Bush gives muddled warning to Syria

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dahunan
Dictatorships that support terrorism that threaten stability in the Middle East

Does Syria support Terrorists - Specifically Islamic Terrorists?

If you think Americans will support a war against Syria you are delusional.

Either way, you think it matters to Bush?

It better if he wants to get re-elected. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't think my nerves could handle another war even if it goes as well as this one.

He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Daddy won the first gulf war with a better economy and he still got whooped.

Sorry George, but not even Jeb can save your ass come election time.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dahunan
Dictatorships that support terrorism that threaten stability in the Middle East

Does Syria support Terrorists - Specifically Islamic Terrorists?

If you think Americans will support a war against Syria you are delusional.

Either way, you think it matters to Bush?

It better if he wants to get re-elected. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't think my nerves could handle another war even if it goes as well as this one.

He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Daddy won the first gulf war with a better economy and he still got whooped.

Sorry George, but not even Jeb can save your ass come election time.

A Man named Ross Perot RUINED any chances for a Republican Victory back then.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dahunan
Dictatorships that support terrorism that threaten stability in the Middle East

Does Syria support Terrorists - Specifically Islamic Terrorists?

If you think Americans will support a war against Syria you are delusional.

Either way, you think it matters to Bush?

It better if he wants to get re-elected. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't think my nerves could handle another war even if it goes as well as this one.

He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Daddy won the first gulf war with a better economy and he still got whooped.

Sorry George, but not even Jeb can save your ass come election time.

A Man named Ross Perot RUINED any chances for a Republican Victory back then.

Wow, the republicans are still so bitter about Election 2000; and the hypocrites call Gore supporters bitter. *Humph*

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Great... our draft-dodging nitwit preisdent is at it again. Lets just skip UN and go straight to all-out invasion so we can avoid another charade.

haha. I agree. let's just forget about the UN and attack Syria directly. Heck we don't ever need to wait to get troops in the region.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dahunan
Dictatorships that support terrorism that threaten stability in the Middle East

Does Syria support Terrorists - Specifically Islamic Terrorists?

If you think Americans will support a war against Syria you are delusional.

Either way, you think it matters to Bush?

It better if he wants to get re-elected. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't think my nerves could handle another war even if it goes as well as this one.

He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Daddy won the first gulf war with a better economy and he still got whooped.

Sorry George, but not even Jeb can save your ass come election time.

A Man named Ross Perot RUINED any chances for a Republican Victory back then.

Wow, the republicans are still so bitter about Election 2000; and the hypocrites call Gore supporters bitter. *Humph*

Election 2000??? Try Election 1992

And.. I am not a Republican or Democrat.. I hate 95% of all politicians..

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dahunan
Dictatorships that support terrorism that threaten stability in the Middle East

Does Syria support Terrorists - Specifically Islamic Terrorists?

If you think Americans will support a war against Syria you are delusional.

Either way, you think it matters to Bush?

Probably not..... <smirk>

 

[phillyTIM]

yeah well either election left them bitter

that's all ok tho, this is the old warhawk's last gasp: the Bush regime is full of old, cold-war, warhawks, and when Bush's time is up, so is theirs, for good.

i think that's a reasoning behind all this too: hanging onto power as long as possible, cuz when they are through, it's forever

wow: sounds just like what bush was talkin about in reference to the other "terror regimes"; i'm glad the old saying goes--it takes one to know one

heh heh

 

[Napalm]

It is inconceivable that anyone in that administration with real power (i.e., those who tell Bush what to do/say) is serious about invading Syria and Iran at this point in time. I think that Afghanistan and Iraq have been nothing more than very expensive messages, and that the goal now is to have countries like Syria, Iran and other nations in the area that are soft on Islamic militants to "reform" the way they go about doing business where the U.S. is concerned.

If this is correct, the real question is whether these nations' governments will play the game by U.S. rules. If the U.S. gets its wish with the governments, my concern is what the wack-job militants in these countries will do in response. It has happened before (i.e., Iran's militants overthowing the U.S. friendly Shah and replacing him with Khomenei) and I think that it is under this scenario that you may see the seeds for a potential 3rd World War. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail...

N

 

[BaDaBooM]

You guys can't say there aren't any WMD in Iraq yet. They haven't really started looking very hard yet. They had a few groups of guys that were poking around but that was not the focus. The focus was winning the war. Now if they don't find any by say June-July, then you can start spouting off about it. Although with as many leads they have like the plutonium they found and the suspected nerve agents on the missiles, I wouldn't be ranting and raving; you might just end up eating some humble pie. They are waiting for independent confirmation of this stuff. So right now it is just wait and see....

 

[jaeger66]

So let's sum up.

