Rumsfeld Warns Syria

Az · March 28, 2003, 14:38

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

So, what do you think? I think that Rumsfeld is talking too much. Unless the US actually will go after Syria.

Az · March 28, 2003, 14:40

The link doesn't actually talk about it, but still...

a FOX news, link. (sorry

)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82377,00.html

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 14:45

The US is just hedging all it's bets at this point. The Arab world knows we're all over there now, and we're not taking any sh*t.

I doubt we'd actually go after Syria at this point, but we're definately going to do whatever we can to stablizie the middle east, once and for all.

in all honesty, i can see the US pushing other nations to bend to our will (namely Iran & co.), and if it came to military force, I have no doubt we'd use it.

We've ignored the middle east for too long. peace talks have failed. we're going to sort it out the only way americans know how, by killing anyone who causes a problem

"men will not truly be free until the last king is strangled by the entrails of the last preist"
-crap, i forget who that was

Nubclear · March 28, 2003, 14:50

The US would be in deep political doo-doo if it tried going after Syria. It just won't happen.

Iran.....Maybe. Though Iran is said to have an advanced nuclear weapons program......

Stuie · March 28, 2003, 14:51

Rummy is an ass who puts his foot in his mouth every time he opens it.

MarBaS · March 28, 2003, 14:53

Well you cant have Syria helping out Iraq with supplies and such.

SlowwHand · March 28, 2003, 15:00

Syria is more of a threat than Iran is, currently.

AnnC · March 28, 2003, 15:01

I'm convinced that Rumsfeld is in the habit of repeating in public what the "neo-Reaganites" discuss in private.

So if he's threatening Syria, it probably means that the Bush administration chickenhawks have been discussing "regime change" in that country.

Nubclear · March 28, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Syria is more of a threat than Iran is, currently.

Saudi Arabia is more of a threat that Syria is. Israel is more of a threat than Saudi Arabia is. Egypt is more of a threat than Israel is.

....
....
....

Russia is more of a threat than Al Qaeda is. China is more of a threat than Russia is. And thats it.

Stuie · March 28, 2003, 15:03

I think Rumsfeld's mouth may be the bigger threat.

My dislike for the man aside, wouldn't Syria's "assistance" also be a violation of Resolution 661? Or is that no longer in effect?

AnnC · March 28, 2003, 15:03

Tassadar, you forgot North Korea.

Az · March 28, 2003, 15:04

This is an intriguing developement. If true, what can the US do?

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by AnnC
You forgot North Korea.

north where?

oh, koh-REEE-aaah.

we're only bombing brown people now, come back later.

MarBaS · March 28, 2003, 15:06

Bomb the shipment trucks

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally posted by MarBaS
Bomb the shipment trucks

unless they were Iraqi trucks driven by Iraqi personell carriny Syrian supplies, we'd catch some flak from that, no?

Az · March 28, 2003, 15:08

I don't think that any particular Intl. flak, but quite the hostile feelings by the Arabs.

Nubclear · March 28, 2003, 15:09

Quote:

Originally posted by AnnC
You forgot North Korea.

Oh yes.

North Korea is more of a threat than Russia is. China is more of at threat than North Korea is. Thats it.

Happy?

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I don't think that any particular Intl. flak, but quite the hostile feelings by the Arabs.

if memory serves me, the Germans sunk American ships with goods en route to England, no? Unrestricted Submarine Warfare? Didn't that kinda blow up on them?

Dauphin · March 28, 2003, 15:15

Quote:

if memory serves me, the Germans sunk American ships with goods en route to England, no? Unrestricted Submarine Warfare? Didn't that kinda blow up on them?

Not really. It was the sinking of the cruise liner Lusitania that caused problems for Germany in WW1. The wolfpacks of WW2 were extremely effective until several months after the US entered the war.

Stuie · March 28, 2003, 15:17

NEXT!!

Quote:

Rumsfeld Warns Iranian Proxies in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on Thursday that armed Iranian proxies gathered inside Iraq will be considered combatants if they interfered with U.S. forces.

"They report up to the (Iranian) Revolutionary Guard, and they're armed, and there are some additional ones that are close to the border," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news briefing. "To the extent they interfere with (U.S.) Gen. (Tommy) Franks activities they would have to be considered combatants.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=574&ncid=1478

Dauphin · March 28, 2003, 15:20

Do we reckon Iran has the guts to pick a fight with the US now, whilst it tied up with Iraq?

Could cause real problems for the US if they did.

Az · March 28, 2003, 15:21

Iran would be stupid to start a war with the US.

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Quote:

if memory serves me, the Germans sunk American ships with goods en route to England, no? Unrestricted Submarine Warfare? Didn't that kinda blow up on them?

Not really. It was the sinking of the cruise liner Lusitania that caused problems for Germany in WW1. The wolfpacks of WW2 were extremely effective until several months after the US entered the war.

thats for the clarification

this is what happens when you go to a technical school with no history classes

Dauphin · March 28, 2003, 15:24

Japan and Germany were stupid to attack America. They still did it.

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Do we reckon Iran has the guts to pick a fight with the US now, whilst it tied up with Iraq?

Could cause real problems for the US if they did.

Iran is actually being somewhat helpful in whatever the hell we're calling the war now. i recently heard they found an Iraqi speedboat lines with explosives that was heading to the US fleet. another Cole-esque attack in the making.

Az · March 28, 2003, 15:25

If Iran will attack the US, the US will mobilize its' entire might. Iran is no superpower, that will be able to resist it.

Sure, it will be tough, but they will lose.

Eli · March 28, 2003, 15:26

Wasnt Sharon saying the exact same thing a few weeks before the war started and everyone blamed him for encouraging more wars?

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 15:26

surely, you will admit the Axis were in a better position than Iran to attack america. hell, the axis was better off than the entire arab world at the time (realitively speaking)

Inverse Icarus · March 28, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli
Wasnt Sharon saying the exact same thing a few weeks before the war started and everyone blamed him for encouraging more wars?

STOP ENCOURAGING MORE WARS YOU DAMN ISREALIS!!!

sorry, couldn't resist

Az · March 28, 2003, 15:28

actually not only relatively speaking.

the citizens of the axis nations lived better then than the people of the muslim world live now.