!

:rolleyes:

underoversidewaysupdownrightleft:

They have WMD and acknowledge that they have them and would use them

Really? All I've heard is denials... You mean Assad got on TV and said "Leave me alone or I'll put sarin on you, Bad Americans!"???

Dude, we know they have them. They're not admitting it. Unless you're watching that top secret US spy channel that sees all and knows all... You know, the one hooked up to those supersecret spysats that watch everything going on everywhere all the time in every plane of existence and every dimension simultaneously? :eek:

causing a great deal more casulties than the war in Iraq which did not use any WMD against us

There you go with the pulp military analyses again. JFYI, the Syrians are far less competent than the Iraqis were in that regard. And have you ever heard of MOPP gear? It works. Boy Scouts with spitballs.

This surprised our top military brass who assumed Iraq would use gas or nerve agents against us

If you know your enemy has it, then you assume the worst. You protect yourself. I think this was a pleasant surprise, not the kind where you say "Oh *****!" before doing anything else. More along the lines of "Awesome".

Nitpicking bits and pieces of others posts to prove yourself correct has failed again

Look, I understand that exposing errors, falsehoods, and illogical assumptions just bounces right off. But I'll do it anyway, thank you very much. :)

I wish you would take the time to actually read and understand posts before blasting in with long winded diatribes.

So now we're to "Waah! You don't read my posts! Waaah!"? Please. How could I pick apart every single sentence in one of your posts if I didn't read it?

Try again.

[Heretic]

treeman, I fail to understand how you can call anyone's arguments desperate when they simply stated that all of the original justifications for the war have proven false so far. Ya'll switched to the liberation of the iraqi people reason so quickly to cover up the fact that the original justifications for the war so far have not been proven in any form or fashion.

Getting Iraqi regime officials out of Syria is the job of the Syrian government, the C.I.A., and special operations forces. It's not the kind of job you use a couple of armored divisions to do, despite how much the neocons and our so called allies in Israel want it to happen.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Heretic
treeman, I fail to understand how you can call anyone's arguments desperate when they simply stated that all of the original justifications for the war have proven false so far. Ya'll switched to the liberation of the iraqi people reason so quickly to cover up the fact that the original justifications for the war so far have not been proven in any form or fashion.

What has been proven wrong so far?

1. Iraq supports and harbors terrorists - Check, pretty easy one there
2. Iraq possesses chemical & biological weapons outlawed by their Gulf War surrender - Circumstantial evidence has been found, and I'm fairly certain that given time, a large supply of these weapons will be found.

[Heretic]

No backtracking.

[KingCheetah]

Originally posted by Hammer755
What has been proven wrong so far?

1. Iraq supports and harbors terrorists - Check, pretty easy one there
2. Iraq possesses chemical & biological weapons outlawed by their Gulf War surrender - Circumstantial evidence has been found, and I'm fairly certain that given time, a large supply of these weapons will be found.

The question should be what has been proven so far and to date not much has:
1) Iraq supports and harbors terrorist, ya probably but where is the proof beyond circumstantial evidence (same for #2).

btw- the hangout needs a new category "the urinal" for these absurd pi$$ing contests.

[Woofer]

Whoa, we haven't finished Iraq yet, the Shiites hit the fan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34086-2003Apr15.html

A democracy in a country that is 2/3 Shiite. I see replays of Algeria for some reason...


Also, a few more folks have a reason to be a paramilitary:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5640621.htm

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Woofer
Whoa, we haven't finished Iraq yet, the Shiites hit the fan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34086-2003Apr15.html

A democracy in a country that is 2/3 Shiite. I see replays of Algeria for some reason...


Also, a few more folks have a reason to be a paramilitary:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5640621.htm

One of my favorite parts of this whole thing is the whole new Shi-ite love we got working here. Maybe I'm the only person here who watches VH1, but hey, remember the 80's? The Shi'ites were the "bad" crazy muslims, who did all of that nasty hijacking, car-bombing, embassy storming, etc., and our buddies were the Sunnis, who were the "good" muslims and not really extreme, like the Saudis. Then along come the hardcore Wahabbis and the Taliban, thanks in part to the blessing of our "allies" the house of Saud, and the polarity reverses. Now Shi-ites good, radical Sunnis bad.

