PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: luckee on April 13, 2003, 04:08:53 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945045.stm
US President George W Bush has warned Syria against harbouring fugitives from Saddam Hussein\'s ousted regime in Iraq.
America, he said, expected Iraq\'s western neighbour to "co-operate" with the US-led coalition and he added that he believed Syria possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD)- the charge against Iraq which sparked the war there.
"We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria," the president said, speaking to press on the White House lawn.
A senior Syrian diplomat went on US TV on Sunday to deny his country was either producing WMD or assisting Iraqi fugitives and terrorists.
We will not only accept the most rigid inspection regime, we will welcome it heartily
Imad Moustapha
Deputy Syrian ambassador in Washington
"It\'s been a campaign of misinformation and disinformation about Syria since even before the war started - this is just an ongoing series of false accusations," Imad Moustapha, the deputy ambassador in Washington, told NBC news.
On the WMD charge, Mr Moustapha said:
"We will not only accept the most rigid inspection regime, we will welcome it heartily."
Mounting accusations
US intelligence has long suspected Syria of having a well-developed chemical weapons programme as well as long-range missiles.
Its programme is reported to have started in earnest after clashes with Israel in 1982, with two chemical weapons plants established by 1984 to produce significant amounts of nerve gases such as Sarin and VX.
The [Syrian] government is making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgments in my view
Donald Rumsfeld
President Bush\'s comments on Sunday followed similar warnings to Syria from two of his most senior officials earlier in the day.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who remarked there was "no question" that Iraqi fugitives had gone to Syria, said Syrians had been discovered fighting US troops in Iraq.
"There are a number of non-Iraqis who are in the country, particularly in Baghdad we find... a lot from Syria - most from Syria, it appears," he told CBS.
"The [Syrian] government is making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgments in my view," he added.
In an interview for the BBC, Secretary General Colin Powell said Syria had acted as a conduit for supplies to Saddam\'s regime.
"We have designated Syria for years as a state that sponsors terrorism," he said.
"We are concerned that materials have flowed through Syria to the Iraqi regime over the years."
"Also," he added, "we think it would be very unwise... if suddenly Syria suddenly becomes a haven for all these people who should be brought to justice who are trying to get out of Baghdad."
Haven\'t found more than trace amounts of chem weapons in Iraq ( Note: I\'m not personally saying Iraq doesn\'t have them, we sold the things to them for God\'s sake, but we haven\'t found anything. So please, keep any cheap shots or empty rhetoric out of your responses.), so it\'s time to put the heat on Syria?
What do you guys think about this? I\'d say there\'s a pretty good chance that Syria took some, but we should\'ve seen that coming & set up roadblocks a month or two ago to check if any of this stuff was leaving.
Anyone think this attention shift rates up there with the shift from Iraq-al qaeda links to Iraq has chem weapons (remember, when we couldn\'t prove the links), or the Osama to Saddam attn. shift when we couldn\'t confirm Osama was "dead or alive" like Bush promised?
Where do you guys think these huge stockpiles of weapons disappeared to?
-
Oh Jesus, their are alot of countries with nuclear weapons. Lets just go invade them all :rolleyes:
He cant just go around depleting our cash and invading countries cause he has an inkling of WMD.
I think if we do invade Syria we should take a break- war none stop cant lead to ANYTHING good.
-
I said it in a previous thread and I\'ll say it again. As long as Bush is in house, we are going to waste money and unnessarcy lives on pointless wars.
He never followed through with his Osama Bin Laden, he moved on to Saddam and now he is already lookin\' for another scapegoat.
-
Let Syria have WMD. I doubt they\'d use them. I sure hope we don\'t go to war with them too. That war would be pointless.
-
I think it\'s all just a sham. I think he is just intimidating them so they will hopefully turn over any Iraqis that have fled to their country. There isn\'t any reason to go and invade that country at the present. Hell that country would take about 4 days to finish up.
-
Damn, I was about to post about that too. What stood out mostly was this statement:
"I think that Syria\'s in their cross hairs, as well as Iran and, quite frankly, our Arab \'friends\'," Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden said.
I told you Bush wasn\'t going to stop at Iraq. You all just bashed me about it, now it\'s coming straight from your hero\'s mouth.
