Are we going to attack every country that sells weapons to Iraq. This war is already becoming a bigger mess than the Administration assumed. Did they really think Iraq would'nt have any help. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1840705sumed. March 28, 2003, 1:09PM Rumsfeld warns Syria to halt military shipments Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stern warning to Syria today to stop sending military equipment to Iraqi forces, saying such shipments have included night-vision goggles. "We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. "There's no question but that to the extent that military supplies or equipment or people are moving across the borders between Iraq and Syria, it vastly complicates our situation," Rumsfeld said. Asked if the United States was threatening military action against Syria, Rumsfeld said: "I'm saying exactly what I'm saying. It was carefully phrased." "We have information that shipments of military supplies have been crossing the border from Syria into Iraq, including night-vision goggles," he said. "These deliveries pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces," the defense secretary said. Syrian President Bashar Assad has described the military action as "clear occupation and a flagrant aggression against a United Nations member state." Syria is the only Arab country currently on the U.N. Security Council. When asked if the shipments from Syria were "state sponsored," Rumsfeld said he wouldn't answer because "it's an intelligence issue." "They control their border," he added. "We're hoping that kind of thing doesn't happen." Syrian officials were not immediately available for comment. Rumsfeld briefed at the Pentagon as America's battle plan for Baghdad was taking shape, with U.S. forces now in position to strike the Iraqi capital from nearly all sides -- or to mount a siege and wait for Saddam Hussein's regime to fall to internal opposition. Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Republican Guard units defending the city are "dug in." "They could be consolidating to make a defense. It doesn't make any difference. The outcome is certain," he said. As sporadic battles rage between American infantry and defiant Iraqi troops and paramilitary guerrillas, more armor and at least 100,000 reinforcing U.S. and allied troops are on their way to join the coalition force over the next few weeks. In the interim, the American game plan is simple: bombs, bombs and more bombs. The Army's senior ground commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace of V Corps, told reporters of The New York Times and Washington Post on Thursday that unexpected tactics by Iraqi fighters and stretched supply lines were slowing down the campaign. "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," the papers quoted Wallace as saying during a visit to the 101st Airborne Division headquarters in central Iraq. Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, at the daily briefing at U.S. Central Command in Qatar, insisted U.S. war planners had not underestimated Iraqi fighting capabilities, but said unexpected developments were inevitable in any war. He accused the Iraqis of using "terrorist death squads" who changed in and out of civilian clothes. Meanwhile, a U.S. official involved in military planning and intelligence said Iraqi troops have been spotted between U.S. and Iraqi lines wearing full chemical protection suits and unloading 50- gallon drums from trucks. U.S. intelligence doesn't know what was in the drums, but fear it could be chemicals. Officials have said that the closer invading forces get to Baghdad, the higher the possibility that a cornered regime will launch an attack with chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam as denied he has. U.S. and British aircraft are pounding some of the estimated 30,000 Republican Guard forces arrayed around Baghdad and striking inside the capital against Saddam's levers of power and modes of communication. The military early Friday rolled out new weapons -- two 4,700-pound, satellite-guided "bunker busting" bombs were dropped from American B-2 bombers on a major communications tower on the east bank of the Tigris River in downtown Baghdad. The bombs were twice the size of the bunker busting bombs that were being used before. The bombing attack, aimed at disrupting communication between Saddam and his military leaders, gutted a seven-story telephone exchange, leaving the street strewn with rubble. Powerful explosions rocked the capital during the night and Friday morning aircraft swooped low over the city. Anti-aircraft fire was intermittent. Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf said the overnight air strikes killed seven people in Baghdad and wounded 92. While the coalition war plan is flexible and certain to shift with events, U.S. leaders say they are operating on three rock-solid certainties: They won't lose. They won't set a timetable. And they won't let up until Saddam is gone. "There isn't going to be a cease-fire," Rumsfeld told lawmakers on Thursday. Rumsfeld also raised the possibility of a siege of Baghdad rather than a quick strike into the heart of the city. Asked by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., what American ground troops would do once they reached Baghdad, Rumsfeld answered by saying Baghdad had to be isolated before it was taken. He also alluded to what is happening at Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. British forces there have laid siege, hoping for a successful uprising by the city's Shiite population. Rumsfeld noted that both Basra and Baghdad have large numbers of Shiites. "And they are not terribly favorable to the regime. They've been repressed," Rumsfeld said.
