ghhhhhost Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 the US is fuckin runnin out of enemies...on to Syria US attention turns to SyriaAfter the fall of Saddam Hussein, the United States is turning its attention to Syria. There are fears across the Arab world that one day American guns might be turned on Syria, too; and that, even if they are not, American policy will be directed towards reshaping the Arab world just as Britain and France did after World War I. The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says that Syria is not "next on the list" after Iraq. But the Americans are certainly angry with Syria and are making specific charges. The two most immediate are connected to the war. " The (Syrian) government's making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgment calls, in my view, and they're associating with the wrong people " - RUMSFELDThe first is that Syria has helped Iraq over the past few months by providing equipment such as night vision goggles and by allowing Syrian and other fighters to enter Iraq to fight for Saddam Hussein's forces. The second is that Syria is giving refuge to senior associates of Saddam Hussein. The US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld summed up the American attitude saying: "The (Syrian) government's making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgment calls, in my view, and they're associating with the wrong people." There are two further charges against Syria. One is that it is developing chemical weapons and the other that it continues to help or harbour those whom the US regards as terrorists - the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in particular. Syrians are keeping a close eye on what happens in Iraq Syria remains on the US list of "states sponsoring terrorism." Syria has denied the first three charges by saying that it has not helped Iraq, that is not hiding any senior Iraqi figures, (indeed that historically it has been hostile to Saddam Hussein, which is certainly the case), and that it has no chemical weapons programme. As for the fourth charge, it says that the groups named by the US maintain only "press offices" in Damascus. American attitudes towards Syria appear to be part of a wider policy. There are some in the Bush administration who favour the advancement of democracy in the region through the "democratic domino" effect which is supposed to follow the establishment of representative government in Iraq. Their view was reflected in Britain in an article in the London Times by William Rees-Mogg who declared: "The American victory on Iraq is a warning to the tyrants and terrorists of the world. The momentum of liberty continues to accelerate." Others in Washington simply think that now is the time to exert American influence in the region, whether democracy happens or not. Syria is generally regarded in Washington as an ossified regime despite the arrival of the young President Bashar al-Assad. He is seen as continuing the policies, certainly the foreign policies, of his father. Despite his youth Syria's president is regarded as a conservative leader Unlike Britain, which prefers an active but discreet dialogue with Damascus, the US prefers to make its demands very publicly. Jonathan Stevenson, Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said that he did not think that the US would use military force against Syria. "Even the Bush administration would think that unduly provocative," he told BBC News Online, "having alienated swathes of Arab opinion by not getting the second resolution for action against Iraq." However, he did think that the US would give "more attention to Hezbollah." "And Syria is Hezbollah's landlord," he added. Israeli pressure Israeli is certainly hoping for pressure on Syria. The Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has said that Israel has a "long list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians." "It starts with removing the Hezbollah threat from southern Lebanon," he said. Israel has for long accused Syria of fomenting trouble along its border with Lebanon by supporting Hezbollah. Syria is accused of supporting Hezbollah Syria itself sees the hand of Israel behind the American attitude and suspects that the US is now picking off the enemies of Israel one by one to facilitate a settlement with the Palestinians along Israeli lines. Dr Buthamiah Sha'ban of the Syrian Foreign Ministry said that US accusations against Syria emanated from Israel, which she described as the "main instigator" in harming US-Syrian relations. Whatever the origin of the policy, Syria is in the frame. And perhaps Iran will follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyf82 Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 Let's not jump to conclusions yet........but if they are harboring people from a brutal regime what should we do...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr0ne Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 well if you haven't realized by now, it's this administration's goal to turn the middle east into a gigantic fucking parking lot so we all have somewhere to park our gas guzzling SUVs. iran is probably next after syria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ou812 Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 But wait.............I thought we were supposed to bomb N. Korea next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 If anything, Syria was more of a threat to us than Iraq ever was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr0ne Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 Originally posted by ou812 But wait.............I thought we were supposed to bomb N. Korea next? they were going to, but then george bush found out that kim jong has the world largest collection of porn, and decided to spare him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotcheme Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 Originally posted by ou812 But wait.............I thought we were supposed to bomb N. Korea next? i don't think there is a lot of oil there.besides, shouldn't we clean up the mess we have made in Iraq? Sometimes our foriegn policy disgusts me.