As has been discussed several times already, the Bush war machine is already looking to switch gears. The strategy of never giving people time to catch up to their deceptions and poor strategy continues.

This article was in the London Times today. The "war" in Iraq is not even won (according to the administration, who use this as one of the reasons the WMD have not been located), and they are already starting the propoganda with Syria.

US Warns Syria it Risks Conflict

After what Syria did to us on 9-11 only a traitor wouldn't want to invade.

ok. I'll bite....

what did Syria do to us on 9/11?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Apr14.html

It VERY much looks like they building up for the fall of syria.... hard to do when all but one of your carriers are gone.

I think they were responsibe for 9/11 werent they? No, wait, that was Saddam. I vaguely remember something about some guy we were going to get "dead or alive". Oh, now i have it, I think maybe it was Iran. Oh well, lets so bomb em' anyway.

[ April 14, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

i'm glad to see you coming around razor.

Well, any invasion of Syria is months away--they need to stabilize Iraq and brainwash us first. In any event, it would be launched from the Mediterranean, not from the Persian Gulf.

Pelosi thinks it's more cost effective to keep all the carriers in the region.

I'm appalled that the NY Times is reporting these administration allegations without even the barest SHRED of skepticism, given that so far the allegations against Iraq haven't borne out. But once again, we see a concerted (and brilliant, I must say, in its simplicity) effort by the administration to create the conditions for the next military push. First Cheney and Rumsfeld make allegations, then W., then Powell, until the chorus drowns out all critics. So far Blair doesn't appear to have been roped in, but it's only a matter of time.

There were supposedly 14,000 sites in Iraq....

A repost from the other thread on this topic--> CharlieStl posted this link: US Claimed 14,000 WMD Sites

"The latest theory being touted in Washington by the usual unnamed government sources is that the Iraqis have moved their weapons out of the country, very possibly into Syria. This claim appears to have originated with Israeli intelligence – which has every motivation for stirring up trouble for its hostile Arab neighbors– and has been bolstered by reports of fighting between Iraqi Special Republican Guard units and US special forces near the Syrian border."

"Disarmament experts do not give the claim much credence. After all, any suspicious convoy or mobile laboratory would almost certainly be spotted by US planes or spy satellites and bombed long before it reached Syria."

"But the notion does provide the hawks in Washington with a compelling plot device not unlike the McGuffin factor in Alfred Hitchcock's films – a catalyst that may or may not have significance in itself but that gets the suspense going and keeps the story rolling."

"If the Bush administration should ever seek to turn its military wrath on Damascus, the weapons of mass destruction it is failing to find in Iraq might just provide the excuse once again."

[ April 14, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Secretary Rumsfeld made much stronger remarks today at the Pentagon. He stated categorically that Syria has tested chemical weapons at least once (translation = one time we think), and is not being "cooperative" with the invasion of their neighbor. He really amped up the rhetoric to the point where it sounds like this is much more imminent than we would think.

Of course, this is the first the administration has mentioned Syria's chemical weapons. This will be the excuse du guerre (of each war), until someone steps up and calls them unequivocally on the charade.

How far will we allow our country to decline into the pit of fundamentalism and violence that we were so outraged at seeing on 9/11. How is this that different for the people of the Middle East than 9/11 was for us? I guess the main difference is that we are announcing our intentions before launching our attacks. However, using force to go in and take over sovereign nations is just as immoral as flying airplanes into buildings. Perhaps not as horrific in the moment, but far more damaging in the long run.

Soon, any nation with enough military force can invade their neighbor and claim pre-emptive self-defense. Think of all the places where this could get out of hand in a hurry. A very scary precedent to be marching out in front of the world.

If this follows the pattern, we'll be hearing more and more about how dangerous they are to us, then about how evil their dictatorship is, and how their people long to be free.

A strange turnabout from after 9/11 when they were cooperating with us to chase terrorists down. Who did they piss off?!

Oh yeah, and Allah Blesss America!!

What is this? A softening of the N Korea position now?

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2...003/s832043.htm

Iran has people trying to have talks with US?

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/sto...,183121,00.html

Amazing what throwing your weight around does to these other EVIL nations. They know there is a president in office who talks with actions, not pretty talk on tv.

It's appeasement vs action.

They may also have noticed that the other powers that they would probably have to negotiate with: China, Russia and France all permanent members of the security council, opposed the Iraq invasion vehemently. And even Britain is a moderate compared to the US. South Korea has always wanted to negotiate and Japan would prefer it.

[ April 14, 2003, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

I nearly laughed until I choked when I heard the "news" on Saturday that Syria is hiding all the "weapons of mass destruction." I wonder how far it'll go and how much of the world will be destroyed before the American people get the message that our country is being run by deranged lunatics! eek!

Even one prominent conservative from the Bush Sr. administration stated today that if Jr.'s administration launches attacks on another Middle Eastern nation, he would like to see citizens calling for an impeachment. He believes that it would be wrong to continue the approach of pre-emption, and that the American people deserve to be governed by people who are open to more than one course of action.

Our country was founded on the principle that authoritarian government was unacceptable. They specifically created a central government with three branches that were not particularly powerful on their own. In two years time, the Executive branch has taken over as much power as it could grab through the actions of the Justice and Defense Departments, and the inactions of a Republican controlled Congress. The balance of our government is skewed, and we are paying the price.

Yeah, the UN-Named person from Sr's admin i would guess also...

Impeachment? that was last admin, not this one.

Now that the Iraqi Freedom compaign has turned out too well, the doomsdayers are saying we are taking over the world.. Bush=Hitler of course.

Ah yes, Syria. The Iran-Syria-Hezbollah chain was, as I recall, the prime suspect in the Lockerbie bombing ... that is, until Poppy needed Syria in his coalition to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Then, magically, Libya became the suspect ... and has remained so ever since.

Not that Khadafy (Ghadafi? Qaddafi? don't get me started) isn't guilty of a zillion terrorist acts ... but the exoneration of Syria in the Lockerbie case was just waaaaay too convenient. Now that Saddam's out of the way (or his whereabouts are conveniently unconfirmed, which means anyone could be hiding him, even you, and you know who you are, etc.), we suddenly remember the occupiers of Lebanon, and we're shocked, shocked!, to find them in such bad company! What next, pool in River City?

Why don't we just admit that they're all bastards over there and that we have to pick our fights in order to win some? Oh, but then we wouldn't be "The City on a Hill" with God on our side against the evildoers. Gag me with a ginsu!

bush = hitler is bang on!

iraqi freedom my ass.

tell it to those maimed, dismembered, mutilated orphaned kids in iraq.

shame on your mr. bush!

hellyeah.

democracy is a farce.

Syria is hiding them now, Im guessing that Iran will have them next. Whatever county Rumsfeld chooses will be playing hide and seek with them after that.

I thought you guys had decided that Iran was next, then N Korea, then syria? Didnt an unnamed person spill that one? the same one that said the battle plan in iraq was bad....

One thing that is becoming clearer to me in all of this--and I say so as a STAUNCH supporter of Israel--is that Israel's security needs have been factored totally into whatever we're doing.

Saddam did not have either weapons or missiles that could have harmed us in ANY immediate scenario (they didn't even unpack the Swiss pistols, etc. in Tikrit). I don't doubt that Israel's military could have taken him out, but WE DID IT, so now Israel has one less major regional threat to worry about (Saddam's Scuds could have hit northern Israel), and a funding source for the Palestinian suicide bombers (as opposed to Al Qaeda) is gone or on the run.

Next, Syria, Israel's recalcitrant neighbor. Syria shelters Hezbollah, and also funds anti-Israeli terrorism in Lebanon, its puppet state. Again, Israel could by itself defeat Syria, but that would bring on an anti-Israeli firestorm. If however we topple Bashar al-Assad, we can then set up not only a pro-Israeli government in Iraq (do not think that this will not happen), but also in Syria and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia will be too scared out of its djellaba to say anything, as will Iran, and Jordan's Abdullah, hoping to hold onto power, is playing a careful game and won't cross us as his father did. He's got no oil, not a lot of money, and his own Palestinian powderkeg. Egypt, however it feels about Israel, already has a treaty with that country, and in any case, Mubarak has seen what happened to Saddam. We wouldn't even have to attack him, but just let his people at him and the upper reaches of the armed forces. Turkey and Israel get along quite well.

