Should The U.S. Go after Syria now??

[sdalton]

It has been said by many Iraqi informants, Iraqi military officials, and captured leaders that Iraq hid a lot of its Biological, and Chemicals in Syria. They also supported, openly, terrorists, and still allow them safe passage inside their borders, including them trying to exit their country into Iraq. They have also provided many of the terrorists French Visa to travel about with. Do you think we should deal with them now, while we have the manpower and machinery over there??

 

[Sled Puller]

With out a doubt, hit them now.



We declared war on terrorists, and nations that harbor them.



Soft political bs has gotten us the mess we are in now.



If the last two countrys are not enough of a lesson, maybe a third will do it.



The line needs drawn: Fork over what ever Saddam has given you, or else. The clock is ticking.



We also need to have at least sanctions against the countrys that went agaisnst the UN treaty with Iraq the last twelve years.



Finally, we have our enemys out in the open.



Syria will give though, they are starting to learn.

 

[illflem]

Originally posted by Sled Puller

Syria will give though, they are starting to learn.

Yeah right until our troops leave.

Unless we occupy Muslim countries forever they'll revert the day we pull out. Plus when we finally leave they'll have plenty of reasons why it's ok to fly airliners into skyscrapers. Is that what we want, occupying every country that disagrees with us forever? It hasn't worked for any other imperialistic nation.

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by illflem

Yeah right until our troops leave.

Unless we occupy Muslim countries forever they'll revert the day we pull out. Plus when we finally leave they'll have plenty of reasons why it's ok to fly airliners into skyscrapers. Is that what we want, occupying every country that disagrees with us forever? It hasn't worked for any other imperialistic nation.

EXCELLENT POINT!!



I'm with illflem, Nuke'em. Say when. End game, lets finish it proper.

 

[FATCAT]

No way! Not now, only after ....

... a huge VX nerve gas or bio-weapon attack against a major American city occurs with WMD's from Syria via Iraq.



- Then we need to crawl to the UN again for sanctions.

- Then we need to threaten Syria with "you better not do that again".

- Then we need to send Carter and Clinton to Damascus to work out a new "agreed framework" signed by Syria and US delegates that would guarantee pease in our time.

- Then after we are attacked again, this time by a nuke and we loose some 500,000 people plus another million or two to radiation poisoning down the road.



- Then and ONLY THEN, might we consider sending some troops to Syria.

 

[loncray]

The way I figure it, if any of those yoyo's over there actually had serious WMD's (and we're still waiting to find what the Iraqi's mighta had - didn't that last batch of Sarin turn out to maybe be pesticides?), they'd've used them on Tel Aviv by now.

Even with all the attacks on Israel, the Israeli's haven't completely cut loose on anybody since they invaded Lebanon back in '82. They haven't nuked anybody, they haven't gassed anybody. Israel is nothing if not aggressively defensive - so why do you want America to go out and be even more belligerant? Other countries in this world that used to respect America now fear us. Fearful people (like young, impoverished Muslim men) do stupid things - and we won't ever have enough troops to stop them all. Besides, most of the guys who flew airliners into buildings were Saudis - where's the US troops hunting people in Saudi Arabia?

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by loncray



Israel is nothing if not aggressively defensive - so why do you want America to go out and be even more belligerant? Other countries in this world that used to respect America now fear us. Fearful people (like young, impoverished Muslim men) do stupid things - and we won't ever have enough troops to stop them all. Besides, most of the guys who flew airliners into buildings were Saudis - where's the US troops hunting people in Saudi Arabia?

"aggressively defensive" And there lies their problem. They need to be decisively defensive, ie. wipe the enemy out.





Who fears us?

Our enemys, that have shown themselves.



Those stupid men, have always done stupid things, may as well kill as many as we can, to prevent them from doing stupid things.



No, we don't have enough army to control the world.



It is amazing, however, how much fight was taken out of some of the most vicious fighters the world had ever seen, by dropping two little bombs.



They have brought this battle upon themselves.



The Saudis?

Perhaps in good time.

 

[loncray]

The problem with wiping the enemy out, as the Israelis have found out, is that you never get rid of all of them. And the mere act of killing those you know about breeds many more you don't. The 9/11 murderers did what they did at least partially because the US supports Israel, and they resented what was being done to their 'Palestinian brethren'.

And you're right about the Japanese, except that their society was different from the various Middle East countries. The Japanese were dutifully following their leaders, who WERE the most vicious fighters on the planet. The leaders of most countries in the Middle East would just as soon their hotheads cool off - lest those hotheads turn on the leaders themselves!

 

[Champane Flight]

And then?

After Iraq, Syria. After Syria N. Korea. The problem with this is, after we take them, What?



We are going to turn Iraq into a "Model of democracy" according to our President. If we do give them the right to vote for the people of their choice, we will have another Iran. The Shiite's are the majority and majority rules. So do we just give them the democracy WE want? Or do we stand to our word and give them true democracy?

 

[sdalton]

Lets see, the republicans are in the majority in the United states. Should we give the Republicans Total rule CF?? By the way, since when do you care what happens, as long as it doesnt happen in your back yard??

 

[illflem]

Since when have Republicans been the majority?

 

[sdalton]

WHo is president? Who hold the Majority in the House and Senate? I believe the people elected them, not selected them. It might seem that there are more Democrates, only because they tend to be loudmouths, in your face, and are more easily heard and seen. Whether we like it or not. It is because the Democrats often use, or should I say abuse the right, called Freedom of Speech. In most of their case it should be rename the Right to Be Obnoxious, not the Right to Free Speech.

 

[Champane Flight]

I see

I see more Republicans being the loud, in your face, and heard most of the time. And in these times being beligerent and obnoxius is patriotically correct.

 

[illflem]

As far as registration goes there were 3. 1% more Demos than Reps in the 2000 election. Republican voter turnout generally is in the 80-90% range while Demos only show up to vote 55 -65% of the time. With the close race in 2000 you can bet there will be much more Demo turnout in '04.

Big deal anyway, both parties and their candidates suck.

 

[sdalton]

Well I have another theory. The Domocrats were too stupid to learn how to punch out a chad in 2000. What makes you think they can bump their I. Q. 's up enough points to use a computer to vote????

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by illflem

As far as registration goes there were 3. 1% more Demos than Reps in the 2000 election.

Yes, that may be true, but it is also known, that at least 23% of all registered Democrats, are actually dead.

Then take out the 35% of illegal aliens that are registered Democrats, you don't have much left.

 

[Champane Flight]

Dems dumb or?

Were the Democrats dumb enough to not know how to punch out a chad or was the Republican candidate smart enough to have the deciding state run by his brother? Two way street, and to have his campaign manager the attorney general of this same state? Something stinks in Florida!



I can just about say with confidence that the Dem's in 04 have a win on their hands, even if they run T. Kennedy! Scary stuff.

 

[sdalton]

I have never said this before so here I go, CF. ROTFLMAO . Good God CF, get some oxygen quick, you are suffering from altitude sickness, and getting silly, and delirious.

 

[sdalton]

Where is STEVE M when you need him.

 

[loncray]

I have to agree with CF - things stank in the 2000 election in Florida. Even if Bush got more votes there, there's enough doubt about it to taint the opinions of a lot of Americans. And all the Republicans who wondered about Chinese donations to the Democratic Party (which tainted the 1996 elections) are suddenly silent now that one of their own fundraisers has turned out to be a Chinese spy.

Bush43 has exactly the same situation as Bush41 - immense popularity from the war, faltering economy. If his policies can't fix the economy, he's going to be a one-term president the same as his father. And invading Syria or Iran won't make all the American's forget!