TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US now warning Syria
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
US now warning Syria
this could turn ugly...apparently Syria has been supplying the iraqis...
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/28/iraq_syria030328
Is there even one person who belives this conflict ends with Iraq? Helping Iraq or not we shal be imposing control on all the middle east for obvious reasons.
Let's hope bush will be voted out of office b4 he damages our image with the whole world.....even Rwanda. 
yeah i read about this earlier. well what the hell is Syria doing supplying night vision stuff + other stuff (cant remember what exactly)?? that will ONLY cause problems...
but as someone before said, Syria is next, and maybe they had some insider information that i wasnt aware of, cos it looks like Syria MIGHT be next.
hmmmm.....well see what happens. i hope this war doesnt spread out all over middle east.
>JM<
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz Let's hope bush will be voted out of office b4 he damages our image with the whole world.....even Rwanda. |
intresting... I don't want them to be in war or anything (still have family there). Seeing how Iraqis are slowing down the US big time with AK-47, I wonder how Syria's intact army freshly equipped with some US equipment during last gulf war would do against the coallition. Syria is a 17 million population strong country and it would complicate things for the coalition to have such a large front.
Also, its easy for the US to bully Syria when Russia sold the same equipment to the Iraqis. Double standards? or an excuse to attack Syria!
good debate.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mental Exodus 800,000 people were killed in rwanda and America didnt do anything. Cant get worse than that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mental Exodus 800,000 people were killed in rwanda and America didnt do anything. Cant get worse than that. |
well, i'm not gonna jump to conclusions.... but.....
there have been discussions about dealing next with Iran and Syria
way before the war even started....
AnotherWay83.....maybe u didn't mean it this way.... but Syria isn't "supplying" the iraqis....
rather... "military supplies have been crossing the border from Syria into Iraq"..... "We consider such trafficking"
it makes a difference imo..... Syria doesn't own night vision goggles(i promise u, the Syrian army doesn't have crap!) to give the iraqis, but it could have allowed the "trafficking".
Trade routes between both countries have always existed.... even when the UN imposed sanctions.... if the trading didn't exist, iraqi ppl would be in a much worse condition than they are now....
that being said...
didn't the US accuse Russia of supplying the Iraqis with GPS jamming devices and night vision goggles...??
Using the Syrian-iraqi trade route seems like the only way such items can get into iraq.... possible link?
.... if the US does go into syria, i would seriously be outraged!
It's ridiculous!
I really hope things don't get more complicated....
....(*there go my summer plans...*)
Summer plans in Syria? Anyway I wouldn't worry too much. I'll eat my shoes and join a hippy peace movement if the US invades anybody else any time soon after this conflict ...
about Richard Perle aka "prince of darkness" just left the Defense Policy group...
Perle pays the price for business controversies
By Joshua Chaffin and Thomas Cat�n in Washington
Published: March 28 2003 22:14 | Last Updated: March 28 2003 22:14
Last week, Richard Perle, the influential Pentagon adviser, was speaking on his mobile phone outside a Senate office building when trouble came from an unlikely source: the parking attendant.
"It's not about the oil," Mr Perle was heard to shout at the attendant in apparent frustration before returning to his call.
It was that sort of week for Mr Perle, one of the leading architects of the US policy on Iraq, who has been embroiled in a storm of controversy over his outside business interests.
Mr Perle was appointed chairman of the Defense Policy Board in 2001 by Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. Although the board members are not paid government employees, they have grown in stature because of Mr Perle's close ties to the administration's hawks.
His role came under scrutiny after the New Yorker magazine reported that Mr Perle had attended a lunch in January with two Saudi businessmen to seek funding for his venture capital group, Trireme Partners, which invests in defence and security companies. One of the Saudis was alleged to be Adnan Kashoggi, the arms dealer at the centre of the Iran-Contra scandal.
Mr Perle denied the allegations, and threatened to sue the publication for libel in London. But the controversy did not end.
He finally resigned his chairmanship on Thursday night after his work for Global Crossing, the bankrupt telecommunications company, sparked calls in Congress for an ethics investigation.
