The W
Views: 100775828
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 1641
The W - Current Events & Politics - Syria?
This thread has 17 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2113 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (33 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
So the USA might be targeting Syria in step 2 of Al-Queda Recruiting Drive '03?

Yeesh...at least the States can claim that Iraq was once a threat and broke some UN regulations. What's the take on Syria?



1000 posts and still not Wiener of the Day!






Are you racist?

Brought to you by the good folks at sacwriters.com.
Promote this thread!
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 12 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#2 Posted on
From what I've seen, harboring Saddam and his buddies, and also WOMD.



The WWE (Caution: May Contain Wrestling-Like Substance)
Go Redroom (goredroom.com)
]


The Beast is dead...Long Live the Beast.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#3 Posted on
Probably the same "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" method they used in Iraq. It'll probably boil down into liberating the people from the opressive dictator again since, to be fair, we are dealing with an evil motherfucker over there...



"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for the winter, while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came, and the grasshopper died, and the octopus ate all his acorns. And also he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?"
-----Phillip J. Fry, Futurama
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54


    From what I've seen, harboring Saddam and his buddies, and also WOMD.


Are these the same WOMD that Iraq had? You know, the guys in sweatpants and t-shirts carrying rifles who gave up the second the Army showed up?




1000 posts and still not Wiener of the Day!






Are you racist?

Brought to you by the good folks at sacwriters.com.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 12 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#5 Posted on
The ones that Saddam and Co. are hiding over there?



The WWE (Caution: May Contain Wrestling-Like Substance)
Go Redroom (goredroom.com)
]


The Beast is dead...Long Live the Beast.
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 552 days
Last activity: 22 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22

    Originally posted by Whitebacon
    From what I've seen, harboring Saddam and his buddies, and also WOMD.


I'd always guessed that Saddam slid across the border to Syria right after war officially broke out in Iraq, to hide out in the Syrian equivalent of the Beverly Hills Hotel. However, I can see the U.S. picking up quite a bit of heat if they decide to overrun another mainly Muslim country.


    Originally posted by Big Bad
    You know, the guys in sweatpants and t-shirts carrying rifles who gave up the second the Army showed up?


I just thought they were showing off their fine French training.

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Y'know this is where the neocons and myself diverge. We have no business in Syria unless we can definitively prove that there are terrorist ties. I don't see that happening. The problem is that the Kristol/Perle/Wolfowitz contingent wants to march across Arabia, which is a real bad idea.




Bye bye you son of a bitch...

TheCow
Landjager








Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2481 days
Last activity: 2480 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on
Maybe this is all just a new elaborate method of allowing Israel to grow unimpeded.

....'Cause I can't think of a logical reason to invade Syria right now.







Which Neglected Mario Character Are You?

waffleking
Pickled pork








Since: 2.10.02
From: Missouri

Since last post: 2859 days
Last activity: 548 days
#9 Posted on


WHO'S NEXT?
SYRIA, YOU'RE NEXT!

Is anyone else beginning to think that "they have weapons of mass destruction, trust us", is becoming Bush's way of saying, "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!".

(old South Park reference)



Quoth the Norman Darter, "Well Forevermore!"
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#10 Posted on
*agrees with Grimis and promptly drops dead from the shock of it all*

Am I the only one who suspects no one has told George that this is not Risk he is playing, and that one does not get extra armies for holding the entire Middle East?



"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

For anyone who thinks that Booker will be going over HHH at Backlash, feel free to PM me about the HHH Challenge.
Crip
Mettwurst








Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3926 days
Last activity: 2700 days
#11 Posted on
Syria has not signed any Chemical Weapons convention and thus could not be in violation of any international law even if it did possess chemical WMD.



Stablewars.com - Fantasy Wrestling, It ain't no e-fed.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 1 day
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
We have no business in Syria unless we can definitively prove that there are terrorist ties.

Syria has far more documented terrorist ties than Iraq did.

Maybe this is all just a new elaborate method of allowing Israel to grow unimpeded.

....'Cause I can't think of a logical reason to invade Syria right now.


Right. Because that explanation is so logical.





It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54


    Am I the only one who suspects no one has told George that this is not Risk he is playing, and that one does not get extra armies for holding the entire Middle East?


