*DAMN R6 Forum

There have been recent rumors that the United States is considering moving on to Syria once Iraq has been stabilized. The Bush Administration has accused the Syrian government of harboring high level Iraqi Baath officials. They also accused the Syrians of having chemical and biological weapons, something that has been banned from most middle eastern countries.

What do you think the U.S. should do?

oh Yea they also accused Iraqe having this shit of chemical weapons - but didnt find anything yet. So I think they should let their nose out of middle east.

uh, keep our nose out of the middle east?

dude, you must be joking. terrorism. allies in jeopardy. oil. if we stay out of the middle east, we might as well not have foreign relations.

Let's close the embassies, stop paying for a military, state dept, intelligence agencies, close all those pesky port cities since we won't be doing any more of that annoying 'trade' crap. yeah. you are on to something. we got everything we need right here.

oh, and close down the internet too. we don't want any of them crazy foreigners poisoning the minds of our youth either.

ok, cya all. it's been great.

I say we put out any fires before they blaze, but we run into problems doing so. Our government is looking at 12 nations right now who are developing WMD, but we can't fight em all, so we gotta pick and choose. Our troops wanna come home sometimes and not keep bouncin from country to country...so imho, I think we should deal with N. Korea, Syria, and Iran...those are our biggest threats...until in 10 years after we arm Iraq again, they turn on us once again...

I know when Iraq gave up the right to WMD (losing the first Gulf War), but when did Syria?  Or are we no longer using the UN resolution excuse and just saying only we or our allies can have WMD.  And what is legally wrong with them having Baathists.  I know Bush made the proclaimation that harbouring terrorists was bad, but I'm not clear that it actually violates international law.  It isn't like not extriditing prisoners is something new.

The only country I see clearly breaking international law (besides Israel) is the US.

Yep, the whole idea is really pretty ludicrous. Those who believed the arguments of the Bush administration before I think are going to be rudely awakened when they realize that yes, our only real goal is maximization of US power. Hopefully people wake up and smell the shit stinking out of the white house and oppose any more wars of US aggression.

The whole syria-talk is just a way of getting the syrians to behave themselves while the US is in town. Attacking Syria would be suicidal for the Bush administration diplomatically and, as bondo pointed out, will have some serious consequences for the elections. there are a lot of paralells btw saddam's regime in iraq and the Al-asad's in syria, but nothing that poses a threat to the US and its interests. also, there is no question that they have a chemical weapons program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/syria/index.html), but unlike iraq they have never used them operationally. syria is also a police state and there have been many abuses, but it hardly comes close to what saddam did in iraq. Furthers, Hafez al-asad, who was responsible for most of the stuff is dead is son bashar (who wanted to be an doctor, not a dictator) is in charge. unlike iraq, things were looking like they might improve for a while....and for the oil-conspiracy obsessed ppl: syria doesnt have any significant reserves, so why would the gas oil and petrolium party wanna attack them, not lybia? hmmm, mb this is more complicated than war=oil=money.
the bottom line: syria wont be attacked, because the adminstration can deal with them politely and because another war would be very costly, both financially and politically. and to assume they will invade simply because they have troops nearby is incredibly stupid, even coming from bondo. do you know how many troops we had on the border of the warsaw pact countries during the cold war? there are enough US and south korean troops to launch a war over there, so why not do that?? the US is going to continue to verbally assault syria whenever they get a chance, but a war is pretty much impossible. the administration is hawkish, but they know their constraints.

I think we should focus on Iraq for now untill all of that shit is over, and then possibly target Syria..

BTW, this goes out to Saddam.. even if he is dead..(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/ass.gif)

- Snipey

I think we should sacrifice snipey on an altar of gold in the name of all mankind.

Abe, I never said they would attack Syria BECAUSE we had troops there.  I said they would more likely attack now rather than later because they have troops there, the reason for the war is whatever Bush finds it to be, the troops being there is just a financial matter that makes the present more appealing.  Like I said though politically after the elections is preferable for Bush.

Well, Bush has ordered, and the military has obeyed in shutting down the pipelines of oil to Syria.  This means the Syrian economy will have hard times.  Bush thinks this will make Syria fold into his demands (whatever they may be).  I think it will just result in hundreds or thousands of people starving, more deaths on Bush's hands...all in the name of US power.