Mr Perle was to be paid $750,000 by the company to help win government approval to sell its assets to a Chinese-controlled company. The deal has been blocked by the defence department and the FBI, which object to a Chinese company controlling the vital fibre-optic network that the government uses.
Mr Perle had bristled at the suggestion that he has done anything improper, or should leave the board altogether. He said in a letter to Mr Rumsfeld that he was resigning his post to prevent a political distraction.
Asked about the controversy last week, he suggested it was the work of a leftwing conspiracy.
"I'm beginning to think that people who've been saying on the internet that I am part of a small neo-conservative cabal that runs the world actually believe what they are saying," he told the Financial Times.
Mr Perle is not the first Washington official to have had a connection with Global Crossing. Terry MacAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, spun a $100,000 investment in the company into a $15m windfall before it collapsed into bankruptcy and became the subject of congressional hearings.
Mr Perle is also not the only businessman to sit on a quasi-governmental advisory board. The Department of Energy Electricity Advisory Board is stocked with energy company executives.
Mr Perle's current problems stem partly from his high profile as a leading intellectual of the neo-conservative movement. He has long exercised considerable influence on successive Republican administrations.
He served as the assistant secretary of defence in the White House of President Ronald Reagan, one of 10 such positions, but was given the moniker "the Prince of Darkness" by his political enemies because of his staunch opposition to arms control treaties.
He has long been a well-known figure in the Israel lobby with close ties to Ariel Sharon, the Israeli leader. In 1983, it was reported that he had received payments from an Israeli arms company for representing their interests. Mr Perle explained that the work was done before he assumed his Pentagon post.
His stature grew sharply under the current Bush administration, where disciples such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith have risen to key civilian positions in the Pentagon.
Mr Perle appeared to be flexing his newly found policy muscles at a conservative think-tank breakfast last week when he poured scorn on the United Nations, peace protesters and any country opposing the war on Iraq.
But his growing influence has proved a double-edged sword. While he has been able to see his long-held hawkish beliefs become US policy, his business dealings are being more closely examined than ever.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...p=1012571727162
intresting read for those who care:
The Prince of Darkness Explains Iraq
By David Corn, AlterNet
May 10, 2002
It was late. The sidewalks were empty. Four blocks away, the dome of the Capitol shined brightly. In front of me stood the Prince of Darkness. With his dark eyes locked upon me, he was demanding information.
"Why do you liberals keep defending Saddam Hussein?"
Richard Perle, an assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, who earned that comic-book-villain nickname by being the most hawkish of the hawks, was continuing a debate we had just finished in a television studio.
His query was a telling one, in an anthropological way, for it provided insight into the thought patterns of the neocon tribe that has been beating the drums for war in the land of Mesopotamia.
I had expressed doubt about the necessity of invading Iraq and the ability of the Bush Administration to cajole any other Arab nation to endorse this crusade. And that, in Perle's mind, was equivalent to defending a thuggish dictator who has used chemical weapons against his own citizens.
Couldn't he see that opposing war was not the same as supporting Saddam? Apparently not. The fact that he was entrapped in a bipolar, Cold War-like perspective, was unsettling, for Perle now heads the Defense Policy Board, a group of outside-the-Pentagon military intellectuals that advise the Department of Defense. His prejudices and biases carry beyond the talk-show circuit.
Gamely, I tried to educate the man. Before taking the country to war, I said, President Bush was obligated to present a solid case to the American public, and so far Bush and his crew have only asserted that Saddam poses a threat. They have not proven that Saddam's supposed pursuit of weapons of mass destruction has made him a clear and present danger to the United States.
Before the United States attacks another nation � and, intentionally or not, kills civilians � an administration should show why such a drastic step cannot be avoided. This ought to be done to win public support � at home and abroad � and to persuade Congress, which would have to authorize the assault.
"What evidence do you need?" Perle asked with a grin.
Something is better than nothing, I said, and all we have gotten so far is nothing. What about intelligence reports? Electronic intercepts? Overhead satellite photographs? During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy released reconnaissance shots that showed Soviet missiles were being deployed in Cuba.