All of this would also then allow Israel to push further into the occupied territories and East Jerusalem (which it is doing as we speak), while further marginalizing the Palestinians. That "security wall" might just be erected far to the west of the 1967 borders--maybe along the border with Jordan and Syria! (A fence already separates Israel from Lebanon). Where would the Palestinians then go? No one wants them. Jordan doesn't, Lebanon threw them out a while ago (remember that was where Arafat was in the 1970s-80s, before the civil war there), a reconstituted Syria would provide no home...so what's left? Yemen? (We've got troops there.) Pakistan? (They're not Arabs.) They'll never be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. or the EU now. Not a lot of options--maybe Canada, but then we'd have a strong(-armed) say in that. Canada would reverse policy swiftly.

All in all, Israel comes out considerably stronger now that Saddam is out, and if we topple Syria (and Lebanon), Israel will really be--at least for a time--able to breathe much more freely. They held up their side of the bargain--no bombs and no overt actions against Iraq during the war. JINSA obviously has thought all of this through carefully, and is seeing it being realized in real time.

[ April 14, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Many people who were opposed to the way this military action was undertaken made the observation a long time ago about how this administration intends to wield military power far and wide. It's not some sour grapes complaint that's arising now: but the statements on Syria merely make it more obvious that the observations were keen and accurate.

"Factored" perhaps but not "totally". Nothing could be worse for Israel in the long run than for us to be seen as running around the Middle East overthrowing countries to support them.

Our mythology of a shared judeo-christian destiny will not have as much influence in a less evangelical administration. This administration seems to have a corporate-like shortterm (shortsighted?) business plan (perhaps a four-year one? ) and, like the best laid plans of mice and men, is vulnerable to vicissitudes.

The coincidence of our goals with Israel's could become a casualty of this administration's policies.

a mars-smitten america must go back to the days and years when its cultural masts bulged with orchestral crash of "the land of the free and the home of the brave". it may have defined liberty too much by pulling out almost all of the stops for individual freedom and human rights, by liberating sex till it became a brazen, foul-smelling commodity, by overselling hollywood. still, it was okay. but when a republican america took over, the world was again its imperial oyster. when september 9, 2001 struck, the US leadership heard anew the imperious and imperial language of the Caesars – George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice.

but could America still back off? could the world again swing 180 degrees to the america where everybody could speak out, where nobody was above the law, where a foreigner never felt he was a foreigner, and freedom was a brace of matches repeatedly struck in the dark – anytime, anywhere. oh lawdy, lawdy.

a conquered iraq would be the supreme test.

the lesson must be learned by washington that the arrogance of power drove it to war on iraq. it shunted aside the united nations which was the dream of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a great american who looked at the diversity of the world as a blessing, not a curse. the US must understand the iraqi people do not look upon america as a liberator but a conqueror. yes, the hated and reviled Saddam Hussein was overthrown. but this did not mean the iraqis were only too ready to wrap themselves in the folds of the stars and stripes. they want their own government, chosen by them, not a puppet and papoose government smelling of hot dogs, McDos, kentucky fried chicken, and the insipid verbal vapors of George W. Bush.

You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing Bush to one of the most evil monsters to have ever lived, to someone who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, including an attempt to systematically wipe out an entire class of people.

BTW, tell this to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people Hussein tortured, maimed, and slaughtered. Of course, that's a helluva lot more acceptable than what is happening now as a result of this war.

Syria's unrelenting antisemtism is unquestioned. But the WMD comment today was so completely laughable.

Syria (or N Korea or Iran) is a litmus test. If nothing happens militarily against them, Bush can probably carry the next election. Even with an economy that refuses to right my sinking stock portfolio.

If he attacks any of the current countries on the "Shit List," then we can all finally admit that POTUS is f**king insane! Poland only happened after no one could prevent Czechoslovakia, you know.

[Pause for Godwin's Law to be envoked by you-know-who, even though I didn't actually use the N word]

A nice lesson kids... never drink and post....