[Heretic]

All muslims want hugs.
It's just that a select few want to hug you with dynamite strapped to their chest.

[Cohen]

Originally posted by SamFisher
...Maybe I'm the only person here who watches VH1, ...


You're probably the only one who gets his news from it.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally posted by Timing
I want to know where all the evidence of WMD is that this administration says it had. All the tons and tons of WMD. The missiles to threaten neighbors (ha!). This fleet of chem carrying drone planes. Chem artillery shells being given to the Republican guard. It was said prior to war that we couldn't expose our intelligence sources to actually prove the existence of WMD to justify this war so where is all this intelligence now? Seems to me they either flat out lied their asses off or they seriously exaggerated what they did know.

I was actually thinking about starting a topic about the same thing. Have we actually uncovered any physical evidence of WMD yet. As prevalent as the Bush adminstration made them seem, it is very suprising that we have yet to recover any. I will not be satisfied untill i see actual pictures and not a rumor on FOX news.

[Woofer]

It's fun to speculate if you have the time:

(only posted beginning of article, so if you're interested there's a free reg required to read the whole article)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/diplomacy/la-war-syria16apr16,1,5982532.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines

Syria Linked to Terrorist Network
Italy finds extremists and funds were moved routinely from Europe to Iraq.

By Robin Wright, Times Staff Writer


MILAN, Italy -- Syria has functioned as a hub for an Al Qaeda network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from Italy to northeastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group, according to an Italian investigation.

The investigation, which began last year, could intensify the growing debate about Syria's alleged ties to terrorism.

.
.
.



But then on the other hand our hands are full:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/inside/la-war-return16apr16,1,2894280.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines

Iraqis Come Home to Ravaged Capital



IRAQ

RETURN TO BAGHDAD




By John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writer


BAGHDAD -- Along a gritty highway on the outskirts of Baghdad, in an area of onion sellers and car-parts vendors, the families kept coming Tuesday.

Homeward bound, on the back of trucks packed with tires, diesel cans, blankets, pillows and plastic toys -- but most of all with humanity -- tens of thousands of people who had run away from the Iraqi capital when the fighting started were coming back.

They were seeing their city for the first time since the war: the burned-out shells of tanks and overturned buses lining the roads, the destroyed telephone exchanges, the portraits of Saddam Hussein painted over or raked with gunfire, the unbelievable sight of U.S. tanks rumbling through their streets, topped by grinning soldiers offering friendly waves.

For many, it had been a long, exhausting sojourn away from home. Some had been gone nearly a month, sleeping in half-completed houses in the desert, on sand or concrete, covered with blankets that could not keep out the night cold. They drank water from rivers or wells that were not very clean. They subsisted on rice, bread and sugared tea, dreaming of a bit of meat.

While they were coming to terms Tuesday with the new reality, many were seething -- quick to blame the Americans for everything that had befallen them and all that awaited them when they reached their homes
.
.
.

[treeman]

Heretic:

all of the original justifications for the war have proven false so far.

They have?

Let's see:

1) Saddam was a brutal dictator who oppressed his people.; invasion would free them. Check.

2) The Saddam regime had links to terrorists; invasion would sever those ties and leave those terrorist groups either decimated or minus one avenue of support. Check. (Ansar al Islam is no more, Mohammed Abbas, etc)

3) Possibility that Saddam could obtain nuclear weapons and/or threaten his neighbors again. That'll never happen again... Check.

4) WMD neutralized. For the 100th time, just because we did not find them as soon as we entered Iraq does not mean that they are not there. They are almost certainly buried, and it will take time to find them. But we cvan now be certain that none will fall into the wrong hands, so Check.

Which one of these has turned out to be false? Keeping in mind that the absence of discovery of the whereabouts of the WMD as of yet does not mean that they are not there. Which ones are false?

Ya'll switched to the liberation of the iraqi people reason so quickly to cover up the fact that the original justifications for the war so far have not been proven in any form or fashion.

Oh bulls*it. Their liberation was always *one* of the goals of the campaign. What was the operation called again? And please elaborate on how the "original justifications for the war so far have not been proven in any form or fashion"?

Oh, that's right, since the WMD weren't laying on the palace doorstep, they must never have existed... I forgot. :rolleyes:

KingCheetah:

1) Iraq supports and harbors terrorist, ya probably but where is the proof beyond circumstantial evidence (same for #2).

See capture of Abu Abbas, a.k.a. Mohammed Abbas. Support for Palestine Liberation Front. Also see Ansar al Islam. No longer exists...

btw- the hangout needs a new category "the urinal" for these absurd pi$$ing contests.

I agree. This is getting stupid. The arguments in particular are getting really stupid. We haven't found them yet, so they don't exist. The war was unjustified!

Have we actually uncovered any physical evidence of WMD yet.

We found traces of sarin around Najef, I think it was. Made some of our troops sick. And what appeared to be a chemical warfare factory that had recently been shut down at Najef. And chemical warfare suits at various spots. And what appears to be a nuclear weapons research facility at another location. We've found echoes of such activity all over the place, the problem is that it is too easy to hide such weapons.

A bunker here, a bunker there, buried and unmarked, in a country the size of the state of Texas, could be very hard to find. Everyone knows that they have them, it's just a matter of time before they are found. And it could take some time... But now people will be free to talk.

I really do not get why people expect us to find them right away. Just don't get it. I mean, the Iraqis hid them from the inspectors, which means that they will be at least moderately difficult to find. And did people just expect the Iraqis to jump up and say "Hey! Come with me! I'll show you this bunker where we stored some anthrax!"? It is not going to happen that way. Right now the people who were involved in those aspects of the regime want nothing more than to just disappear and fade away, not be the center of attention.

It may take some time. But I think it's safe to say that anyone who assumes that simply because they have not been found yet, that they never existed - anyone who assumes that is tying themselves a short noose.

[heypartner]

Bush is out of control on this one. I guess Syria voted for the UN Resolution to invade Iraq as a clever ploy to hide some nepharious plot of spreading dastardly sinister adjectives of mass destruction.

[Timing]

Originally posted by treeman
We found traces of sarin around Najef, I think it was. Made some of our troops sick.

They were sick from the heat. Even if they did find traces (which turned out to be pesticides) it's a far cry from the tons we've said they have.

And what appeared to be a chemical warfare factory that had recently been shut down at Najef.

They called it a chemical factory, you're the one saying it was a chem warfare factory without having found any chem weapons to prove that of course.

I really do not get why people expect us to find them right away.

Right away? We've had troops in Iraq for almost a month and special forces for much longer than that with reports from our government that chem weapons were being distributed to the Republican guard. It's quite rational to expect to have found something by now.

Just don't get it. I mean, the Iraqis hid them from the inspectors, which means that they will be at least moderately difficult to find. And did people just expect the Iraqis to jump up and say "Hey! Come with me! I'll show you this bunker where we stored some anthrax!"?

That's how we found our POW's. Did we just expect them to jump up and say "Hey! Come with me! I'll show you where we have your POW's?" You're telling me there isn't one man in Iraq who will lead us to the tons and tons of chem weapons they allegedly have? Not one disgruntled former scientist? Not one janitor, electrician, or engineer? Not one? Nobody? That's incredible.

Right now the people who were involved in those aspects of the regime want nothing more than to just disappear and fade away, not be the center of attention.

That's why the lead scientist called a German news crew and gave himself up to US troops?

It may take some time. But I think it's safe to say that anyone who assumes that simply because they have not been found yet, that they never existed - anyone who assumes that is tying themselves a short noose.

