Author Topic: Syria now top US target for 'regime change' (Read 662 times)

10Bears · « **on:** April 09, 2003, 01:13:08 PM »

Telegraph

One of the main subjects on the agenda of the Belfast summit yesterday was Syria, the Pentagon's next likely target for "regime change" amid suspicions it allowed Saddam Hussein to transfer weapons of mass destruction within its borders.

Although President George W Bush did not include Syria in his "axis of evil" of Iran, Iraq and North Korea in January 2001, since then American officials say they have seen growing evidence of support for terrorism by Damascus

Anyone that read the PNAC report would not be surprised with this.

Why lie about it?.. Just tell the world-- look this is what we're gonnna do... We takin' over the ME militarly..

Here's another article about it

Washington Post

Conservatives within the Bush administration would like to see a change of government in Syria but want it to happen through peaceful means rather that U.S. military action, according to current and former senior U.S. officials.

On Sunday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said, "There's got to be a change in Syria," which has been accused by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of allowing war materials and Islamic fighters to cross its border to help the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "The Syrians need to know . . . they'll be held accountable," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:17:27 PM »

Want to bet that US troops dont' go into Syria?

Pick your time limit and lets negotiate.

Sox62 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:18:38 PM »

LOL at Toad "The Greek"

Puke · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:21:10 PM »

10Bears, that kind of stuff serves no purpose. You are completely putting the cart before the horse too. If we wanted the Middle East, we could've started with Kuwait and Iraq about 12 years ago. So c'mon, don't get caught up in the rhetoric because you are looking like Chicken Little.

john9001 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:23:09 PM »

10bears.
and of course , being a anti-american you have a problem with this, to you syria is a great place . almost as great as iraq under saddam.
why don't you move to france , you could sit in a coffee shop on the west bank of paris and complain about the evil USA with the other liberals there.

"ah oui, zee evil gourges boosh"

batdog · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:26:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
and of course , being a anti-american you have a problem with this, to you syria is a great place . almost as great as iraq under saddam.
why don't you move to france , you could sit in a coffee shop on the west bank of paris and complain about the evil USA with the other liberals there.

"ah oui, zee evil gourges boosh"

I dont think 10Bears is "anti-american". I think he hates GWB and crew but thats okay..welcome to America. I cant remember him spouting stupid sh)( of like certain indiv's.

batdog · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:29:44 PM »

On ANOTHER note though... what ARABIC nation would be "saddened" to see Syria go? I'd say about the only true losers there would be the PLO..and maybe not even them. Hell they've been led around by thier noses vie the Syrians and Terror groups sponsered and sheltered in Syria.

That would leave one nation.... Iran. Iran could go democratic/islamic moderate soon regardless.

crowMAW · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:33:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Puke
If we wanted the Middle East, we could've started with Kuwait and Iraq about 12 years ago.

Wolfowitz tried in 1992 to sell that concept to Bush, Sr. who was smart enough to shoot the idea down. Baby Bush does not quite have his dad's intellect unforutnately.

lazs2 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:33:40 PM »

LOL 10bears.... what a jerk... let me save you some pain here... arabs understand power and force... syria will be a good boy. so stop the crocadile tears .... everyone knows how phony it is.

but don't listen to me.... make a fool of yourself... put on the blinders and go into wishful thinking mode... I just don't see how suffering is so appealing to the left.
lazs

CptTrips · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:51:09 PM »

Quote

Pick your time limit and lets negotiate

Lol. 10beers is just stupid enough for you to retire on.

Wab

10Bears · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:54:01 PM »

Laz2, am I a jerk for requesting they not lie about it?.. according to the PNAC, Iraq goes first followed by Syria, then Iran. If not for control of natural resoruces than for what?.. Once this plan is completed, any nation that gets out of line with the U.S. will have a sharp increces in fuel costs.

If you want to stiffel debate on this well, I suppose that's the "new" American way.

Rather than challenge my position on this issue (that they not lie about it) you choose to call me names.

Prior to Dec 11th 2000, American used to stand against naked aggression.

Toad · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2003, 01:56:26 PM »

PNAC has exactly what authority to authorise the use of force against a sovereign nation?

You conveniently forget that the US CONGRESS... both houses... authorised the use of force against Iraq.

That's who sends US troops into battle. Not PNAC.

funkedup · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2003, 02:12:28 PM »

ALL YOUR CAMEL ARE BELONG TO US!!!

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #13 on:** April 09, 2003, 02:17:20 PM »

For some reason Im reminded of the "WHEN IS 1.12 GONNA BE OUT!?!?!?!?!" threads that spung up 45 minutes after 1.11 was released.

lazs2 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2003, 02:27:55 PM »

10bears... it is a non issue... we are not attacking syria... when we do .... if we ever do... we can visit the reasons at that time...

I believe that you are simply being a jerk and trying to find negativity where non exists.... yet.

It may happen but it is too soon to "discuss" it... I don't think that anyone is fooled by your motoives in "discussing" this non issue tho. You are upset because there wasn't enough pain involved with the war...

you are upset because it came out exactly like the adminestratin said it would and because we are being hailed as victors and liberators while all those that oppossed the war are being expossed for being advocates of terror, toture and genocide. maybe "jerk" is too mild a term?
lazs