There is a rather heavy (and murky) mix of Christian Right mythology (based on the futurist view of Revelation as a quasi-horoscope, which is as dubious within a Biblical framework as it is outside one) and Hearst-era "manifest destiny" thinking (whether recast as the "America's Christian Heritage" myth or not) inside the Beltway these days. Dubya swallows the former whole and plays into the hands of the latter.

It's not just a good idea; it's the law. You didn't actually say N*** or H*****; I think that's the acid test.

[ April 15, 2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Why is it that the one counrty that appears to be the biggest threat (North Korea) is essentially left unchecked?

Very much reminds me of the school yard bully who picks on easy targets in order to "prove" his toughness and masculinity. This President is surrounded by a group of detached old men and "yes" men and women. Apparently, he has few friends outside politics and very little interest in much of anything but politics and war. Very dangerous and scary!

Hardly surprising -- while Secretary Powell urges calmness and expresses his belief that there are no plans to engage Syria in a military conflict, Tweedle-Dum and Condi Rice are telling the President to take immediate action. This administration cannot get its act together. And we have seen how well they listen to the solid and wise advice from Secretary Powell.

Rumsfeld and Rice Advise Immediate Action

Colin Powell is the Tony Blair of this administration. frown

On last weeks edition of the Art Bell show, you guys said Iran was next.. now it's syria? I cant keep up with all these take over the world conspiracy bushy seems to be doing...

Art Bell retired on December 31 of 2002. The man who puts together the pieces on Iraq, Syria, et al. is Alex Jones.

Here are just two stories linked from the site today.

US bans media from protests

This story was also reported as Iraqis protest against US occupation

The second story is Troops fire on protesters



[ April 15, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

for Twin:

Wow! A gay Art Bell fan! I love it! :cool:

Whatever you say about Art Bell, "mainstream" is definitely not an apt description.

WAIT A MINUTE.............
I thought this war in Iraq was just for oil. There's not much of that in either Syria or North Korea. So, no we won't be "invading" Syria anytime soon! We also have in this country something called an election. So, if Mr. Bush is the power hungry mad man so many people here think, he won't be re-elected, but wait if he's only concerned with "power" then he won't invade Syria, cause' most Americans, including republicans, don't want us to be the world's boss. Seriously, we need Fantomas to give us the facts(historically) on Syria. Fantomas....it's all yours.

Nine, you're way behind,

BEFORE we went into iraq, that's when it was about oil. (the build up)

Then when we went it, we were in for another vietnam.

When they wait for supplies, it was the failed battle plan.

There were a few threads up us being unwelcomed.

Dont forget about the massive fight we were in for when it was time to take baghdad.

NOW, we are on the world conquest threads. It's hard to keep up i know.. After each thoery falls they move onto a new one. Right now Syria looks the best to them because N Korea seems to lightening their position and people in Iran want to have talks with the US. The only one they have left is Syria. 2 carriers left the region this week didnt they? see, we are building up forces to go in...

Next week on the World Domination show, we take down those communists in Cuba.

Why not Cuba? eek!

But seriously, the oil issue remains salient; we will make sure that whatever puppet (probably Chalabi, but maybe not) we put in place will give us the best concessions on oil and not think, as Saddam had done, of shifting from dollars to euros as the pricing medium.

As for Syria, as more than one person has pointed out, Perle and others have drawn up plans that call for invading that country. Condi Rice and Loosey-Goosey the Emotional One are frothing at the bit to rush in there, while Colin "Old Sage One" Powell is trying to back off this. Our coalition partner Blair also is against attacking Syria. But the administration does appear to be gearing up for something against that country, once again with the phantom chem weapons (notice the dropping of the mantra "weapons of mass destruction" label) charges. At any rate, Israel could take this one by itself.

Again, you've never addressed the absence of the 14,000 weapons of mass destruction that W. claimed were the pretext for the war. He won the war, but the premise was based on lies. So just say that. I'd certainly back off him for a change.