A lot of us trusted this administration when it said Iraq had it and now we want to be shown what our government knew, which is apparently very little. So perhaps it's safer to assume that when your government declares that they know someone has WMD, produces photos of decontamination trucks cleaning areas, photos of chem drones, and satellite images of WMD facilities that we should be able to track that down pretty easily.

[ROXTXIA]

Anyone read the most recent issue of Atlantic Monthly?

There is a very illuminating article (or, maybe, it just muddles things up) by a former U.S. govt operative who spells out the situation in Saudi Arabia.

Basically, the nominal leader is nearly a vegetable; the extended family is all siphoning dry the treasury; the country has invested about one trillion dollars in the U.S. market, not to mention how dependent we are on Saudi oil.

And yet the same country has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Al Qaeda. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. (None were Iraqi, and no Iraqi $$$ connection to 9/11 has ever been made, but who cares about details, I guess. No one will weep over Saddam's demise, even if he was basically removed to serve as an example.)

Saudi Arabia also publicly executes criminals (due process? right.) The criminals---guilty or not---are beheaded.

But when we invaded and conquered Iraq, Colin Powell was on the phone right away to suck up to the Saudis, saying we had no hostile intentions against Saudi Arabia. GWB even invited Prince Bandar (sp?) to his Crawford ranch.

So, Saudi Arabia funds terrorists more than anybody; plays both sides off against each other; but gets a free pass because without them the U.S. economy would collapse.

If some small fry U.S. govt worker has access to this info, you can bet GWB and Rumblesfeld do.

But we go after Iraq. Why? "To free the oppressed Iraqi people." That one still makes me sick. We have soaring unemployment, we have seniors who have to go to Mexico to buy medicine. GWB never had to pay for anything in his life. He has failed at every venture he has undertaken but has had others to point him this way and that or bail him out. He can't even relate to everyday Americans. Why would he give a s**t about the Iraqis?

And now President Rumblesfeld; no wait, Wolfewitz---er, Cheney---er, damn, sorry!, Bush---is threatening Syria and maybe Iran.

Gawd, I'm not answering any knocks at the door. I hope when they're running short on itchy trigger fingers that Bush doesn't declare war on Canada for harboring my sorry ass.

[Buck Turgidson]

This pretty much sums up my opinion of the situation with Syria:

Syria's leadership has the political guile to keep the dogs of war at bay
Amir Taheri
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-646827,00.html

Min yali? (Who’s next?) This is the question asked in teahouses in the Middle East. As men puff on hookahs and play backgammon they speculate about the next regime to be targeted by the United States. With Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship gone, its sister Baathist regime in Syria moves to the top of the Richter scale of roguishness, ahead of Iran, Libya and the Sudan.

The hawks around President Bush are right to focus on Syria for three reasons. First, Syria, in tandem with the mullahs of Tehran, supports a variety of terrorist groups that have targeted American interests (for example they murdered more than 300 Americans, including 241 Marines, in Beirut in 1982-83) and Israel. Today, 22 terrorist groups have offices in Damascus.

The second reason is Syria’s efforts to form a front with Iran to oppose what President Assad calls “imperialist domination” of Iraq. The President visited Tehran days before the war started to encourage the mullahs to use their Iraqi Shia clients to make life difficult for the US-led coalition. The mullahs moved the so-called Badr Brigade, a force of 10,000 Iraqi Shias armed by Iran, to the border with Iraq in a show of force.

Syria and Iran also asked their political client, Muhammad-Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, to issue a “fatwa” calling for “jihad” against the US-led coalition. Fadlallah was the only Shia theologian to join the Egyptian muftis in declaring “jihad” in support of Saddam Hussein. Syria later began putting together a force of dissident Iraqi Baathists to oppose any “American puppet regime in Baghdad”. The formation of an Iraqi Baathist government-in-exile could be part of the plan. The alliance between pro-Iranian Shias and pro-Syrian Baathists showed its force in the Najaf last week when a mob murdered Abdel-Majid al-Khoei, one of Iraq’s leading moderate clerics.

