Is Syria the only country that believes that it does not have chemical weapons?
- Thread starter Nitemare
- Start date
That's from your second link. If they do have chemical weapons, how is that anyone's business anyway? Everyone doesn't know about our weapons, nor are we obligated to tell them, except under treaties that we willingly signed.
They have them, and like Iraq, Europeeing countries were the largest providers.....
They did offer to dismantle the WMD systems in 1999 if Israel agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenal, which of course is not going to happen.
They did offer to dismantle the WMD systems in 1999 if Israel agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenal, which of course is not going to happen.
Because it's none of our business, being a sovereign nation they're not obligated to tell anyone anything, and if they admit it they're worried that the US will start spinning reasons why they're a danger and must be attacked.
If I ran a country, and the US was threatening me, I'd deny that I had so much as steak knives.
Do they harbor terrorists? Yes. Do they have WMD? Yes. Have we been fighting and killing Syrians on the battlefield in Iraq? Yes. Did they help Saddam in this war with weapons? probably. Are regime members being harbored there, probably.
When Bush spoke before the UN on9/12 and said we would wage war on terrorists, he meant every word. I for one have no problem with this, and that includes countires such as Syria which harbor and aid terrorists.
When Bush spoke before the UN on9/12 and said we would wage war on terrorists, he meant every word. I for one have no problem with this, and that includes countires such as Syria which harbor and aid terrorists.
Heard a comment today about Iraq's oil pipelines to the Mediterranean having to pass through Syria and there is resistance about allowing the U.S. access. Can't quote the source but just thought it was interesting.
I think the Bush administration will have a tough time making the case for attacking Syria. Every country has chemical weapons and I think cycling through the 'stopping the terrorists' -> WMD -> regime change argument will provoke even more resistance than with Iraq. JMO
I think the Bush administration will have a tough time making the case for attacking Syria. Every country has chemical weapons and I think cycling through the 'stopping the terrorists' -> WMD -> regime change argument will provoke even more resistance than with Iraq. JMO
No just doing my part in pointing out certain facts don't always match the trendy anti-Us bs.. like yours.
If I thought I could have gotten through training and there in time, I might have, statistically, I take greater risks driving my car than engaging in thsi conflict. Of course due to my age I doubt they would have taken me anyway.
Anyone that dismisses what is fact because it doesn't fit their bias would fall into this category. Is that my problem is seems to be indicative of the anti-war, anti-us, anti-bush crowd, I will add a few links to this post in a sec, I recognize your ID, I feel the need to elighten the rest of our members of your previous astute obersvations of the conflict,lol.
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....no ANTI-Bush sentiment there
Bush is a disaster of a public speaker who riled up support through acting through the fear of the ignorant... and the "America can do no wrong" right wingers.... I guess if supported this war you are ignorant then?
I looked through the first 2, found those, think they definitely point out the most critical "fact" you base your observations on, Bush and the right wing are ignorant and the devil....lol.
exactly my point. Im for the US however I disagree with a lot of what you have to say...
Maybe more EU countries provided more agents on how to form chemcial weapons however the US actually gave them rdy to use weapons...
Do you actual believe that everything Saddam detailed in his weapons report was accurate??? He's lied countless times before why would be tell the truth now???
THats why this war also deals with revenge. Rumsfield is pissed at how Saddam turned on him blah blah blah...
Im not anti US im for this war and them taking back the weapons they gave them in the beginning...
Maybe more EU countries provided more agents on how to form chemcial weapons however the US actually gave them rdy to use weapons...
Do you actual believe that everything Saddam detailed in his weapons report was accurate??? He's lied countless times before why would be tell the truth now???
THats why this war also deals with revenge. Rumsfield is pissed at how Saddam turned on him blah blah blah...
Im not anti US im for this war and them taking back the weapons they gave them in the beginning...
What more dangerous, me giving you 1000 rounds of ammo, or giving you everything you needed to build a munitions factory? At least the actual things we provided can be accounted for easily, who knows how much more was made with raw materials provided by others.
- Countries are allowed to have WMD. They haven't signed any treaties that says they can't, nor are they in violation of UN resolutions for doing so. Most countries in the world have WMD. Not a reason to go to war.
-If citizens of their country died on the battlefield, that does nothing to implicate the country itself. People have free will, a government cannot stop a citizen from leaving the country and going to die in another country. Unless we have proof that the government of Syria sent these people out to fight, that this was a military action of Syria against the US, this is meaningless. Citizens of the US went to Iraq to be shields. Does this mean that their government is against us? Not a reason to go to war.
-We need proof that the government of Syria gave weapons to Saddam. Not only do we need proof, we have to show that it wasn't just individual people who are sympathetic to Saddam. As in the above point, the hostile actions of individuals does not make the government or the entire country complicit.
-We need to prove that regime members are being harbored there. By harbored there, that means that they came with the knowledge and support of the government. If they snuck across without anyone's knowledge, then it's not Syria's fault. There are criminals living in the US. We have dramatically better law enforcement than in Syria, yet many go for years, if not forever without being found. Terrorists and illegal aliens and tons of drugs came across our borders and still do so.