Uh, the U.S has denied shutting down the pipelines... though they could be lying of course. But bondo you really enjoy bashing bush.

Syria will be next, or Iran. You know why? Its quite simple and we should have seen it coming for years. Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowitz made the blueprint to US domination of the middle east during the Gulf War. Syria is not as threat to the US, but they are a threat to our pimp Israel. They stand in the way of Israel's want of controling the Euphrates. Go look up Wolfowitz and Pearl, they have whole essays made available to the public. Go look up Zbignew Brezinski, that bastard of a Pole is their whole insperation. Iraq will not be the last country.

Infoman...I just saw on the news them saying they ordered the troops to shut the pipelines down and the troops shut the pipelines down.  Or is the news sources that has been very pro-bush lying?

Well, I watch CNN, and they aren't pro-bush or anti-bush.

What you PROBABLY are hearing, are reporters saying that we ordered it. I am not saying that they couldnt have been ordered, but those are reporters saying what they think, and what they think, is that we ordered the gas lines to be cut.  And about the denial, i was watching the press conference with Donald R. and he said that they did not order it. So it isnt the news source... It's the actually guy talking... AND LIKE I SAID... they COULD be lying ;p

About the Syria, I dont think we will attack Syria. All we want are some of those top leaders of the Baath party, who might have fled there, during the attack on iraq. The U.S wants to put them up for war crimes. We won't invade syria, it would be pointless. The chemical weapons accusation by the U.S is just to try and say we can justify our attack on you ( in a threatening manor), so cooperate with us.  

Just my opinion.

Odd, it was Donald R. who I heard a say they ordered it.

Anyway, Syria having chemical weapons wouldn't be justification of an attack...it wasn't for Iraq, but unlike Iraq, Syria isn't banned from it based on UN resolutions AFAIK.

The oil pipeline was shut off because it was ILLEGAL...not because of any political nonsense.

Also: We wont be attacking Syria because it would amount to political suicide for Bush....he can't muster support for a second war without an extremely good case. Even though Syria has chemical weapons (The father of the current leader built a massive amount of these as deterence to the superior Israeli army), the ones we accuse them of having are the Iraqi WMD's. We are also accusing them of harboring Iraqi leadership figures (which Syria really doesn't deny...all they say is that it was our responsibility to overlook their border with Iraq) and we are trying to turn up the heat on them to cough up anyone they might be harboring.

My prediction on this new Syrian problem is that we will impose political and economic sanctions on them. This sabre-rattling you hear now is to scare the living crap out of Bashar Assad since he witnessed our virtual lightning strike efficiency is taking out Saddam's army and regime....he knows he would share the same fate if the United States decided to go after him.

The big difference would be (if we actually did go to war with Syria)  that Assad would use his Chemical weapons against American forces and against the Israeli homeland since they do in fact have multiple ballistic delivery devices.

All great opinions...good stuff.

A lot of this is just a political game. They want the Syrian government to look bad in other people's eyes so there will be a possibility in the future for an invasion. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

How do you feel about the ever increasing terroristic threat in the Middle East? Do you think there's a possibility of Nuclear War?

Edit: I agree with haz....sacrificing snipey is a must.

I don't agree with sanctions against any country that results in its people starving.  Not against Syria, not against Iraq.

Having WMDs is not illegal per ce (if it was, half of the western countries would be illegal), it was illegal for Iraq only because the UN had passed a resolution saying so.

The oil pipeline was, as tired sinner said, illegal because of the sanctions the UN had imposed on Iraq. Closure of it was justified.

yes, kami

the issue with syria is not that they have wmds, but that they warmed up enormously to the baath regime in bagdhad over the past two years and the US is afraid that some sensitive stuff was moved from iraq to syria at the start of the war.

also, iraq has been bribing its neighbors into supporting them diplomatically by offering discount prices on the hottest commodity these days......you guessed it: OIL. Both Jordan and Syria have been receiving cheap iraqi crude, which they are very reluctant to lose access to, which is what will happen now that saddam is no longer in power.

cossack: gimme a break...you need to stop listening to "conspiracy-brotha" and using your head. yes some israelis would like to see a "greater Israel" from 'the nile to the euphrates', but that is nothing but a pipedream and 95% if israelis know that. besides, today israel is preoccupied with protecting itself from terrorists, so i doubt that your 'dominate the middle east' scenario is in forefront of any israeli military officials mind. is it israels fault that saddam has been abducting, torturing and murdering iraqis for 20 years? no, but hey.....lets just blame it all on the jews. its worked in the past, right??