The third reason is Syria’s failure to make a strategic decision for peace. A saying in the Middle East is that the Arabs cannot make war without Egypt but cannot make peace without Syria. Afraid it might find itself alone facing Israel, Syria has systematically sabotaged Palestinian-Israeli peace moves.

Having said all that, the hawks are wrong to urge war against Syria. The chief weakness of Saddam’s regime was its suicidal inflexibility. The man known as “Al Saffah” (The Vampire) could play in only two registers: defiance or surrender. The Syrian regime, however, has always understood the reality of power and the need to back down when in a position of weakness.

The late President Hafez al-Assad met all the American presidents, from Nixon to Clinton. Throughout the Cold War Syria maintained close ties with Moscow but, unlike Iraq and Egypt, refused to sign a military pact with it. Assad’s is the only radical Arab regime never to have broken ties with Washington.

Although Syria’s Golan has been under occupation since 1967, not a shot has been fired against Israel from the Syrian side. Syria also organised its occupation of Lebanon as if it were doing a favour to the Lebanese. Unlike Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, Hafez al-Assad ensured that his troops entered Lebanon as “saviours” with the support of the Arab League, the United Nations and the European powers.

The British Government is right to insist that Syria’s leaders can be persuaded to play ball. But what ballgame should be on offer?

The Assad regime will try to give the minimum to ensure its survival, as it has always done. But, unlike Saddam’s, it also knows when not to believe its own slogans. Using diplomatic, political and economic pressure while keeping the military option open, the US-led coalition should ask for the maximum. That includes support for the growing reform movement in Syria itself, a movement that many say is secretly endorsed by President Assad against the old guard.

The liberation of political prisoners, the lifting of the ban on political parties and trade unions and, in time, the holding of free elections are among the demands of Syrian reformists. Other demands should include an end to Syrian support for terrorist groups, a termination of its alliance with hard-line Khomeinists in Tehran, the denial of safe haven to fleeing Iraqi Baathist criminals, and public support for the “roadmap for peace” as proposed by President Bush and backed by the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Last but not least, Syria must end its occupation of Lebanon, and the Mafia-style milking of that country that has enriched Baathist big shots. The momentum for change created by the victory in Iraq should not be wasted.

[heypartner]

Buck, but Bush doesn't need to bad-mouth Syria to achieve agreement with them on your concerns. They are very much our allies already. None of this has to be done on Fox News with "harboring terrorist" talk and "WMD." That is just stupid geopolitics, imso. Syria deserves to be treated with a lot more respect than what they are getting. It is unnecessary to bad mouth them, as if we are beyond reproach ourselves.

[Buck Turgidson]

I know, HeyP. It's one of my biggest problems with this Administration's foreign policy: things seem to be played out in the media, and in the open in general, when this seems like a time for some serious backroom/backchannel negotiation.

[Hammer755]

Perhaps the recent show of force in Iraq is satisfying secondary objectives as well, and perhaps this was part of the US's plan all along.

First, North Korea soften its stance towards unilateral discussions, now Syria may be expelling Iraqi officials from Damascus

U.S. says Syria telling Iraqis to leave capital (http://www.msnbc.com/news/888057.asp?0cv=CB10)

After a series of warnings from top U.S. officials, including President Bush, the Syrian government has ordered Iraqi diplomats to leave the country, U.S. military and intelligence officials told NBC News on Wednesday. In addition, the Syrians have told other Iraqi diplomats — now out of a job since the downfall of Saddam Hussein’s regime — not to seek refuge in Damascus, the officials said.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by ROXTXIA
He has failed at every venture he has undertaken
You know I heard Bush was a pretty good drunk at one time. That just show that when Bush really puts his mind to a goal that he can sometimes succeed. Give the man some credit :)

[Woofer]

Originally posted by No Worries
You know I heard Bush was a pretty good drunk at one time. That just show that when Bush really puts his mind to a goal that he can sometimes succeed. Give the man some credit :)

Hey, Bush started the next Islamic revolution! Good for him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937652,00.html

[X-PAC]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
This pretty much sums up my opinion of the situation with Syria:

Syria's leadership has the political guile to keep the dogs of war at bay
Amir Taheri
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-646827,00.html

Min yali? (Who’s next?) This is the question asked in teahouses in the Middle East. As men puff on hookahs and play backgammon they speculate about the next regime to be targeted by the United States. With Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship gone, its sister Baathist regime in Syria moves to the top of the Richter scale of roguishness, ahead of Iran, Libya and the Sudan.