-
Who said we were gonna stop at Iraq?
-
I\'m for getting rid of people like Saddam, but Syria? Come on...
-
How much money and lives are we goin\' to waste , because Bush can\'t finish one job? Or because Bush is war hungry?
He promised Bin Laden "dead or alive". He never delivered. He then extended his "war on terrorism" over to Saddam. Now we can\'t confirm if he is dead or alive and we have yet to find that "smoking gun" Bush promised Iraq had. So what does he do? He turns his attention to Syria and other countries.
-
attacking iraq its self provocked huge and angry protests in the arab world and in some cases turning violent. and thousands have gone to iraq to fight against coalition troops.
now if the U.S govt starts attacking every arab/muslim country in their list, beleive you me their will be no shortage of people willing to join groups like al-qaeda and blow themselves up just to get back at the americans, an if this happens binladen\'s wishes will have come true (especially if Saudi was attacked).
-
The great thing about people blowing themselves up in suicide missions is that you will eventually run out of people. :)
Now, what if a lot of the militants went into Syria and they brought a large cash of chemical weapons there with them?
Should Syria not do it\'s best to try and aid in the removal of this stuff?
-
After reading the article I am beginning to think that
America is Israels little Bitch !
-
Damn nice avvy tryant. I am jealous. Anyway, lets get Syria woohoo!!! Seriously Syria is one of the top countries that support and harbor terrorists and it is worth noting that they have a government that is directly related to the Iraqi government in that they are both Baath Socialist regimes.
Just imagine how much stability would be in the area with Syria out of the picture. Iran, on the other hand can be reasoned with IMO. Sure they spout off rhetoric every once in a while, but their Prime Minister (or is it President) is pretty moderate even though he is under the thumb of the fundamentalist religious clerics.
If the US does attack Syria, the US needs to push for a Palestinian state at the same time and try to achieve it before the US actually makes a move on Syria. Israel has already said it is willing to make drastic concessions (read: removing Israeli settlements) to make this possible.
Some countries don\'t want peace in the region no matter what and Syria is one of them. Others such as Egypt and Jordan have made peace treaties with Israel - it is a shame other countries will not follow this example.
-
If Syria is open and honest then there should be no problem. I do not see anything wrong with a warning to get their act together.
Weapons will be found in Iraq. I think it\'s prudent to wait for the war to end and then search. It\'s only been a month.
If we take care of the problems now we might not have to deal with a another 9/11.
Ace
-
I agree Ace, but we will always have those that believe in pre emptive strikes and those that don\'t. That is main issue people are really arguing here.
-
Warning? or threat? is the question.
The US doesn\'t warn ppl, they threaten. We wouldn\'t take to kindly to someone *warning* us about our world policies.
-
When you are the top dog you make the rules. I can\'t say it any differently. It may sound harsh but I believe it\'s true.
Ace
-
Originally posted by luckee
Warning? or threat? is the question.
The US doesn\'t warn ppl, they threaten. We wouldn\'t take to kindly to someone *warning* us about our world policies.
Other countries warn the US all the time.
-
That is true to an extent. Just think back to HS. The Jocks made and enforced the rules..not the *weak* nerds.
However, that type of mentality brings alot of enemies and at some point you have to wonder when it is no longer worth it or when has that threat become to large.
A guy I went to school with..a nerd by all accounts. I fancied(sp?) his sister and that is how I got to know him as a person. He was a rather cool guy, he just didnt fit into the norm. At any rate, the guys that made the rules kept pushing and pushing him and others like him. Eventually, this particular guy couldn\'t and wouldn\'t take it anymore. He ended up buying a rifle and shooting some guy years later that didnt even remember him, even when the rifle was in his face( or so Ive heard) and got killed.
This guy was deemed insane and never served jail time and later hung himself in an institution.
*edit* point being..you can continue to make rules and poke ppl with sticks, but eventually it will come back to you in a very bad way.
-
Do you think if terrorism did not hit our shores in such a devastating way, that we would be in the same situation?