Well played, spf. I laughed up my coffee when I read this.




1000 posts and still not Wiener of the Day!






Are you racist?

Brought to you by the good folks at sacwriters.com.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on
You know- I am a "pro-war" kind of guy, I think we should take the fight to the terrorist sponsoring states, and hit them hard. Iraq sponsored terrorism (I don't care if it is AlQuaida or not at this point), and I believe Syria does too.

That being the case, ENOUGH with the WMD arguments! We have them, other nations have them. We can't use that as an excuse every time, nor do we need to. It is supposed to be a war to eliminate Terrorism- taget a nation, prove terrorist ties, demand action from the country, wait, then pummel. Install new anti-terror government. Repeat. Seems simple enough. Why does the administration have to keep dragging WMDs into this. If you are going to engage in war for a noble cause, stick to the noble cause, and stop muddying the water with garbage like this...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 15.4.03 1316)




Still on the Shelf #4
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 4 days
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    It is supposed to be a war to eliminate Terrorism- taget a nation, prove terrorist ties, demand action from the country, wait, then pummel. Install new anti-terror government. Repeat. Seems simple enough. Why does the administration have to keep dragging WMDs into this. If you are going to engage in war for a noble cause, stick to the noble cause, and stop muddying the water with garbage like this...

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 15.4.03 1316)

You know, you pro-war guys really need to make up your minds. Terrorism, the way you and Bush and every other pro-war person defines it, seems to mean different things at different times when ever its convienent. Hell, by your description we should be bombing Michigan and Montana. Or does what happened in Oklahoma not qualify as terrorism.

I got it, let's eliminate the word "Terrorism" - because right now, that makes about as much sense as our foreign policy.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on
I think you misunderstand Leroy-

The concept of Terrorism is pretty simple. It is the method by which certain groups attack people or property, with the intent to coherce. It is most often targeted at civilians. It is basically murder on a much larger scale. Terrorist groups are organized much like armies, lacking, however, the general legitimacy of a nation. To put it bluntly, terrorist fly planes into buildings, explode car bombs and themselves in order to kill as many people (read- civilians)as possible, all for a cause. How you can claim this concept does not make any sense means to me that you need to read a little more.

I HAVE made up my mind, and my criteria for war is very clear and unambiguous. A nation has to harbor terrorists or blatantly support them. If we approach them and we demand that they solve the problem, and they refuse, then they are deemed "threats" and eligible for military action. Iraq fit this description to a tee- even if you do not believe the reports of training camps, or the like, there is the fact that Saddaam, quite openly, paid the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That is openly, and agressivly supporting terrorism. If there is no other proof of Iraq's ties, that is good enough. Saddaam openly supported terrorists, therefore he must change his tune or be eliminated.

No, this does not mean we bomb Oklahoma. If you can't see the difference, you should hit the books again. The United States does not sponsor terrorists. Our law enforcement actively hunts them, and attempts to bring them to justice. We do not turn a blind eye, nor do we support these terrorists in any fashion. Neither Oklahoma NOR Montana quialify as terrorist-sponsoring states. There is no ambiguity.

If you want to disagree with me, fine. At least make sense, and don't reply with "You are indecisive," then blatantly distort my argument to make me hypocritical.

Apply my conditions to any nation, and if a big fat YES comes out of it, I am in favor of putting pressure on them. Be it Iran, Syria, or Pakistan. Hell, even if it were POLAND that sponsored terrorism, I would be in favor of going after them.

Call me crazy, but I just don't think turning a blind eye solves anything, nor do I think talking to terrorists will accomplish anything...


(edited by Pool-Boy on 15.4.03 1427)



Still on the Shelf #4
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    You know- I am a "pro-war" kind of guy, I think we should take the fight to the terrorist sponsoring states, and hit them hard. Iraq sponsored terrorism (I don't care if it is AlQuaida or not at this point), and I believe Syria does too.

    That being the case, ENOUGH with the WMD arguments! We have them, other nations have them. We can't use that as an excuse every time, nor do we need to. It is supposed to be a war to eliminate Terrorism- taget a nation, prove terrorist ties, demand action from the country, wait, then pummel. Install new anti-terror government. Repeat. Seems simple enough. Why does the administration have to keep dragging WMDs into this. If you are going to engage in war for a noble cause, stick to the noble cause, and stop muddying the water with garbage like this...

