Next target: Syria

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

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?

[[[EUR]] HoloGram]

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.

[.::|N|SOC]

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.

[0 Kilz:M:]

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...

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[tasty]

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.

[abe]

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.

[Snipes]

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..

- Snipey

[*DAMN Hazard]

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

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[Info-man]

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

[Cossack]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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?

[Info-man]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[tired sinner]

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.

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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

[kami]

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.