"Only trained photo-interpreters could tell what they meant." Perle replied.
That's true. But 40 years ago, the world of photo-interpretation was much smaller than it is now. If the United States were to release similar photos to demonstrate Iraq was close to obtaining nuclear weapons, there would be experts outside the U.S. government � in the private sector and in other governments � who could confirm or dispute the administration's reading of the data. But it need not be photos. The President could share whatever information he bases his call-to-war upon.
Perle moved closer and said, "Trust me."
Sorry, I answered, I don't think we should head to war merely on the say-so of a few government officials. Besides, I added politely, why trust you? Why not trust Scott Ritter?
Ritter was the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq who quit the program in 1998 because he felt the Clinton administration was not being sufficiently forceful in its dealings with Saddam. At the time, he was hailed by conservatives.
These days, Ritter can often be spotted on television explaining that Iraq poses no threat to the United States at this time and that there is no justification for a U.S. attack.
Ritter, Perle huffed, is "unstable."
Low blow, I said.
Perle claimed he does not call everyone with whom he disagrees "unstable." But, he said, this was an appropriate term for a fellow who had changed his position 180 degrees.
What about Norman Podhoretz? I shot back, attempting an inside joke. Podhoretz, a founding father of Perle's neoconservative posse, had been a liberal before turning (famously and infamously) into a conservative.
"He explained it," Perle said, referring to the Pod's extensive writings. But, I retorted, so too did Ritter, who wrote the book "Endgame," published in 1999, which covered his adventures in Iraq and his short-of-war recommendations for US policy. With that, we said good night, and Perle entered the car waiting for him.
Stalemate? I doubt much convincing had occurred during this exchange. I certainly did not believe "trust me" was appropriate justification for war. And Perle never acknowledged there was anything problematic in such an approach to governing.
On the way home, I recalled the other dollop of insider wisdom he attempted to impart to me that night. When we first walked out of the studio, Perle sharply said, "Why do you think we need anyone else?" He was replying to my on-air skepticism regarding Bush's effort to win Arab backing for a military move against Iraq.
I noted there were widespread media reports saying an attack would require up to 250,000 troops. These soldiers could not all be air-dropped into Iraq. They would have to come from somewhere, such as Saudi Arabia. And a military action of this size would need extensive logistical support nearby.
Forget the 250,000 figure, Perle said: "The Army guys don't know anything. They said we needed 500,000 troops in 1991 [for the Gulf War]. Did we need that many to win? No."
What's the Perle Plan? I asked.
"Forty thousand troops." he said.
To take Baghdad? Nah, he replied. To take control of the north and the south, particularly the north, where the oil fields are. Cut off Saddam's oil, make him a pauper, that should do the trick.
"We don't need anyone else," he said, in a distinctly imperial fashion.
This was illuminating, for here was a top Pentagon adviser, a comrade of the get-Saddam ideologues of the Defense Department, asserting the United States could de-Saddamize Iraq with a relatively small force and without asking any other nation for assistance. Was anyone else at the Pentagon on this same page? Might Perle be reflecting proposals already drawn up there?
I admit I am no military expert � but I do know a few. The next day, I described the Perle option to two of them. A military analyst, who had served many years in the Special Forces, replied (requesting confidentiality):
"The question that has not been asked or answered is what do we want to do in Iraq. We need to distill it down to its simplest form. Is our goal to kill Saddam (how can you exile him) or do you put him in prison for the rest of his life (a la Noriega)? Are we going after the weapons of mass destruction sites? Do we know where they are? (No!) Once you answer all of these questions, you realize that you need an army of occupation to run Iraq until we set up a puppet government. Do you really think that once we occupy Iraq we are going to allow the Iraqi people to elect anyone they want? Guys like Perle and [deputy defense secretary Paul] Wolfowitz are so blinded by their loyalty to Israel that they seldom look at the long-term consequences. Finally, once we occupy Iraq, the Perles of the world are going to say, 'Why don't we just go into Iran and solve that problem, too?' I really think occupation is something the Bush administration has not thought through yet. It will be a huge problem, especially if we decide to go it alone."