The hawks around President Bush are right to focus on Syria for three reasons. First, Syria, in tandem with the mullahs of Tehran, supports a variety of terrorist groups that have targeted American interests (for example they murdered more than 300 Americans, including 241 Marines, in Beirut in 1982-83) and Israel. Today, 22 terrorist groups have offices in Damascus.

The second reason is Syria’s efforts to form a front with Iran to oppose what President Assad calls “imperialist domination” of Iraq. The President visited Tehran days before the war started to encourage the mullahs to use their Iraqi Shia clients to make life difficult for the US-led coalition. The mullahs moved the so-called Badr Brigade, a force of 10,000 Iraqi Shias armed by Iran, to the border with Iraq in a show of force.

Syria and Iran also asked their political client, Muhammad-Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, to issue a “fatwa” calling for “jihad” against the US-led coalition. Fadlallah was the only Shia theologian to join the Egyptian muftis in declaring “jihad” in support of Saddam Hussein. Syria later began putting together a force of dissident Iraqi Baathists to oppose any “American puppet regime in Baghdad”. The formation of an Iraqi Baathist government-in-exile could be part of the plan. The alliance between pro-Iranian Shias and pro-Syrian Baathists showed its force in the Najaf last week when a mob murdered Abdel-Majid al-Khoei, one of Iraq’s leading moderate clerics.

The third reason is Syria’s failure to make a strategic decision for peace. A saying in the Middle East is that the Arabs cannot make war without Egypt but cannot make peace without Syria. Afraid it might find itself alone facing Israel, Syria has systematically sabotaged Palestinian-Israeli peace moves.

Having said all that, the hawks are wrong to urge war against Syria. The chief weakness of Saddam’s regime was its suicidal inflexibility. The man known as “Al Saffah” (The Vampire) could play in only two registers: defiance or surrender. The Syrian regime, however, has always understood the reality of power and the need to back down when in a position of weakness.

The late President Hafez al-Assad met all the American presidents, from Nixon to Clinton. Throughout the Cold War Syria maintained close ties with Moscow but, unlike Iraq and Egypt, refused to sign a military pact with it. Assad’s is the only radical Arab regime never to have broken ties with Washington.

Although Syria’s Golan has been under occupation since 1967, not a shot has been fired against Israel from the Syrian side. Syria also organised its occupation of Lebanon as if it were doing a favour to the Lebanese. Unlike Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, Hafez al-Assad ensured that his troops entered Lebanon as “saviours” with the support of the Arab League, the United Nations and the European powers.

The British Government is right to insist that Syria’s leaders can be persuaded to play ball. But what ballgame should be on offer?

The Assad regime will try to give the minimum to ensure its survival, as it has always done. But, unlike Saddam’s, it also knows when not to believe its own slogans. Using diplomatic, political and economic pressure while keeping the military option open, the US-led coalition should ask for the maximum. That includes support for the growing reform movement in Syria itself, a movement that many say is secretly endorsed by President Assad against the old guard.

The liberation of political prisoners, the lifting of the ban on political parties and trade unions and, in time, the holding of free elections are among the demands of Syrian reformists. Other demands should include an end to Syrian support for terrorist groups, a termination of its alliance with hard-line Khomeinists in Tehran, the denial of safe haven to fleeing Iraqi Baathist criminals, and public support for the “roadmap for peace” as proposed by President Bush and backed by the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Last but not least, Syria must end its occupation of Lebanon, and the Mafia-style milking of that country that has enriched Baathist big shots. The momentum for change created by the victory in Iraq should not be wasted.

