Is Syria next?

[Theophylact]

From the Miami Herald:

U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that [Undersecretary of State John R.] Bolton was prepared to tell members of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the region.

I think Bush's integrity and credibility is so low that even Jeb will take what he says with a grain of salt.

[CERuppel]

How about how the current US propaganda machine has progressed to such a point that they pose a threat to stability in the whole world?

Seriously. Stop and take one look at this philosophy of "pre-emtive warfare". Please? You basically pick and choose what intel to use, based on the decision you like, then you go and kill lots of people. You are not defending yourself, you are not defending others. (And for the liberation crowd: There are plenty of our allies that are equal or worse than Saddam, but you aren't pushing to send yourself over there to die for their freedom).

What this "pre-emptive" warfare does is put a sort of mask on "attacking without provocation". All it is is just another name for the same thing. If there is just cause for defensive action, than show the world the proof.

As for this sudden surge in Syrian WMD, I think that the world will be demanding a lot of hard evidence. And then, more than likely, excluding US action in favor of any other route. Led by any other nation. Face it, the US has stopped being a respectable player on the world stage.

(PS: I type like Bush speaks...)

Nuklear.

That's how he speeks.

Seriously, though, apart from Bush's credibility knee high to a grasshopper, there will be no invasion of Syria or North Korea for a very simple reason:

There is no oil. Bush is basically an oil man and evaluates everything from that perspective.

As long as Syrian Arabs don't suddenly find oil, they will be safe.

[MatrixmaN]

Knight Ridder?

Isn't that the dude with the cool talking car =D

[Droppyale]

Originally posted by shahani
As long as Syrian Arabs don't suddenly find oil, they will be safe.

U crack me up sometimes...

[Epidemic]

CERuppel,

Plenty of our other allies are equal to or worse then Saddam.

Could you please cite numbers articles that show Syria has a leader whom Grinds people up for speaking against the govenment, Killed 200,000 of it's own citizens in the past 10 to 12 years. Gassed women and children and has mass graves dotting the landscape.

I have not heard these stories. At best i have heard of an mildly authoritarian government with a bit more than average corruption who responds to political pressure.

[CERuppel]

Epidemic: I was not refering to Syria.

YGPM

Originally posted by Droppyale




U crack me up sometimes...

Well, Bush cracks me up.

[Epidemic]

CERuppel,

Syria was just an example of bad based upon your post.

Please do tell who is equal to or worse than saddam in the world today who is are ally. Heck please do tell me any current regime which is equal to or worse than Saddam's government.

I can think of none. Personally I am not sure if N-Korea is worse or equal to . They have an active WMD program but on a humanitarian side of things I am not sure if they are grinding up people left and right to quiet down the opposition. Thus far all I have seen is chest puffing and misuse of funds.

Is NKorea worse on as many topics as saddam.

This is not an attack on you CErupple, it is a request for clarification on your perception of who is worse than saddam and why. Syria, Iran, N-Korea, Jordan, zimbabwe, Congo...

Civil wars are bad and probably should be stepped in on occasionally but they do not come under the category of a single leader who kills his own people to remain in power, who oppresses his people, who is immune to diplomatic pressure...

If you disagree please explain. I am open to debate on it. I currently can not personally think of a single nation quite as poorly run as saddams.