Another military analyst, who worked 20 years on US counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, was also doubtful:
"I think Perle is smoking dope, just like the majority of these guys who've held high level positions but never served a stitch of time in combat. It's a lot hotter on the battlefield than it is in the halls of the Pentagon, and the margin of error is much slimmer. I'm not sure what the number is, but I do know it's a hell of a lot more than 40K. And indeed we most certainly need the support of Arab allies in the region. Where else would we base the helos needed for quick recovery of downed pilots, immediate air support for ground ops, etc., etc, etc.?"
Retired Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, former chief of staff for the U.S. Navy's central command in Bahrain and the operations officer of the Theodore Roosevelt Battle Group during Desert Storm, also was kind enough to consider Perle's proposal for me.
He noted, "Yes there is a contingency to go in without Saudi Arabia being looked at. The base in Qatar is being replicated to have the same capabilities as Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia." But, he added, "I don't think a force of 40K (the size of the New York police department) will work, as the risk is too high. Anything less than victory is totally unacceptable."
By that, Baker meant politically unacceptable. As Baker, now a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, wrote recently, "The political impact of an unsuccessful campaign would be simply unacceptable to the Bush administration. Thus, any offensive would be an all-out, unrestrained war that would use overwhelming force and every conventional asset in the US inventory to assure success. A military plan is under construction, but not ready yet ... Such an operation would be no 'cake walk.' It instead would be very complicated militarily and politically. It will take time to get US forces in place and plans at a satisfactory level of detail and readiness to execute ... Up to 100,000 US troops and 25,000 support personnel would need to be pre-staged throughout the Gulf for a major ground offensive."
Like the two analysts quoted above, Baker sees a boatload of complexity in a war on Iraq: "Once Saddam's out, who's in? ... Questions regarding who will be responsible for internal security once the regime has been removed will have to be answered ... There are a number of tribal, ethnic, religious and political fissures that could easily generate tensions once Saddam's iron thumb has been removed, and these have the potential to spillover national boundaries ... Another strong man might be what is needed to keep the peace in Iraq. However, there is little reason to believe that the next tyrant will hold views regarding weapons of mass destruction, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel that are dissimilar to Saddam's own. The financial and political investment in a post-Saddam Iraq will have to be substantial, as will the risks."
Yet Perle, full of confidence and hubris, makes it sound as if Mission Iraq could be a breeze. I wonder if anyone in the Pentagon is listening when the Prince of Darkness says, "Trust me."
David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13098
-The US wont be up for another war, unless the president it's too too damm disconciderate of the conditions of this nation ( as if Bush isn't) ..
Congress simply wouldn't go for it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz I know but they are still a part of the "coaltion of the willing," as it's called. Hence the reference, and my former display of their flag. I notice some others still have it in their sigs..... Does anyone know where there is a small one I could put in my avatar?? |
| quote: |
| Originallly posted by occrider Summer plans in Syria? Anyway I wouldn't worry too much. I'll eat my shoes and join a hippy peace movement if the US invades anybody else any time soon after this conflict ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX -The US wont be up for another war, .. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mental Exodus Why not? We payed to put the troops there in the fisrt place. We could use a larger foot hold in the middle east. If they are supporting Iraq then it is grounds for a take over. Im not saying its right but it does make sense to get the most bang for your buck. Well at anyrate all it takes is 10 years and some propoganda to go back so if we want it its ours in the end. |
The only reason I asked that question is because you used the term "we" 3 times... knowing so that the Canadians aren't part of this war