Ace
-
Oops sorry about my short response luckee, I got a phone call in the middle of my response. I would just like to add that N. Korea is a prime example of a country that repeatedly "warns" us. :)
-
If in the position of china and NK the way the US carries on with them, Id do the same. DO you really think that our spy planes always were over international airspace and never went into theirs???
Ace: of course not, if 9/11 would have never occured, we would never have went after bin laden although we KNEW how evil he was. We never would have over thrown the taliban even thoguh we KNEW how eveil they were, and we would never have gone into Iraq again, even though we KNEW how evil they were.
-
Well luckee, it seems that you might want it both ways. Should we do nothing or clean up this mess now while we can?
As I have said before, I know we are not perfect but some of you guys feel the need to just point out the bad things we do here and abroad.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
When you are the top dog you make the rules. I can\'t say it any differently. It may sound harsh but I believe it\'s true.
Ace
This is what worries me.
Just because a country exists that doesn\'t like the US doesn\'t mean they should be attacked.
YOU ARE NOT GODS, YOU DO NOT HOLD ALL THE POWER IN SHAPING THE WORLD TO YOUR LIKING. IF YOU CARRY ON LIKE THIS EVEN PEOPLE THAT LIKE AMERICA WILL BE TURNED OFF. COUNTRIES WILL ALWAYS EXIST THAT DON\'T LIKE OTHER COUNTRIES, IT\'S THE WAY IT IS. AMERICA HOLDS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (THE BIGGEST IN THE WORLD), WHAT MAKES ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT HASN\'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG HAVE LESS RIGHT TO THE SAME WEAPONS.
(Repeat this mantra 10 times a day to save becoming a tosser.)
Simple answer, get yer fecking noses out of the whole rest of the worlds business and deal with the knowlege that a country exists that isn\'t too keen on you. Ever since 9/11 we\'ve had this shit pushed in our faces about how things need to change and that the world is a dangerous place, IT\'S BEEN LIKE IT FOR DECADES, Its just that now you\'ve been forced to look further than the ends of your noses you\'re slightly worried.
As Cypher said in the Matrix, "Ignorance is bliss"
(besides, you could die tomorrow, you\'ll be pissed if you\'ve wasted all your time on Arabs that want to kill you but can\'t afford the fares)
-
Not really..I dont think we should engage in unecessary politics and wars. Very few have asked us to do something about saddam, so they obviously dont feel he is that big of a threat. We didnt do anything with his massive tropp movements towards kuwait years ago. We didnt do anything untill kuwait asked for help.
Of course we point those things out b/c if we didnt, ppl just walk around simply stating the good. Only seeing one side isnt cool. The US as a whole are some of the biggest hypocrits and ppl act as if we are holier than thou more often than not.
-
You know what Green Meanie, I agree in a way.
I would like nothing better at this point than to build a big wall around the US and to say the hell with the rest of the world. Just remember that for everything YOU think we do wrong or bad in this world there is a lot of good we do that no one else will take care of.
Ace
-
Just to state once again, it\'s not US citizens that are the problem, it\'s the foreign policy smelling worse that King Kongs first dump of the day that really bothers us.
That and people agreeing with it blindly in a serious case of \'flag-love above all else\'.
Ace : Just read your reply, sorry, I was writing my own when yours was done. I agree that there is a lot of work done by all allied countries/forces to keep the \'little\' people in an OK state, what with aid drops etc. I just never see the reason starting a war when it can bring nothing but Fear & Loathing (and not even in Las Vegas) from a hell of a lot of the international community. If this Syria thing ends up turning into a war I know who\'s fault it is and hope we don\'t send any troops.
-
Well I don\'t think it bothers everyone. This war is going extremely well and we will see what the fallout is if any. I am hopeful this is the beginning of a better day for everyone involved.
Sorry for being so optimistic.
Ace
-
Regardless of 9/11 or not, I believe we would have taken on Iraq. Iraq has been a problem since the Gulf War (even Clinton launched a few cruise missles at them) and it wasn\'t going to resolve itself in the eyes of the US government. I think 9/11 hastened the operation in Iraq, but it would have happened sooner or later.
-
The reaction after 9/11 was one of two reactions a rabbit can have. The first is to Freeze, the second is to pick a direction and go mental.
