It would be very unwise to attack Syria until Bush is re-elected, which looks like it is going to happen. I support Bush 100%, and if Syria is next, so be it. Better to get rid of the terrorist supporting countries anyways.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Syria is next!
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Fly Raleigh-Durham International, with direct flights on Air Canada, AirTran, American Airlines, American Eagle, America West, Continental Airlines, Continental Express, Delta Airlines, Delta Connection, jetBlue, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Express and US Airways to:
ATL, AUS, BWI, BOS, CHS, CLT, MDW, ORD, CVG, CLE, DFW, DTW, FLL, BDL, HOU, IND, LAS, LAX, LGW, MEM, MIA, MSP, BNA, EWR, MSY, JFK, LGA, ORF, MCO, PHL, PHX, PIT, STL, SLC, TPA, YYZ, DCA and IAD.
-
Its just the Bushes who are war crazy. If you recall even daddy dear fought with Scumball."The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."
-- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'
Comment
-
Here I must say that I would not like to see this happen. I supported the war in Iraq and President Bush. I do support President Bush as we speak and I will support him until he is no longer in office. However, I do not find it necessary to attack Syria at this moment. To me personally, President Bush should focus on North Korea and begin talks with North Korea. Afterall last I checked they had missles which could reach the west coast.
Respectfully
P.S. Don't get me wrong here. I support Bush. I will support him, I have prayed that he will make wise decisions. I know he will.CheckSix
Equipment: A camera (who gives a rip about the brand?)
Comment
-
Re: Syria is next!
Originally posted by aerpixToday president George W. Bush jp. openly threatened to "deal" with the Syrian government in Damascus next! Once more suspected WMDs are given as reason. The USA expect co-operation from Syria, whatever this means.
This latest uncontained advance by the USA was heavily criticized by most European nationals, including - notably - the British!
1. Bush didn't say a thing, Powell did.
2. You must know how to read minds, because you'd have to in order to infer that "deal" means "invade."
3. WMDs were not given as a reason -- harboring of terrorists was.
4. How in God's name is this an "advance?"
You have twisted so many facts in such a short post. It's hard to imagine how you continue to do it, over and over and over again.
Having an opinion is fine -- posting outright lies in this forum to support your position is not. Should you continue your incessant, unprovoked, and undeserved attacking of America, and its citizens, you will find your perfect, unflawed, infallable, and overly intelligent Swiss ass banned from this forum, permanantly.
I've had enough. Find somewhere else to spew your anti-American, elitist bullshit.Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by RichardIt would be very unwise for Bush to go to war with Syria. Then again, Bush is unwise. I opposed Iraq but Syria would be absolutely ridiculous. I agree with aerpix, not even the UK would support Bush on that one, only Israel would. Such would really anger the extremists.
Don't take everything you read word for word, especially when it's written by Peter Frei.Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
-
Friends, colleagues, beloved forum memebers:
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.
Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq.
Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could "shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria".
However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria.
"The talk about Syria didn't go anywhere. Basically, the White House shut down the discussion," an intelligence source in Washington told the Guardian.
Faced with rising apprehension over the prospect of a new conflict, Tony Blair also offered categorical assurances to anxious MPs yesterday that Britain and the US had "no plans whatsoever" to invade Iraq's neighbour.
Dismissing fears of an Anglo-American invasion as another "conspiracy theory", the prime minister said that Mr Bush had never mentioned an attack on Syria during their regular talks.
"I have the advantage of talking to the American president on a regular basis and I can assure you there are no plans to invade Syria," he said. "Neither has anyone on the other side of the water, as far as I am aware, said there are plans."
The Bush administration is nevertheless determined to use its military ascendancy in the region to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on Damascus and resolve what Washington sees as longstanding problems, including the threat to Israel posed by Damascus-backed Islamic extremists, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Syria's chemical weapons.
Mr Rumsfeld repeated accusations yesterday that Syria had tested chemical weapons in the last 12 to 15 months. However, Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention and would not be breaking international law if it did possess,nor is it suspected of selling chemical weapons to others.
One US administration official conceded: "They've not taken any actions that we can see so far that would justify military action."
Mr Blair made clear to Syria yesterday that it must not accept high-level political fugitives or weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
"It is important Syria does not harbour people from Saddam's regime or allow any transfer of material from Iraq to Syria. I have spoken to President Assad and he has assured me that is not happening and I have said it is important that assurance is valid," Mr Blair told MPs.
A diplomat in Washington with close ties to the administration agreed there was no sign of military action on the horizon.
"There's no question of this at the White House," the diplomat said, pointing out that the Syrian army would be a far more potent adversary than Iraq's bedraggled forces. "Anyone who lives in the real world would never see this as more than noise."
Instead, the administration expects that the loss of income from smuggling arms and oil to and from Iraq will make Damascus vulnerable to economic pressure. Congress is examin-ing the Syrian accountability act, which would impose tough sanctions on Damascus.
British officials confirm they share US alarm about Syria's recent conduct and its sponsorship role in Palestinian terrorism. But Mr Blair has cultivated Bashar al-Assad, its British-educated president, and adopts a more conciliatory tone towards Damascus.