*waits for this to get moved to the politics forum* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 if the uS continues like this, i think we need to worry about Iran and North Korea much more, especially since they might have a "pre-emptive" strike of their own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 yea go ahead and bomb n. Korea. and start a nuclear war you people have tunnel vision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 yeah bush would be a moron if he started a conflict with north korea....scratch that, he's a moron anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magellanmax Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by ou812 But wait.............I thought we were supposed to bomb N. Korea next? And maybe the modern day expansionist Nazis can expand to China while they are at it....and lets see how that goes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by vicman yeah bush would be a moron if he started a conflict with north korea....scratch that, he's a moron anyways. I second that. he is like an untrained puppy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkutlass Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 You people r funny! I bet North korea gets there act together, because of our great job we r doing in Iraqi. Why were there so many attacks on US places during the Clinton's years, because of No respect.............NOW we have respect or at least they now know we mean business. I know it was SO great to live under Saddam, like Club Med in Bagh. Those dumb people why r they so happy we took out Saddam? Life was So good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by magellanmax And maybe the modern day expansionist Nazis can expand to China while they are at it....and lets see how that goes.... MODERN DAY HIPPIE... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 N.Korea conceded to having multi-national talks.. WOW yet another positive from the Iraqi war, man the points are adding up for this President... I don't know if you tree huggers realise this but the WORLD responds to power by giving respect.. The Clinton-Gore fiasco FAILED at this miserably.. that's why 2 embassies, Cole and the planning of 911 happened on their watch... N/KOREA learned it's lesson from Iraq and in due time so will Iran and Syria...Cheer up boys and girls the world will be a better place because someone grabbed their balls to attack this promblem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by mr mahs N.Korea conceded to having multi-national talks.. WOW yet another positive from the Iraqi war, man the points are adding up for this President... I don't know if you tree huggers realise this but the WORLD responds to power by giving respect.. The Clinton-Gore fiasco FAILED at this miserably.. that's why 2 embassies, Cole and the planning of 911 happened on their watch... N/KOREA learned it's lesson from Iraq and in due time so will Iran and Syria...Cheer up boys and girls the world will be a better place because someone grabbed their balls to attack this promblem... exactly."ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crobra Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 IMO, syria and Iran are more of a threat than Iraq ever was. If there is evidence that WMD were snuck over the border to either of those countries, maybe military action might be necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crobra Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by mr mahs The Clinton-Gore fiasco FAILED at this miserably.. that's why 2 embassies, Cole and the planning of 911 happened on their watch... Last time I checked, GW was in office when 9/11 happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by crobra Last time I checked, GW was in office when 9/11 happened. The WTC was vplanned for 2 years before that day... The terrorists drew their confidence from the embassy and Cole bombings... Did you know it took Clinton 2.5 weeks before meeting with CIA to discuss the bombings?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crobra Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by mr mahs The WTC was vplanned for 2 years before that day... The terrorists drew their confidence from the embassy and Cole bombings... Did you know it took Clinton 2.5 weeks before meeting with CIA to discuss the bombings?? I'm not saying people didnt drop the ball, but I just dont think you can lay the whole thing on Clinton. Hind sight is 20/20, and I doubt the country would have supported invading Afghanistan over the cole or embassy bombing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by crobra I'm not saying people didnt drop the ball, but I just dont think you can lay the whole thing on Clinton. Hind sight is 20/20, and I doubt the country would have supported invading Afghanistan over the cole or embassy bombing. Not meeting with the CIA for 2 weeks is more thendropping the ball... It means he could give a rats ass what happened.. He also cut defense spending.. He was interested more in preseving the rain forest or where on Monica dress he wanted to top off on.. then to be bothrered with 18 of our sailors losing their lives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by crobra I'm not saying people didnt drop the ball, but I just dont think you can lay the whole thing on Clinton. Hind sight is 20/20, and I doubt the country would have supported invading Afghanistan over the cole or embassy bombing. uhhh you know that clinton was given 3 opportunities to get osama bin laden.. the saudis and the taliban both offered him to clinton and clinton said no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crobra Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Originally posted by siceone uhhh you know that clinton was given 3 opportunities to get osama bin laden.. the saudis and the taliban both offered him to clinton and clinton said no I remember reading about that, but I dont remember all the details. I dont believe it was that cleat cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.