Its funny how Wolfowitz's essay is showing what is happening now, 10 years earlier. I have it in my hand. I am not blaming it on the jews, I am blaming it on the zionists. Its is not radical conspiracy theory, true it is in definition a conspiracy theory, but its been made public. The whole Middle East Policy carried out by the Bush Administration is constructed by guess who? Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowitz. They are among Bush's most trusted and they hold (held as is the case with Pearl's recent resignation) powerful position in our national government. I think that you must think with your head abe. I know Israel is protecting itself from freedom fighters, but when the motto, "From the Nile to the Euphrates" holds the place of "We the People" you have to be paranoid of the zionist nazi state.
Syrian does endorse freedom fighting orginizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel views them as a thorn in their side that must be attrited. Sharon made a public statement that he wants to see Israel expand in size. He said that on a god damn radio address. No one listens to them. Abe do 95% of Israeli's think that, was their a poll? Is that your personal estimate? Israel is not responsible for Iraqis disappearing, but they are responsible for shelling Palestinians, massacres of school children, and bulldozing of whole civilian.Lets blame it on the Muslims.... its working in the present right?

All i will say is...before we stop others from making WMD...why dont we stop ourselves. Also, Bush is the spawn of Hilter...whoever voted for him is an idiot.  I saw right through his shit, he favors the rich and is always looking for a fight.  He could end up to be the worst pres in history if he keeps up what hes doing right now...

Peace out

Jackal

You shoulda seen what he did with our state as governor. He got rid of corporate tax. Now we are in a gigantic budget deficit, and the republicans who just came to power in Texas senate and house are too pussy to put tax on the corporations. Instead they are selling essential services off, and already stupid Texan school children will become stupider. I find it stupid that Gore didnt attack his record in Texas.

I think I got my education while the getting was good.  It seems a lot of states are making huge cutbacks in education.  I think the US needs to try a type of schooling that my girlfriend's HS uses (it is one of only a few in Canada) where they don't actually have classroom lectures.  It is self paced and you have various packets of work for each class that need to be completed in order to recieve credit.  You are made to go to the school for about five hours a day in which you are able to work on the packets using the resources.  They take tests once they feel they are ready for them (part of the self-pacing).  Additionally they have some small seminars where the teacher has perhaps 5 students in a sort of lecture/discussion.  This type of system accomplishes much more education wise without really needing any more teachers.

The funny thing, the combined deficits in state budgets is similar to the amount Bush asked for for the war.  So instead of having the war we could have covered the state deficits and insured the services wouldn't be diminished.

well, blaming it on the muslims does seem to work right now... at least for the bush supporters.

sharon and his orthodox jews are full of shit. i dont believe the jews have an unlimited well-fare ticket , just because they had to be the scapegoat often the last couple of thousand years. that doesnt make everything right they do, and what they are doing now and have been doing the last years is morally wrong.

lets see what really will happen in israel, bush said he wants to establish a palestinian sovereign country, but id bet a whole lot of money that its just blah blah again.

 

Cossack I'm glad you're informed on foreign policy and can see the geopolitical goals behind every foreign policy action the Bush administration takes. If anyone doesn't believe him, go read the foreign policy articles written by Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld when they all worked for the neoconservative think tank The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. Go to newamericancentury.org  or search google for PNAC and you can read most of the disgusting things they've written.

Reform Jews, conservative jews were for it mostly. Orthodox Jews were against the creation of the Zionist state.

A regretful choice of words on my part, by conservative I meant more traditional in belief which would target Othodox and Hasidic Jews more so than Conservative Jews...I just watched the movie The Chosen in comparative religions.  Great movie to get a better understanding about the different jewish cultures.

Yes, Bondo, but now we have a whole generation of uneducated Americans who believe the world is now a safer place to live  ;)