-If we can show that terrorists hostile to the US are gathering in Syria with the knowledge and cooperation of the Syrians, that would be the only way that we could justify attacking Syria. Even then, we would have to try cooperation first. Tell Syria we have evidence that terrorists are operating in their country, and that we would like the terrorists arrested or driven out of Syria. Give them the tools to fight the terrorists if they need them. Offer to assist. Only if Syria refuses to stop terrorists that we have proven to be there do we have a case. We even gave the Taliban an opportunity to distance themselves from Osama and give him up before we attacked them.
Don't you think that if Saddam could have shown that the US gave him weapons that he would have used that as propaganda and broadcast it to the world? I don't think your logic works in this case.
What's "rdy"?
I agree they need absolute proof of the weapons assistance and the harboring of regime members by GOVT. sources. If this can be proven I'm not sure what our reaction would be, polls suggest at least 50% of Americans would support military action in this case.
I think they could prove there are terrorists there, easily. Could they link them directly to the govt, probably not, but they still are very aware of their presence. If they were to take steps to eliminate them it would be nice, instead they allow the terrorists to act on their policy, especially in regards to Israel.
They have already signaled they would be willing to undergo stringent inspections, I bet Saddam taught them a few tricks in that regard. The US and Israel are going to push them to act on Hezbollah, their reactions to this and in dealing with the remnants of Saddams regime will help determine the final course we will take.
I think they could prove there are terrorists there, easily. Could they link them directly to the govt, probably not, but they still are very aware of their presence. If they were to take steps to eliminate them it would be nice, instead they allow the terrorists to act on their policy, especially in regards to Israel.
They have already signaled they would be willing to undergo stringent inspections, I bet Saddam taught them a few tricks in that regard. The US and Israel are going to push them to act on Hezbollah, their reactions to this and in dealing with the remnants of Saddams regime will help determine the final course we will take.
rdy = ready.
They wouldnt admit to it because they dont want to admit that they have any chemical weapons now.
They wouldnt admit to it because they dont want to admit that they have any chemical weapons now.
I don't believe any of these 3rd world countries would defy us if we take those steps. Show them there are terrorists, offer whatever help they need to get rid of them. Like an international Orkin man. After Afghanistan and Iraq, there's a loud unspoken threat that if they turn down our help, but don't get rid of the terrorists, we'll get rid of the terrorists and the government that refused to help us. Not much of a choice. Get rid of the terrorists, or be attacked and let the US get rid of the terrorists. All the more developed countries are already fighting terrorism.
Do you have any good links for information about Hezbollah and things the US has said?
The case for a pre-emptive strike on Syria is pretty weak right now.
US opinion polls aside, a US war on Syria would be a potentially huge violation of international law. Afghanistan was a pretty clear cut retaliation for a direct attack on US civilians on US soil. Iraq is a resumption of hostilities due to a material breach of cease fire terms (from a legal standpoint - the US had additional reasons for the specific timing and scope of the war).
Syria didn't sign a cease fire agreement saying they would give up chem/bio/nuke weapons. If the Government chooses to harbor Al-Qaeda or another terrorist group that directly attacks the US, then we'll have a stronger case for intervention. The extent to which Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were in bed with each other was pretty extreme, however. In most 3rd world countries with terrorist training camps / cells, the governments aren't quite as chummy with the terrorists and will probably prefer to cooperate with the US than take the Taliban approach (especially now that the consequences of that approach are clear).
US opinion polls aside, a US war on Syria would be a potentially huge violation of international law. Afghanistan was a pretty clear cut retaliation for a direct attack on US civilians on US soil. Iraq is a resumption of hostilities due to a material breach of cease fire terms (from a legal standpoint - the US had additional reasons for the specific timing and scope of the war).
Syria didn't sign a cease fire agreement saying they would give up chem/bio/nuke weapons. If the Government chooses to harbor Al-Qaeda or another terrorist group that directly attacks the US, then we'll have a stronger case for intervention. The extent to which Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were in bed with each other was pretty extreme, however. In most 3rd world countries with terrorist training camps / cells, the governments aren't quite as chummy with the terrorists and will probably prefer to cooperate with the US than take the Taliban approach (especially now that the consequences of that approach are clear).
Thanks. Your first link says that Syria is actually hostile to Al-Qaeda. Do you think we'd be justified in attacking Syria even though the terrorist groups in their country focus on attacking Israel and are prevented from attacking "westerners"?
I hope they do the smart thing and turn their backs on the terrorists in their country. They are hardly prevented from doing anything, if theyare, who is preventing them? The govt? If they have that kind of control they are just as liable if not more for their continued presence.
Like M-1A3s and Bradly Fighting Vehicles of the 4th Mechanized racing across the Syrian border with ZERO political fallout for The US?
I finally agree with you, I would have LOVED to see that as well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter