So, with Iraq now a smoking hole, where looting runs rampant and no form of government exists save for the presence of U.S. military might, with what is our Glorious Leader Bush now concerned?
There MIGHT be WMD in Syria! Saddam Might be there!
Does any of this sound familiar?
What say we finish one thing before starting another?
Oh I think that’s already the plan.
There are WMD in America, Britain, France, Russia, etc… So what?
I think it was a mistake to say that the iraq war was about WMD. I think it was about removing someone who was hated and who tortured his people, and who might have used his WMD to inflict mass casualties.
I think Damascus should be afraid, very afraid.
Well, and Saddam must be hiding there, too. Maybe even, umm, you know, whazzhizname. Oh, shoot. You know, that guy, with the long beard and turban. O’Sampson? Bin Something. Damn, my attention span is so short these days. Good thing I can trust my leaders to tell me who to fear.
good. we are at war, remember?
And I repeat from another post, if this was Clinton or Gore doing this, 99% of these protesters would be all for it.
So this is how it’s gonna go then? accuse each arab nation in turn of holding WMD and harboring Saddam until we control the entire middle east? It’s like Bush isn’t even trying to be subtle about it any more. His misdirection attempts are like those of a six-year-old’s when first trying out the magic kit he got for his birthday. “Hmm no WMD found in Iraq? Hey! Look over there! Syria has WMDs! And Saddam! And Binwhatshisface!”
Canada is looking better and better…
That is unless THEY are hiding WMD too!
milroyj said
10.0 from the “smug” judge.
2.50 from the "gee, why is this arab shooting at me? " judge.
You’ll never get it, will you?
First off, I am not a protester. I am no fan of Clinton. I was willing to give Bush some benefit of the doubt about the WMD. I figured he might have SOME information about Iraqi WMD, and besides, Saddam needed taking out. Ok?
But now he’s beginning the “Let’s attack Syria next!” hype, and we aren’t even done in Iraq yet. I am beginning to wonder if there might not be a kernal of truth to those whack jobs who think Bush might be attempting to trigger Armageddon by eventualy taking Mecca…
Not putting on the aluminum foil beenie yet, mind you, but…
[sarcasm]Yeah, and if it were Clinton or Gore wanting to go to war with Iraq, those having sucking Bush’s proverbial cock would be having a shit fit.[/sarcasm]
Doesn’t this ever get OLD after a while?
sigh If it were a sitcom it would be funny.
And it reminds us that you are an idiot.
I think it is you who doesn’t get it. The reason that the typical Arab is shooting at you is because his government/religious leader is telling him that the cause of all his woes is you. Until you remove those leaders and give him some perspective on what the actual causes of his misfortunes are (his government and religious leaders) he will not stop shooting.
That’s screamingly funny, Uzi.
Where exactly are you getting your perspective from?
Damn, you lefties better get started with some preemptive (evil word, no?) protests now. Look how much good the last round did for your stupid cause. I bet if you had just a few more ‘Bushitler’ and ‘GW is the real terrorists’ signs, you would really get your point across, this time.
But scamper off, and get those signs made and those bongos ready!
From what I have read, he is warning them to stay out of it. What should he do when they are helping the Iraqi’s?
Holy cow, you guys are just foaming at the mouth over this stuff.
Look: Bush and Rumsfeld are threatening Syria because Syria is a problem with THIS war. Ba’ath party officials are crossing the border into it, and foreign fighters are coming the other way. A few tough words while Syria is scared might stop this, and make the job of the military much easier.
What do you expect them to do? “Hey look - Syria is sending fighters into Iraq, and letting Hussein’s minions escape into their country! Shh… Better not say anything - we don’t want to upset them!”
This is the best opportunity right now to get Syria to fall into line WITHOUT war. That requires tough talk, and Bush is providing it.
wait, I thought Saddam was the problem. Or was it Bin-whatshisname? Or WMD? or was it lack of freedom? I need a new scorecard.
Well Sam… look at the bright side…
As I’ve pointed out recently, one of the 5 “Golden Ideals” that are shared by ALL stable societys down through history and presently across the globe, is this - a commitment by that society to uphold a free press and the right of dissent. As much as I recoil with mortified embarassment as I read some of the opinions being expressed at the moment, nonetheless, I rejoice in the right of folks to exercise their “right to add a dissenting voice” if they choose.
Still, it has to be said… Syria is no clean angel by any stretch of the imagination. She was one of the original combatants in the Isreal War of 1948 and was also involved in the '67 and '73 wars too. She supports the Druze majority of the Lebanon and openly allows Hezbollah to run the civil affairs of the southern quarter of that country. She plays off many sordid interests amongst one another and thus far, somewhat miraculously, has avoided having to pay her dues for all of the overt, and covert, meddling she has done down through the years.
It’s generally agreed that Lebanon is now an economic anchor on Syria. Lebanon has been trading in the “red” for quite some time and the stability in Lebanon has only been achieved through Syria’s patronage over the last 13 years. However, it seems Syria is positioning herself to extricate herself from Lebanon - which will leave a power vacuum there too - but on a much larger scale than what we’re seeing in Iraq at the moment.
Most reasonable pundits agree that there’s very little “end game” in it for Syria to be openly assisting Saddam’s regime - apart from the egotistical wank achieved by playing up to Arab Street. There’s a bit of ego involved in it for sure - after all, the B’aath Party was created there in 1947 and thereupon exported to Iraq, so there’s a sense of Saddam’s regime having a sort of “fleeing to the motherland” as it were.
Arab Street, rightly or wrongly, is a region awash with a seemingly ENDLESS list of disincentives NOT to change - many, MANY layers of power base are in jeopardy if things profoundly undergo a quantum shift in perception. And the strata run across many demographics… national boundaries, tribal boundaries, religious boundaries, ethnic boundaries…
Ultimately, I think most reasonable people would agree with the following… only recently, through Al-Jazeera of all things, has a genuinely pan-Arabic freedom of the press entered into the fray. Certainly, Al-Jazeera plays up to Arab Street sensitivities - and why shouldn’t it? It’s a ratings war after all. But equally true is that Al-Jazeera is also staffed by many ex BBC trained folks - and it seems a committment to the truth is also right at the top of their charter.
All the USA has to do is to state her case honestly, admit past mistakes where it’s necessary, and to do so regularly with humility and contrition on Al-Jazeera and the dust will settle rather fairly.
Syria is an excellent litmus test of my theories actually.
As I said, there’s very little “end-game” for Syria to fight a war with the USA via insurgent proxy when the people of Iraq herself wish to move on to a better life. Even Al-Jazeera will call such a policy for what it is…
I’d be satisfied with just this part, as long as the answer made some kind of sense, and wasn’t just “We’re trying to see just how much we can get away with.” And by USA, I mean Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.
(And the people they use as mouthpieces, like Powell and Bush).