Actually, I seem to recall the administration claiming that Iraq was moving materials (naturally assumed to be WMD's) across the Syrian border, before they invaded. If they're lying, it's repugnant--but it wouldn't surprise me, given that this is an administration that has already used forged documents (knowingly or otherwise) to convince Congress and the American people that this war was necessary. If it's actually true, the U.S. has succeeded in driving sworn enemies (Syria was part of the U.S.-led coalition in the Gulf War, remember) so close that they would share chemical weapons. Isn't that kind of alarming? Do we really want to pursue a policy that could succeed in actually uniting the Arab world against us?

Close.

Project for the New American Century

letter to Clinton

letter ot Bush

new world

None of the above mention war with Syria. For that, try this 1996 article by Perle.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00176.htm

Perle wants Israel to do the invading.

Sorry that they havent found them yet, it's been what years that we've been searching for them on our own? oh wait, not a year, 6 months? one month? huh? you mean they just called miliary action over a few days ago? oh sorry...

The UN had 12 years to find and destroy them, why dont you at least wait one more month before squacking about it....

f**k OFF! :mad:

now the leaders of america - republican of the extreme right fairly brimming with fanatical fight - are laying it thick on syria. the warning is that unless syria, according to the US allegation, stops giving refuge to pro-Saddam iraqi leaders fleeing iraq, then it too will experience american wrath. so will the vast american invasion armada that laid siege on iraq now get marching orders to attack syria? the world no longer believes that baloney that syria – like iraq earlier – harbors weapons of mass destruction.

and after Syria, will it be iran? And after iran? north korea?

I heard from an un-named source that used to work for Bushy 1 that they had plans to next invade Congo BEFORE they take out Syria.. After syria this person, which wants to be nameless, said that they will go after New Zealand and all their boating. While in New Zealand, they can launch an attack on N Korea. With them out of the way, they can stomp right into the major prize of China. Rummy seems to fond of the food there, this person told me... that was off the record. You ask why the real reason for the war? World conquest? NO, so Clinton will have something to talk about on 60 minutes each week.

All of these victories have HORRIBLE war plans which might slow them down to ONLY taking over the world in the next 6 months, rather than the next 4 months.

Next up on After Dark, people who talk to the wind...... ohhhhhhhhhhh....

Philly.....

what's your point? It seems that your modus operandi consists of belittling other people's points without making any points of your own (now here's the important part!) backed up by facts. and you never seem to address points raised by those disagreeing if all facts seem to contradict your position. You don't give your logic. you just never bother answering the question.

what I'm saying is .. the best way to try to get others to see your point of view is by NOT saying "ok. and you're a dumbass!"

I understand that you are way more (I don't wanna say "conservative" cuz I am one) But you seem to be an acolyte of the Rumsfeld school (I am not) and therefore feel a bit overwhelmed on this site (as I sometimes do) But you aren't convincing anyone of anything by how you come across.

what I'm saying is maybe if you were to really engage in dialogue with those who bring up opposing points instead of just spouting juvenile remarks that sound like "Beavis and Butthead as White House spokesmen" while never answering points directed at ya, things may be better understood by all.

Ung this has become almost comical.

It's all conspiracy theories. Once disproven, like the war plan... they simply move on to the next one. Before the war, it was... They will go into Iran, now when sturn words are said to Syria... OMG we are going in.

Bush said he was going into Iraq, and he did. Now Syria can stew on that... shape up or ship out. However, instead of realizing this... it's world conquest. LOL. If you are wanting Syria to give over any iraqi that came over, and pipe down with their terrorist activities in Israel, what are you going to say? Even if you have no intention of invading the country, you leave the option open.

N Korea? Looks like N Korea is talking now...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84285,00.html

I thought you guys said they wanted to take them out too? Are they off the hit list now that they wish to talk? I posted above how certain Iranians are wanting to bring talks with the US now.

I'll make the prediction right now, when Syria falls in line.... i'll pull the thread up again, but we will be onto a new "conspiracy" by then... so no one will care.

of course they haven't found them (wmd) yet. the shell casings aren't even cool, we haven't had time to plant them yet!

[ April 16, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]

That's really a good conspiracy theory... so really it doesnt matter if they find them or not... ya'all wont believe it anyway... GWB 04!