Our goals were:

1.)Depose regime. Check.
2.)Capture/kill Saddam and his inner circle. No. The spin? "They must be in Syria with all their weapons!"
3.)Disable WMD. No, since they haven't found any. The spin? "They must be in Syria!"
4.)Liberate Iraqis. A smashing success, now they are free to beat shopkeepers to death and loot priceless artifacts dating to the dawn of civilization. The spin? "Sh*t happens".

What a clusterhump. :|

 

[abu]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dahunan
Dictatorships that support terrorism that threaten stability in the Middle East

Does Syria support Terrorists - Specifically Islamic Terrorists?

If you think Americans will support a war against Syria you are delusional.

Either way, you think it matters to Bush?

... Bush thinks he's god... remember! :|

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM




I suggest Bush return to Texas and execute himself.

Better yet, have him dig out Saddam and have Saddam come over to Texas and pull the execution lever; that would be a fitting retribution to all the pain and anguish and murder of Iraqi people and destruction of their land.

You're an idiot. At first, I thought maybe you were just young and looking to fit in with all the other ill-informed wankers in this thread, but, with this post, you've stepped it up a notch. The hate will eat you alive. Open your eyes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Let me remind you that Clinton NEVER had over 50% of the popular vote in either election

CkG

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: jaeger66
So let's sum up.

Our goals were:

1.)Depose regime. Check.
2.)Capture/kill Saddam and his inner circle. No. The spin? "They must be in Syria with all their weapons!"
3.)Disable WMD. No, since they haven't found any. The spin? "They must be in Syria!"
4.)Liberate Iraqis. A smashing success, now they are free to beat shopkeepers to death and loot priceless artifacts dating to the dawn of civilization. The spin? "Sh*t happens".

What a clusterhump. :|

1) Yes
2) No, they said they don't know where he is. They said they THINK some of the inner circle MAY have gone to Syria. (Wouldn't you?)
3) Of course not, everything isn't instantaneous. Until this point they have been fighting the war. They are still trying to get stability and get rid of these snipers. However they do have SEVERAL suspects of WMD under testing right now. They only said SOME MAY have been shipped to Syria.
4) Spin? You are spinning. Like there was any doubt that there would be some looting at first. They have ALREADY stopped the looting in Bashra. Shame on the US for not having a city of 5 million already in complete order.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz


He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Daddy won the first gulf war with a better economy and he still got whooped.

Sorry George, but not even Jeb can save your ass come election time.

If the economy picks up he'll get re-elected. If it doesn't he won't. Transient patriotism doesn't put food on the table.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Let me remind you that Clinton NEVER had over 50% of the popular vote in either election

CkG

Also there are 3 other presidents in history that did not have the highest percentage of the popular vote when they were elected. Didn't you guys ever take a government class? Ever heard of the Electoral College?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

He didnt win the popular vote last time, you think this upcoming election he'll get re-elected? After all of this?

Let me remind you that Clinton NEVER had over 50% of the popular vote in either election

CkG

Also there are 3 other presidents in history that did not have the highest percentage of the popular vote when they were elected. Didn't you guys ever take a government class? Ever heard of the Electoral College?

Popular vote:
1888 - Cleveland=48.6% and Harrison=47.8% Harrison became president
1876- Tilden=50.97% and Hayes=47.95% Hayes became president
1824- Adams=30.92% and Jackson=41.35% Adams became president

CkG

EDIT - Sorry for getting off topic here but sometimes misinformation needs addressed where it is uttered.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

We've got satellite images of Saddam moving chem/bio weapons (according to Powell) but now that the regime has fallen I guess those various mobile platforms are all in . . . Syria?! In retrospect, it is easier to understand why UN inspectors couldn't find anything based on US information.

If you spend two minutes reading anything by a real expert in Syrian/Iraqi relations you will find out that they are not friendly . . . just not openly hostile on a daily basis. Syria MIGHT provide refuge for a few members of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party but many would be persona non grata on Syrian soil.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
You guys can't say there aren't any WMD in Iraq yet. They haven't really started looking very hard yet. They had a few groups of guys that were poking around but that was not the focus. The focus was winning the war. Now if they don't find any by say June-July, then you can start spouting off about it. Although with as many leads they have like the plutonium they found and the suspected nerve agents on the missiles, I wouldn't be ranting and raving; you might just end up eating some humble pie. They are waiting for independent confirmation of this stuff. So right now it is just wait and see....

For a moment, let's say you are right about Iraq having WMDs (I personally belive that Iraq had WMDs). But my question is who is guarding them now that most of the Iraqi military has been defeated or surrendered???? Are you saying it is okay to have WMDs sitting around unguarded for the next two months? It could be stored in some isolated desert compound or it could very well have been in the Museum that was looted.

We declared war to prevent WMDs from falling into the wrong hands. The thing we feared the most might just happen because we invaded and couldn't secure WMDs in a timely fashion.