The outcome of the Iraq war was inevitable, I just wish the reasons were better as the whole war thing I think requires totally conclusive proof and reasons coming out of its ears to be valid, it\'s just such a huge nasty thing affecting so many people that it needs a firm grounding.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Regardless of 9/11 or not, I believe we would have taken on Iraq. Iraq has been a problem since the Gulf War (even Clinton launched a few cruise missles at them) and it wasn\'t going to resolve itself in the eyes of the US government. I think 9/11 hastened the operation in Iraq, but it would have happened sooner or later.
That\'s true. I do believe GWB had Iraq on his to-do list.
Ace
-
Want to know what this war has done? Look at North Korea!! Looks like they noticed a few things with how fast we marched right through Iraq. Seems they now are pulling back their demands that they meet only with the US. Seems they are game to negotiate now multilaterally which is what the US wants. Hmmm. Coincidence? I think not.
Syria I think as well should start spilling some juice.
Did a little google search just now and noticed this little article that essentially says what I just said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/14/nkorea.talks/
-
It could be head games or common sense.
Would you throw rocks at a sleeping pitbull?
-
It depends. What\'s my precentage of killing the pitbull?
-
not very high. :D
-
This is what the media does, they take a warning and make it into a threat. And then we have people going around making it worse.
-
The media didn\'t make anything into a threat. They just reported a simple story. Maybe we should just do away with the media, so we\'d never have to find out about anything, and never have anything to worry about?
-
Well mike has a small point. I was watching the tube during lunch, but the sound was off. All I saw was Syria this, Syria that. Even though we didn\'t make any threats, it sure looks like we are pushing Syria with a heavy fist.
-
maybe threat was a strong word, we weren\'t threatening them by all means, but like vid said the media throws it in your face its up to you to pick out the bullshit. And no I didn\'t mean to get rid of the media they just tend to throw shit all in your face, I swear I almost was desensitized to 9/11 it was on so much, not to say I don\'t feel sad, but it was everyday for almost a year!!!
-
As a matter of clarification, no one has said in the article that we plan to go after Syria. However, the administration did not exclude that possibility in this comment: Powell said in Washington that the Bush administration would “examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature.”
Not a threat huh? Tell me what that means then.
-
I still don\'t understand the problem with giving Syria the riot act while we have the forces in the area.
Ace
-
You need more reason than "We have forces in the area, why not" or anything along those lines.
If you don\'t want a fight, don\'t start one. It\'s a fairly simple theory.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937105,00.html
No war. Sorry luckee.
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
You need more reason than "We have forces in the area, why not" or anything along those lines.
If you don\'t want a fight, don\'t start one. It\'s a fairly simple theory.
The theory is that we don\'t want a fight and a stern warning might help that from happening.
Quite simple, isn\'t it?
Ace
-
But when a stern warning isn\'t really required it could be called antagonistic and too \'in your face\'.
-
That might be true, but I bet a lot of people who said that we shouldn\'t go into Iraq said Syria is probably a better place to start because of the concrete ties to terrorism.
Ace
-
If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt then attack away, it\'d be nice to have a justified war fresh in our memories.
It just strikes me as completely and utterly insane that people seem to want to fight constantly, I know the news is more interesting with a war on, but come on this is a bit extreme.
war isn\'t a nice stylish photograph opportunity like this
http://www.redflag.org.uk/news/chechen/grz04_full.jpg
-
Don\'t mistake protecting one\'s country as blood-lust.
Ace
-
If you\'re not being attacked or threatened then it\'s bloodlust, plain and simple.
Or megolamania (does anyone remember that game?).
-
Green Meanie,
Do you like beer?
Ace
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937105,00.html
No war. Sorry luckee.
and we didnt attack iraq right away either. Plus Im sure he knows it would probably be political suicide.
-
"Veto"
Did you catch that word in the article?
-
Peoples opinion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2948923.stm
-
April 15, 2003, 10:20 a.m.
Dealing for Dinars
Seeing Iraq and raising Syria.
By Denis Boyles
or a couple of days there, the European press nearly succumbed to the epidemic of chronic systemic apoplexy which swept the continent after Rummy asked the Syrians to please refrain from making chemical weapons and to stop offering tourist visas to wayward Iraqi generals. Things are better in England and Germany, now that the Valium has kicked in.