First, I have supported this administration throughout the Iraq conflict. This administration made the correct decision, imo, to bring the baathist thugs to justice and holding them accountable for the twelve years of their thumbing of the nose to the international community. I have no doubt in my mind the conflict was overwhelmingly successful.

Buck, the article makes a good case against Syria but also makes an even better case to back off. If Assad is partial to reform as the article suggests we could negotiate with this person. Despite my unfettered support for the president in Iraq I am of the opinion the rhetoric coming out of this administration on Syria is inappropriate. I agree dialogue could and should be engaged secretly. It appears Bush is working off the momentum coming off obvious victory in Iraq. Nothing wrong with that but Bush needs to live up to the democracy rhetoric he has been promising. Its premature to begin discussion on engaging another country. The article gives me some hope we can work with Syria. I'm not saying don't invade Syria (a strong case is there)but our plate is somewhat full with Afghanistan and Iraq in the status quo. I wouldn't be opposed to military strikes against targets Iraqi Baathists could be hiding but an all out invasion would be a mistake for now. These guys have helped provide intelligence in the war on terror and I wouldn't want to jeopardize any future relations that could prove beneficial to our anti-terror campaign and achieving peace in the middle-east if that is possible.

P.S. I don't know about anyone else but this war has been mentally draining and has costed me hours of sleep. Heres to no more sleepless nights. :)

[Heretic]

Why do they keep lumping Israel and America in the same corner as if they're concerns are our concerns?

Once again, threats to Israel are NOT threats to the United States of America. Let Israel bear the fruit of their policies. America needs to quit supporting what's essentially a religious conflict. We let Israel have nukes but we're very against any mideast nation even having a whiff of chemical weapons. We know the people of Syria don't like us, but then again neither do the people of Saudi Arabia or Turkey so that's kind of a moot point.

Saudi Arabian money was behind 9/11 but we're not invading them or threatening them with sanctions. As the FBI would say, follow the money and you'll find the criminals. Except in this case preliminary evidence pointed way up the list of important Saudi's so government agencies in charge of the investigation were told to look elsewhere. It somewhat mirrors american courtroom justice, as long as you don't get caught with a smoking gun you can get away with anything as long as you're rich and have the financial muscle to rent a few lawyers(politicians in this case).

[Cohen]

Originally posted by Woofer
Hey, Bush started the next Islamic revolution! Good for him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937652,00.html

Yet upon close read, maybe not! Good for him.


The threat posed by Shia could turn out to be benign. The strong sense of Iraqi nationalism may prove to be more dominant than a shared religion with Iran. In the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, Iraqi Shia fought alongside Sunnis against their Iranian co-religionists.

[codell]

Originally posted by Heretic
All muslims want hugs.
It's just that a select few want to hug you with dynamite strapped to their chest.

Im marking this post down in my memory as one of the all time best. Ive been waiting for a new sig. Great stuff! ;)

[a la rockets]

Originally posted by Cohen
And maybe we can guess your age ;)

Can I?!Can I?!Please!Please!Pretty Pretty Please with sugar on top!




ALA
(:D :D :D )

[treeman]

Why do they keep lumping Israel and America in the same corner as if they're concerns are our concerns?

Once again, threats to Israel are NOT threats to the United States of America

Unfortunately many Arabs believe that we are one and the same. Our enemies (Islamofascist fundamentalists) certainly think that we are, and therefore try to attack both of us. Unfortunately, the idea of a Zionist-CIA plot to take over the ME is not just a ridiculous conspiracy theory over there. It is a commonly accepted "fact" to many Arabs.

Unfortunately, Israel's problem is our problem.

I also agree that a finger needs to be pointed at Saudi. IMHO, they are right up there with Iran as supporters of anti-US/Israel terrorism, and they need to be dealt with (not invaded, just "dealt with").