 

[fwtong]

Sweet, welcome state #52, Syria, to the union. After that, Iran, North Korea and France. It'll be a great day, when the US starts to take over countries on each of the continents. Let this be a lesson to other coutries: if we can forge documents that say that you have WMD, and you oppose any of our policies, we will invade, occupy and annex in the name of democracy, liberation and ridding the world of WMD.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Lets just accuse and attack everyone of having chemical problems and then when we find nothing, either plant something or say they moved them to a different country.

sadly, that is exactly what is happening in the world today

i hope to god it helps other countries strengthen themselves and stand up to the Bush Regime's aggression

Just imagine if Arabs would stop bickering with one another and would unite. If Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc... got together and helped one another, they could easily stand up to the US.

They don't need to stand up to us. Just shut off the oil spigot.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: seawolf21
For a moment, let's say you are right about Iraq having WMDs (I personally belive that Iraq had WMDs). But my question is who is guarding them now that most of the Iraqi military has been defeated or surrendered???? Are you saying it is okay to have WMDs sitting around unguarded for the next two months? It could be stored in some isolated desert compound or it could very well have been in the Museum that was looted.

We declared war to prevent WMDs from falling into the wrong hands. The thing we feared the most might just happen because we invaded and couldn't secure WMDs in a timely fashion.

Nope, that is not ok with me. They need to find them as soon as they can. The fact, though, is that it does take some time and you can't expect them to find them only a few days after taking Bagdad (if we were lucky, maybe). They're still trying to get rid of some small pockets of resistance right now. Personally I don't think it will take months as they already have many suspected WMDs undergoing testing.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Napalm
It is inconceivable that anyone in that administration with real power (i.e., those who tell Bush what to do/say) is serious about invading Syria and Iran at this point in time. I think that Afghanistan and Iraq have been nothing more than very expensive messages, and that the goal now is to have countries like Syria, Iran and other nations in the area that are soft on Islamic militants to "reform" the way they go about doing business where the U.S. is concerned.

If this is correct, the real question is whether these nations' governments will play the game by U.S. rules. If the U.S. gets its wish with the governments, my concern is what the wack-job militants in these countries will do in response. It has happened before (i.e., Iran's militants overthowing the U.S. friendly Shah and replacing him with Khomenei) and I think that it is under this scenario that you may see the seeds for a potential 3rd World War. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail...

N

I seriously don't think invading Syria or Iran is on the table. WMDs are developed to
a) be a deterrent
b) be used
c) be sold
d) blackmail (includes intimidation)
e) did I forget any?

Why would Iraq move it to Syria? Did Syria bought them and why the sudden interest in acquiring WMDs especially if it didn?t do Iraq any good as a deterrent. The WMDs are either in Iraq or they didn?t exist to begin with.

 

[fwtong]

Originally posted by: Napalm
It is inconceivable that anyone in that administration with real power (i.e., those who tell Bush what to do/say) is serious about invading Syria and Iran at this point in time. I think that Afghanistan and Iraq have been nothing more than very expensive messages, and that the goal now is to have countries like Syria, Iran and other nations in the area that are soft on Islamic militants to "reform" the way they go about doing business where the U.S. is concerned.

If this is correct, the real question is whether these nations' governments will play the game by U.S. rules. If the U.S. gets its wish with the governments, my concern is what the wack-job militants in these countries will do in response. It has happened before (i.e., Iran's militants overthowing the U.S. friendly Shah and replacing him with Khomenei) and I think that it is under this scenario that you may see the seeds for a potential 3rd World War. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail...

N

Good, then the US can liberate the world, and bring democracy to the world. I think that we've pretty much showed the world that no one can or will stand up against us.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM

Originally posted by: seawolf21
For a moment, let's say you are right about Iraq having WMDs (I personally belive that Iraq had WMDs). But my question is who is guarding them now that most of the Iraqi military has been defeated or surrendered???? Are you saying it is okay to have WMDs sitting around unguarded for the next two months? It could be stored in some isolated desert compound or it could very well have been in the Museum that was looted.

We declared war to prevent WMDs from falling into the wrong hands. The thing we feared the most might just happen because we invaded and couldn't secure WMDs in a timely fashion.

Nope, that is not ok with me. They need to find them as soon as they can. The fact, though, is that it does take some time and you can't expect them to find them only a few days after taking Bagdad (if we were lucky, maybe). They're still trying to get rid of some small pockets of resistance right now. Personally I don't think it will take months as they already have many suspected WMDs undergoing testing.

Oh I agree it takes time and previously thought it was okay to located WMDs anywhere from 6 to 9 months from now. But the realization that they are probably unguarded this very moment has shorten my "acceptable" timeframe for locating WMDs to 6 to 9 weeks.

Let's just hope that either we find them soon, or those guarding them are still guarding them and are are just waiting for the Americans to arrive instead of making contacts with terrorist groups.