But in the French press, everything about Washington\'s unkind words is just too horrible. The pain and suffering the Bush administration has caused the Baathist regime in Damascus is seen as inexcusable. Le Monde, in an outraged editorial today, asks why the Americans act so American. After all, both Syria and Iraq are Baathist fascists, so, according to the paper, it\'s only "logical that Iraqi Baathists took refuge" next door with Syrian Baathists. And it\'s not like Syria has done anything wrong: "Having refused to sign anything, Syria, unlike Iraq…is free to develop weapons of mass destruction…. So why now the threats?" There are two explanations for this, says Le Monde. Either it\'s part of a regional American plan to "destabilize the most radical regimes" by putting them on notice that WMDs and harboring terrorists are no longer acceptable policies. Or — and I think this may be the explanation Le Monde is favoring — "the White House is drunk on military strength." However, Le Monde saves its most scathing criticism for the part where it accuses the U.S. of putting its interests ahead of the interests of others — and therefore behaving like the French.
Most of us knew a war in Syria wasn\'t really the plan. But if you have a big, victorious army sitting around, you might as well use it as a way of leveraging a little serious attention, no? Non! The reaction of the French, the Germans, and the Left-wing Brits shows why Europeans can\'t play poker, and instead prefer games of pure chance, like roulette and driving in Italy. The quintessentially American skill of turning a card and making a bluff is just lost on them. Anybody could play a busted flush and make a French poker player fold. (Insert French surrender joke here.) For Le Figaro even sending Dom de Villepin, the French minister of strangeness (a literal translation, sort of), to Syria was "playing a risky game." Fortunately, the paper says, the Americans don\'t seem to care any more what de Villepin does or says, while the Syrians may have not taken him very seriously, either. As the paper points out, the Syrians have to ask themselves, "If Washington leans on [us], what will France be able to do to help? Why would France be more effective in a Syrian crisis than in the Iraqi crisis?"
The Times explains how the game is played to calmer readers: "The Assad regime will try to give the minimum to ensure its survival, as it has always done. But, unlike Saddam\'s, it also knows when not to believe its own slogans. Using diplomatic, political and economic pressure while keeping the military option open, the US-led coalition should ask for the maximum. That includes support for the growing reform movement in Syria itself, a movement that many say is secretly endorsed by President Assad against the old guard."
Aside from wars on Syrians, the other preoccupation of the French press today is determining how much their anti-Americanism is going to cost them. Liberation offers a trio of pieces reporting the effects of the American boycott of all things made in France. In a main piece, the paper reports that poll numbers show Americans are starting to feel about the French the way the French have always felt about Americans — and, more importantly, how that translates to a serious decline in, among other things, wine exports to the U.S., said to be worth some $1 billion a year. There\'s also an amusing Q&A with American economist and boycott-backer Irwin Stelzer of the Hudson Institute. Judging by the questions, the paper clearly thinks Dr. Stelzer is a lunatic: "You have written that \'English cheeses are good substitutes for French cheeses.\' Are you serious?" A third piece looks at the limits of the boycott, noting a deal made by Rupert Murdoch with Thomson, a French company — despite the fact that Murdoch\'s Fox News employs "motormouths" ("animateurs vedettes"!) like Bill O\'Reilly, who has said nasty things about the denizens of Fromageville.
The war in Iraq is over. That\'s semi-official, I think. The media here will continue to cover events there, and elsewhere, with relish, especially when what happens next reflects poorly on America. Mercifully, these daily reports will cease, but I will continue to provide a weekly digest of the European press until the management decides to take back this soapbox they have so kindly lent me.
-
I thought it was interesting that they shut off a pipeline from Iraq to Syria pumping over 1 billion dollars worth of oil a year to Syria on the backside. This is all money going straight to Saddam.
Too bad the UN didn\'t find this pipeline before. THen perhaps their oil for food program may have actually worked.
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.ucomics.com%2Fcomics%2Fjd%2F2003%2Fjd030414.gif&hash=d8469422912a82b3d17c21926b7b279bd9410e4f)