Syria Next?

Forums: Asia
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Today the Bush regime, assisted by a compliant media, has begun villifying and issuing threats against Iraq's neighbour, Syria.

Starting to look like more Americans are going to have to die and billions more from taxpayers in Bush's attempts to succeed where Hitler failed?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 12,253 • Replies: 163

No top replies

I think the next hitler-wannabe, Kim Jong Il, is going to start puffing his cheeks out until somebody thumps him in the forehead. He's got a million commie Army and some kind of nuke capacity but the size and shape of his country and his neighbors will do him in. Now that it's legal to kill foreign "leaders", maybe the CIA should do what they're supposed to be good at and and sneak some "freedom fighters" in and clean his clock. It would save a lot of trouble for everyone, especially the North Koreans. I actually am a peacenik. This just happens to be the most peaceful and just way. Ciao, Dov

0 Replies

dov1953, Common sense in politics? Rolling Eyes

There are no big bucks for weapons suppliers from taxpayers' pockets or photo opportunities or votes for politicians, in flak jackets waving American flags, from assassinations. Cool

0 Replies

Syria next?
Shhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't even suggest it! Shocked

0 Replies

Of course, it may take another September 11th-type atrocity to generate the public support needed for invasions of Syria or Iran.

Still, I'm sure some 'helpful' terrorist who can be linked to either country will be only too willing to oblige. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

msolga - Cheney (pronounced che - ney) has already suggested it a number of times in the last week, as in, Saddam has gone there with his WoMD. I don't think they need another 9/11 JW - Bush is on a roll!

0 Replies

0 Replies

Sad, but true! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

The horror, the horror!

0 Replies

Question 1: Does Syria have oil? Wink

My answer depends on whether they have oil or not. Anything else will be ignored by this administration. c.i.

0 Replies

I am shocked at this horrid display of cynicism! I love that. However, I think we ought to wait at least ten days before we plan on another nation to attack. Otherwise we might seem like war mongers. We ought to avoid Saudia Arabia and Iran because they are both, separately, five times bigger than Iraq and Iran is all mountainous. That would be a war not nearly as much fun. We ought to let them evolve on their own because they seem to have made some genuine progress in the last ten years. Attacking Saudia Arabia would seem like Catholics attacking the Vatican. It just wouldn't play in the sticks. Maybe we should just attack our only really true enemy; France!

0 Replies

Syria is of course the most obvious and easiest country to attack. North Korea is not an option. They might fight back.

Quote:

N Korea 'ready for war'
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il visited an air force base and told pilots he believed they were ready to "beat back the enemy any time," the state news agency reports.
The visit came as a senior North Korean diplomat said the outcome of the war in Iraq had made his country determined to defend itself against a possible United States attack.

"The result of the Iraq war gives the DPRK [North Korea] a kind of determination and the will to take assured measures to defend its territory against possible US attacks," Han Song-ryol told a seminar in Cambridge, in the US.

It was believed to be the first time North Korea had commented on the outcome of the war in Iraq, which like the Stalinist state, also falls into Washington's "axis of evil".

Quote:
The United States has remained suspicious that North Korea has been working on uranium enrichment for several years
CIA report

Mr Han added that the US could "expect many positive steps from North Korea in resolving nuclear problems" if it accepted its offer for direct talks. But Washington wants multilateral talks which would also include China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.

In a report released on Thursday, the American CIA said North Korea appeared to be aiming to build a plant that could produce enough uranium for two or more nuclear weapons a year.

The unclassified report to Congress assessed the acquisition of technology related to weapons of mass destruction for various countries in 2002.

The period covered by the report precedes the stand-off between the US and North Korea, which has expelled UN nuclear inspectors and restarted a nuclear reactor.

"The United States has remained suspicious that North Korea has been working on uranium enrichment for several years," the report said.

"However, we did not obtain clear evidence indicating that North Korea had begun constructing a centrifuge facility until recently."
North Korea continues to export ballistic missile-related equipment and technology to the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, the report added.

The CIA has at other times said that North Korea probably already has one or two nuclear weapons.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/2938227.stm

0 Replies

dov1953 wrote:

Maybe we should just attack our only really true enemy; France!

So...because France did what they consider in their own best interests instead of what we wanted them to do, they are now our enemy -- and our only really true enemy at that!

Brilliant.

I'm sure the guys over at the bowling alley are in awe of your ability to reason.

0 Replies

c.i. - no oil but they may have Sa-dam!

0 Replies

From today's reports, it seems the Administration are preparing to justify invading Syria on the grounds that the Syrian Government are refusing to hand over Saddam Hussein or any of his henchmen (whether they are in Syria or not). Why am I reminded of Afghanistan?

Apparently their Nazi blood-lust and appetite for invasion has not been satisfied by Iraq?

0 Replies

I'll have you know I don't go bowling. I engage in a weekly picking contest. Don't ask me what we pick.

0 Replies

frolic: Every body thought Iraq would "fight back" too.

Apparently Kim Jong II has been watching the war.NK to US: We were just kiddin' before!

0 Replies

John Webb: Is the fact that they are fighting Coalition Forces in Western Iraq make a difference to you?

Or the fact that they sent weapons and soldiers to come to Iraq's aid matter?

Thank goodness it does to this Administration.

0 Replies

Did Syria SEND any of their own armed forces or are these simply volunteers?

Still, why let the facts get in the way of a good lie?

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

frolic: Every body thought Iraq would "fight back" too.

Apparently Kim Jong II has been watching the war.NK to US: We were just kiddin' before!

Remember the Iraqi army fought two bloody war in the last 20 years and they were very limited because of the sanctions to modernise their army. The N-K army is three to four times bigger and is well equiped, because of close relations with China and Russia. And the most important factor. They have nukes.

Other considerations.

China would not allow a war in its backyard against a natural ally.
South Korea would not allow a war in which they could suffer a lot of losses.

Syria is likely. N-K and even Iran are not an option. N-K will never be an option. Iran is not a option for the moment because of the cost to conquer and occupy it. Any idea how much this cakewalk in Iraq has costed?

0 Replies

Syria Next?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know