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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)
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..
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.
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.
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. )
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. . . .
first....embassy bombing... http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/beirut-marine-barracks.html and just to limit confusion because of the different name.. 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.. 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..
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.
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.
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...