"It's a bit of a good cop, bad cop routine," one Whitehall official said of the tougher line coming from the US.
The prime minister's upbeat report to MPs on what, for the first time, he called victory was marred by sceptical challenges from both sides based on reports from Washington that Bush hawks want to move on the Ba'athist regime next door. Evidently exasperated, Mr Blair denounced "conspiracy theories" and insisted that he could not be clearer about his determination to tackle Syria by diplomacy.
His remarks came hours after the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, warned Mr Assad that he would have to face up to "the new reality" of the post-Saddam world. Speaking in Kuwait on the second leg of a four-country tour of the Gulf, Mr Straw said: "There are a number of questions it is very important that Syria should answer and in a cooperative way."
His tough remarks were echoed by the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, who warned that Britain had had concerns for some time about Syria's desire to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Hoon referred to a government paper, presented to parliament in February last year, which raised questions about Syria's weapons programme. The document said that Syria was one of five countries attempting to "obtain inventories of longer-range ballistic missiles". The other countries included North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya.
The Syrian ambassador to London angrily rejected suggestions that Damascus had any weapons of mass destruction or was harbouring members of Saddam's regime. Mouafak Nassar told Radio 4's The World at One: "I will say I am wondering why they are targeting one Arab country after the other. They are ignoring totally the country that has mass destruction weapons - Israel."
Britain underlined its commitment to diplomacy when the junior Foreign Office minister, Mike O'Brien, met Mr Assad in Damascus yesterday.
RespectfullyCheckSix
Equipment: A camera (who gives a rip about the brand?)
Comment
-
I guess so, then. Good thing, nobody wanted a war with Syria."The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."
-- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'
Comment
-
Originally posted by PK246I was against war on Iraq. Any attack on Syria on baseless American accusations would be totally unacceptable in the Muslim world. The silent majority of Muslims have already realised that the current US government led by Mr.Bush is against independent Islamic countries. By independent Islamic countries I mean those countries which do not like to take orders from the US. If the US attacks more Islamic countries on baseless accusations then I think massive revolutions (like the Iranian revolution) would take place in countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and heavily pro-US governments of these countries would be overthrown by the people of these countries.
If you think you've "realized" anything you wrote above, I have realized that you are a bloody idiot who believes whatever you see on Al Jazeera and anything written by the extremist, murderous Muslims.
We have, in 3 weeks time, returned Iraq to its people -- to the point where lawlessness was briefly encountered. How, in the light of that -- in the light of seeing Iraqis celebrating in the streets by the thousands, toppling the statues of their former murderous tyrant leader -- can you possibly say that the U.S. is "against independent Islamic countries?"
Unless, of course, you mean "independent" in the sense of "countries which threaten world peace, harbor muderous muslim terrorists, build WMD which could be provided to these terrorists, and kill their own people by the millions."
How can you say that after the people of Afghanistan were freed by this country? Last time I checked, neither country had yet been anexed, and none of the other absolutely ridiculous bullshit you wackos insist is going to happen every time the US does anything has happened.
If terrorists are so "incensed" by the recent action in Iraq -- which wouldn't surprise me... after all, millions of people were freed from tyrany, which is clearly not what terrorists want -- that's their problem, not ours.
They are going to hate us, and try to attack us, no matter what happens in Iraq. The same goes for Syria. Our duty is to kill them before they kill us. We failed that mission on 9.11 -- hopefully, we won't fail again.Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by PK246The vast majority of Muslims, including myself, had expressed their sympathy and support for America after the tragic events of 9-11. USA is now loosing this support from Muslims after the recent war on Iraq, which killed many innocent civilians, and statements against Syria made by the officials of President Bush's government have angered Islamic world.
The only people in the entire country of Iraq who were against the U.S. action who are people associated with the former regime, who know they have no place inside a new Iraq.
Everyone else is overjoyed, which is shown in images even Al 'Terrorist' Jazeera was forced to show, repeatedly.
Yes, there were civilian casualties. It's war, for God's sake.
There were not, however, "many." It is estimated that there were less than 100 civilian, and 3000 Iraqi military, casualties during the entire duration of the campaign since it began.
Do you have ANY idea how remarkable that is?Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by LH 340-600PK 246: well said.
It's not only Mr GWB Jr. Cowboy who is shortsightened. All those conservative people in the Gouvernment and Military are. It looks like they really believe they could rule the world. I'm looking forward to the next elections in America.
Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by LH 340-600Or even better:
Cowboy GWB Jr. should be impeached.
Why do you suggest that Bush be impeached when he has the support of 80+% of his own country?
I know you'd love for Germany to be a superpower with as much pull and importance in the world as the U.S., but let's be honest -- it's not the case. Thus, you should stop harboring the illusions that Bush's job is to do what's best for the Germans, French, or anyone else.
His job is to do what's best for the Americans, however much you despise us, are jealous of us, or whatever.Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
-
... and after all that, all reports indicate that Bush vetoed any sort of Syria war/liberation plan.
That'll teach you all to take Peter Frei at his word.
I guess you anti-Americans will now say that the U.S. administration was wrong for even discussing the issue of war with Syria, despite the fact that nothing came of it.
Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
Comment