What Next? Syria?

by Robdar 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jukief

  Some of you folks are forgetting one important fact: Bush in incapable of coherent thought, therefore it's impossible for him to mean what he says. He's a puppet for Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. This war in Iraq has nothing to do with WMD or even Saddam. Many years ago, the Project for the New Amercan Century--to which Rummy and Cheney and their ilk belong--publicly stated on their web site their goal of taking over the Middle East and then moving on to countries like China. Yes, China. Iraq is just the easiest and first target. PNAC picked someone with name recognition--someone ignorant and pliable and arrogant--then raised the money and got him elected. And now he plays his puppet role like a good little boy.

  Read up on PNAC if you really want to be scared. They've taken some of the more controversial papers off their web site, but there's still some juicy material there. Then do a Web seach for PNAC, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld and read some of the articles that the international press has published about them, especially the British press.

  http://www.newamericancentury.org

  I'm afraid that this country is in for a long series of invasions (you can't call these things "wars"). In the meantime, education, social services, healthcare, social security, medicare--all the things the people of this country desperate need--will be sacrificed to pay for the ambitions of the PNAC gang and their buddies, who will be rewarded with lucrative rebuilding contracts after we go in and bomb the hell out of one country after another.

  I'm extremely discouraged about the state this country is in and where we're headed.
• 

  Simon

  Ah ... "Military Intelligence" ... an oxymoron but where would we be without it?

  I hope they have better proof than they had for Iraq. They have no "he is a tyrant" claim as the guy in charge was elected.

  I said when Osama "got way" that I would not be surprised if their were reports of him popping up wherever they wanted to bomb next. Soon after we stared seeing the hints that he may have gone to Iraq or at least had links to it.

  Now, we'll be told that Osama and Saddam have gone to Syria with a truck load of WoMD ... they they will have made it to N.Korea and so on ...

  I cannot believe they are so dumb as to imagine that we are so stupid to fall for this !

  And yet ... so many do.
• 

  siegswife

  I'll be very surprised if Syria isn't next. I've been telling Sieg that Syria is next before FoxNews ever thought of it.
• 

  ignored_one

  Hmmm,

  Ignored One.
• 

  ashitaka

  Bush Doctrine Point Number Six: “god chose me. I’m right and if you disagree with me, you’re un-American and from the devil. We’re coming for ya.”

  LOL-so true.
• 

  dubla

  Now, we'll be told that Osama and Saddam have gone to Syria with a truck load of WoMD ... they they will have made it to N.Korea and so on ...

  I cannot believe they are so dumb as to imagine that we are so stupid to fall for this !

  so stupid to fall for this....um, you mean, syria is all about oil as well? and i suppose every other dictator that harbors terrorists...if we go after them, itll still be about our oil problem, each time? the fact of the matter is, when we went after iraq, all the antiwar posters on this board asked..."why not ___ dictator, and why not ____ ? (syria was often mentioned as one of these examples).......they harbor terrorists, they do bad things, what about all these countries?" a lot of us replied with "one at a time", and "each situation is different, but will hopefully be dealt with before its all over".......now you are seeing the reality of "one at a time" in action.

  so i guess we will start hearing the argument: "do they think we are so stupid to not realize that the u.s. and u.k. want to take over the oil supply of every country on the earth?"

  itll always be some big conspiracy to take over the world for those that want so desperately to believe it. bottom line, bush said hes going after terrorism all over, and hes going to do it. the biggest problem with wmd at this point in time, is the possibility of them getting into the hands of terrorists.....thats why saddam was suddenly more of a threat than in the past, and thats why syria and all the rest of them have to be dealt with at some point.......lets just hope it doesnt come to war in every instance (which im quite sure it wont). i think they will start coming to their senses.

  aa
• 

  gitasatsangha

  So Dubla,

  Are you admitting you are yet another mindless kneejerk fascist who sees war not as a final option to an unsolvable problem, but rather as the first choice in lieu of Bush's Preemptive Strike Defence policy? Do you like to see people killed, Dubla? Hate them ragheads, eh?

  The American blitzkrieg continues, and those who have sided with the murderous regime must now bury the morals and go along mindlessly.
• 

  teenyuck

  Do you like to see people killed, Dubla? Hate them ragheads, eh?

  The American blitzkrieg continues, and those who have sided with the murderous regime must now bury the morals and go along mindlessly.

  Oh, Puh Leaze!!

  However, you are right...we like to see people killed. That was the appealing thing about being a dub...looking at the Watchtower and Awake! covers always gave me excited shivers...

  "Oh, look mommy, they are showing children and babies falling into abysses. I really like the reality shots of birds eating out people's eyes."

  BTW, they are not ragheads. They are camel-jockeys.
• 

  Gopher

  "another mindless kneejerk fascist "

  Stick to the topic, please. This name-calling is disheartening and detracts from your argument. And never mind that you phrased it as a question, the implication is clear.
• 

  dubla

  git-

  your tirade of implications and insults is the exact type of post that led simon to suggest we quit discussing these issues on jwd. its unfortunate that some cant rationally discuss, but ill humor your questions.

  Are you admitting you are yet another mindless kneejerk fascist who sees war not as a final option to an unsolvable problem, but rather as the first choice in lieu of Bush's Preemptive Strike Defence policy?

  i dont see war as a first choice, but rather a last option. here, perhaps you missed this in my post:

  syria and all the rest of them have to be dealt with at some point.......lets just hope it doesnt come to war in every instance (which im quite sure it wont). i think they will start coming to their senses.

  i certainly hope it doesnt come to war in every instance, and i think thats HIGHLY improbable. heres a blip from an a.p. article that reinforces what im saying about them "coming to their senses":

  Danielle Pletka, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said some leaders, such as Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are aware of the dynamics in the region.

  "What we want people to do is to step back, take a deep breath and reassess the decisions that they have been making that not only threaten the United States and our allies in the Middle East, but do not serve in any way the vast mass of the people in the Middle East," she said. "Certainly, initial steps away from sponsorship of terrorism are a smart move."

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84194,00.html

  i dont think war is ever the best outcome, and i certainly hope it can be avoided as much as possible in these future dealings. do i think its a possibility, and will i support it if and when it becomes neccesary again? yes.

  Do you like to see people killed, Dubla? Hate them ragheads, eh?

  these comments speak volumes about your ability to engage in intelligent discourse. no i dont like seeing people killed, and one of my best friends happens to be married to a "raghead" (your label, not mine), and they have three beautiful children together. i do not hate her or her children, quite the contrary as i care deeply for their entire family.

  aa