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 15.4.03 1316)



Okay, a few things:

1) The Syrian government has sponsored different forms of terrorism for years. Sometimes to try and destabilize other governments for their gains, other times just to make sure that the terrorists never tried to attack them. None of this should be too hard to prove.

2) The only reason I can think of for the administration to continue to pull up the WMDs? Blatant manipulation. I just wonder how long before more voters decide (like my uncle!) that Bush was a very bad choice.

3) Here's the question that nobody seems to want to answer: Say we go into Syria or any of the other Middle Eastern countries that won't bow down to the US (and I don't mean for that to be inflammatory, but for the government in charge, that's exactly what it is - being subservient). We bomb the shit out of them, move our troops in and take control of their government. Now we have two choices:

Choice A) We try to install a democratic voting process. Anybody who's actually given this any thought can probably see that this choice isn't the most practical. Why, you ask? Because there's a chance that the citizens of said conquered country could just turn around and elect officials who are the same or worse than the ones we just kicked out of power. Then the US either has to get the hell out or go with Choice B, and either way our foreign policy makers look like a bunch of idiots.

Choice B) Install a puppet government. This one looks great on paper. There's always going to be some politician somewhere who will happily let the US run things behind the scenes as long as he's allowed to sit in the lap of luxury. So the US gets to control the country, and doesn't actually have to deal with the citizens of said country. In practice however, this plan usually backfires in our face. Either our puppet will eventually turn against us, or the citizens themselves will rise up against their sham government, and the only way for the puppet to stay in power is by using brutal force - which makes the new dictator look just as bad as the last one.

So unless you really want to believe that the majority of the surviving citizens in your newly conquered country are pro US, this game of knocking over dictatorships is destined to fail.

-Jag

The sad thing is that there may turn out to be a majority of citizens in Iraq who aren't just happy to have Saddam gone, but pro US as well. So Iraq could set a precedent of success, and in the end just proves to be the exception to the rule.



From the mouth of my uncle Jim, the Republican banker:
"I regret voting for Bush."
"We need to vote him out of office."

I am in Shock. I am in Awe.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
We've got to take a lesson from the postwar USSR - they of the philosophy "open elections are good - but only if they end up electing someone that does things the way we want them to."



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.
cokeman
Chorizo








Since: 12.4.03
From: nj (back from iraq)

Since last post: 3318 days
Last activity: 3108 days
#19 Posted on
i think that bush will have a hard time getting the un to pass that. there is not flaw in some former war that happened before with syria.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on
Well, I still think that since the terrorists declared war on us- we don't need the UN's permission. I don't view them as relavant anyway. Like most sequels, League of Nations II is not at all as good as the original. And that is not saying much.

I agree with Jag that the issue of POST invasion governments in places like Syria is a touchy issue. Maybe a Democratic government is not the best thing for US interests, but I for one don't care if the new government hates us. As long as they don't support terrorists, I can live in peace with them. But I really believe that we can't let something like that stop us from combatting terrorism. If anyone can come up with a way to deal with the problem of terrorists hiding out in soverign nations without war, that is practicle (and as Cuba and Iraq so powerfully demonstrate, sactions don't mean squat)- will expedite the end of the terrorist threat to this country, I am all for hearing it. Sadly, though, at this point, the best option I see is knocking off the governments that support terrorist attacks, until they get smart and stop.

Terrorism certainly does not conform to our age-old ideas of warfare, and I think we need to realize that. If a nation sponsors a terrorist group, which in turn attacks either the US or any of our allies, in my view, that is the same this as that nation attacking us. After all, if Iran bought a cruise missile and launched it at us, that would be an act of war, right? So how is that different from paying for a terrorist group to detonoate a bomb?







Still on the Shelf #4
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: We're Not Keeping Good Company
Next thread: Perspectives on Arming the Pilots
Previous thread: toppling the statue. . .
(2113 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
If I didn't hear it in public school, it didn't happen. Actually I had never heard of those ladies, I will have to Google them.
- StaggerLee, RIP Geraldine Ferraro (2011)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Syria?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.241 seconds.