Let's prentend the Arab world declared War on the U.S.. How would that war go? Are there any Arab States that we should truly fear militarily. Forget about Nuclear weapons. I'm purely talking about the military and weapons that are not mass destruction. Is it a War we could win without nuclear weapons?
PG - He said he would hold the Syrian government accountable. Does that automatically mean an attack? No. Please work on your reading comprehension skills. I really get a kick out of you people who want the war to go poorly just to advance your selfish political desires of seeing Bush lose popularity here in the US.
Can you be more full of it? Just who are you talking about here? We don't need to lose this war in order to make Bush look bad. He's fully capable of doing that all by himself. People who oppose the war do not want our troops getting killed. That's one of the main reasons many oppose the war.
It sickens me that some posters are so committed to their partisan bitterness that they actually wish ill will on American troops. To have such utter contempt for our Commander In Chief to the point where you actually *want* to see things go poorly is disgusting. These people are so blinded by their hatred of the current administration that they essentially want American troops to die -- all in an effort to advance their partisan preferences. These people *want* American troops to fail. These people *want* to see a mass proliferation of the war. These people *want* to have the sons and daughters of American mothers and fathers killed. This mindset is repulsive.
But didn't say he was threatening them either. He said it would be considered a "hostile act." And he's right, it is a hostile act.
Again, I ask who "these" people are that you seem to be referring to? I've yet to read one single post in which any person from either side of this issue wants to see out troops die. You wanna back up those insane accusations or do you want to continue to invalidate your credibility.
That's fine are we going to hold the Russians accountable for selling the Iraqis the equipment that was supposed to disrupt the Army's GPS systems. Oh I frogot, Bush looked into Putin's eyes and knew he could trust him.
"We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. So is this a blatant explicit threat that the US will act in a specific way if the shipments don't stop. No. However, saying you will "hold the Syrian government accountable" might be viewed as a veiled but unspecified threat of future US retaliation or action of some kind (not necessarily military).
I am so sick of your ridiculous bull****. Now you've taken to inventing things to be outraged about. Some people just can't be happy unless they're furious. This "repulsive mindset" is a product of your own repulsive mind. Talk about projecting...
Which poster said they wanted to have soldiers killed? Which poster said they want a proliferation of this war? By the way, I'm still waiting to hear you condemn Bush for for being derilict in his duty to the Air Guard that you have sooooo much respect for. http://www.awolbush.com/ All your cries for supporting the troops has already been shown to be soft, by lack of support for veterans. I'm giving you a chance for redemption. Stand by me in condemning Bush's not showing up for service for nearly one year of his Guard duty. You've already professed and you appreciation and the honor of that national guard. Surely someone skipping out on that duty is abhorent to you.
FranchiseBlade, It amazes me the depths to which you will stoop in an effort to slander our President. To call into question George W Bush's contributions to our armed forces is atrocious. Bush has displayed tremendous leadership of our troops since the tragedy that was 9/11. He has led our country in the war against terror. He has led a coalition of 30+ nations in a war to liberate the Iraqi people. Despite these remarkable contributions, you choose to focus on allegations that are now decades old? You really will do anything to besmirch the reputation of our Commander in Chief. Repulsive.
Syria is a terrorist state and should be next. It's high time to kick some ass over there instead of handing out lollypops and playing nicey-nice with a brutal thug like Assad Jr. Syria is a thorn in our side and a regional threat. It's time to kick these backward, totalitarian nations into the 21st century. How could you want to ally with Assad's?