have a nice day.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ahlamalek are you an american? jewish? both? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ahlamalek The only reason I asked that question is because you used the term "we" 3 times... knowing so that the Canadians aren't part of this war have a nice day. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa I actually do have some fresh insider information The Debka website ( http://www.debka.com ) claims that Syria has been storing Saddam's WMD, and they might be used soon against Israel!!! Syria is also helping to transport hundreds of Palestinian volunteers to fight for Iraq. The Syrian "civilian" bus that was hit "accidentally" by an American "stray" missile was really the first instalment of Palestinian volunteers specifically targeted by the American fighter plane. Dunno if Debka are speaking the truth or just releasing some propaganda stuff. |
| quote: |
| At the last count: 152,000 regulars who clicked in at least once a day 96,000 viewers who clicked in at least once a week A total of 1,050,000 viewers per week and 4,200,000 per month 62% of our audience is American, 30% Israeli, 8% from 96 countries on every continent and 2 readers in space, aboard the international space station. 58% of our viewers are aged from 25 to 46, including many members of the free professions, government officials, financial leaders, military and intelligence personnel, academics, students and incorrigible skeptics. Our articles are regularly quoted and credited by a host of international television, radio and print media. Frequent requests for specialist interviews are received by our editorial staff and experts. DEBKAfile has been cited as Best of the Web by Forbes, selected Hot Site by USATODAY and profiled in the New York Observer (A Web Site With the Inside Dope on the Middle East), Time Magazine, Le Monde, Paris Corriere della Sera, Milan, Wired News (Debka: Conflict�s Drudge Report?), NEW MEDIA ( For the real skinny on the Afghan story), Haaretz Magazine and Globes Digital. Articles are in preparation in Harpers and Rolling Stone. A brief roundup of their comments is appended to this page. �This Jerusalem-based site has achieved recent notoriety for its tip-sheet-like reports from the war zone� Debkafile has been ahead of he pack often enough to suggest that the reporting is good.� Forbes.com Best of the Web Dec. 2001 �On several occasions, Debka.com has beaten the Western media to information that has later shown up in U.S. newspapers� At its best, Debka.com reads like a tip sheet from the desert, from people who know� If you want to be on the cutting edge during these days of crisis and international chaos, check out DEBKA for yourself. Is it worth $120 a year to get the news before the rest of the world?� THE NEW YORK OBSERVER Sept. 26, 2001 �The result isn�t much to look at, but Debkafile is beating out big-name American and international news sources on several key stories and attracting flocks of new readers in the process� USA today, CNN and NBC all reported last Friday that American and British forces were Afghanistan scouting out terrorist hiding places; Debkafile had the same story days earlier, and included details about Russian intelligence officers and German commandos joining in the incursions.� WIREDNEWS Oct. 13, 2001 �So, how do you find out what�s really going on in the U.S.�s mounting war against Osama bin Laden and his ilk hiding out in Afghanistan and other terrorist-protecting countries�? You might turn to where a lot of journalists are turning, Debka.com. NEW MEDIA Oct. 3, 2001 DEBKAfile is quoted on Chinese Muslims helping the Taliban on WTNT/Radio (Savage Nation broadcast/Mile Savage) Oct. 8, 2001 DEBKAfile is sourced for report on White Russia selling arms to Muslim extremists by Aftenposten, Norway, Oct. 31, 2001 ��came to Debka via the Internet site of the Hamas organization. They frequently quote reports from Debka. It took a long time before I understood what this Debka was what they keep mentioning.� Haaretz Magazine, Oct. 19, 2001 |
never heard. i will look ^^^. thanx for the headz up guys
>JM<
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM how are the Jewish part of this war? we dont see Israel shooting missiles at Iraq or sending troops over, do we now? just because he said something you perceived as "anti-Syrian" and even maybe "anti-Arab" you quickly try to nail down on his nationality. >JM< |
ffs...don't ppl realize that there is NO CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE...because every single paper on the planet has some bias and something is always inserted into the articles. So when you watch or read anything remember that simple fact. Syria needs to be warned if they are supplying the iraqi because that violates the UN mandate then again it could be argued since america threw that out the window then the whole thing is confusing from the start. Then again, I have no faith in the United Nations because remember....this league of nations installed libya as the head of human rights and we all know that libya is more likely to break them. After all, they were involved in the lockerbie bombing and their leader set the whole damn thing up
has nothing to do with this thread.
But you would know if you did some research, that Israelis ops are on the field in western Iraq to check for any Scud launchers.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.