16-10-2003 21:00									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Correction "Over ALLEGTIONS that the White House named a CIA agent". Its possible it was the CIA that leaked it, or that someone in the white house or otherwise didnt know she had been a covert op - Novak i think says it was open knowledge that she was CIA.

.

The CIa didn't leak the name of one of it's agents they have no motive to do so while the administration has a very big motive. Her husband published some reports which were critical of Bush so one of Bush's lackeys went and exposed the guy's wife as a CIA agent. That she could have been killed by the administration's actions is dispicable but what's worse is Bush has done nothing of substance about this. He's just played lip service games.

It's funny that when Congress "leaked" information about Iraq not having WMD in the run up to the war Bush could spare 20 agents to investigate who did it, but, once his administration is the one doing the leaking he can spare just one part time agent.

	16-10-2003 22:24									#32
	Inflate your Upload Space

Syria is pretty divided amongst a multitude of different tribes, right? There has to be alot of people in Syria who would like to see Assad gone...

I wonder how much this should be our concern, however. AFAIK most of the terrorism Syria supports is directed against Israel, and I think Israel is more then capable of demolishing Syria if it so wanted, and at this point is probably in a better position to move against them then we are.

	16-10-2003 22:25									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Why does one have to have WMD to get a USA kicking? 'We don't like you' - is good enough for me. Which was pretty much all we used against Iraq. And will it really change anything if by chance WMD do show up in Iraq? ahh, nuke'em all I say.

	16-10-2003 22:35									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin . The CIa didn't leak the name of one of it's agents they have no motive to do so while the administration has a very big motive. Her husband published some reports which were critical of Bush so one of Bush's lackeys went and exposed the guy's wife as a CIA agent. That she could have been killed by the administration's actions is dispicable but what's worse is Bush has done nothing of substance about this. He's just played lip service games. It's funny that when Congress "leaked" information about Iraq not having WMD in the run up to the war Bush could spare 20 agents to investigate who did it, but, once his administration is the one doing the leaking he can spare just one part time agent.

1. There could very well have been people inside the CIA who didnt like Wilson - why do you assume he only has enemies in the White House
2. Its not at clear that her identity was revealed as a way of harming Wilson - from what Novak has said, it was more like some rightwingers (like himself) were asking "how could you be so stupid as to pick Wilson for this job" and they responded by saying that his wife, a cia agent, vouched for him.
3. What exactly is Dubya supposed to be doing on this? heres an ongoing investigation, and he has directed the white house to cooperate. Should he be jumping up and down and saying we have big problems with leaks at the white house? Wouldnt that be prejudging the arguably still open question of where the leak came from?

	16-10-2003 22:36									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

There will never be a war with Syria simply because America will never fight a war with someone who might make some vague attempt at fighting back.

	16-10-2003 22:39									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by monkspider There will never be a war with Syria simply because America will never fight a war with someone who might make some vague attempt at fighting back.

I wouldn't call Modern Syria's military history particularly shining.

	16-10-2003 22:41									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: of course they have. guess where Saddam is hiding all his nukes.

LBJ had his dominoes, Bush has his WMD.

Forget about Waldo, where's WMD?

	16-10-2003 22:45									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by monkspider There will never be a war with Syria simply because America will never fight a war with someone who might make some vague attempt at fighting back.

tell that to Germany and Japan.

	16-10-2003 22:46									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by uh Clem Well gee, it must be true then, because the US is never wrong about that sort of thing. The Syrians btw have this really annoying habit. Whenever Washington starts to scold them about weapons of mass destruction, they demand action against the one country in the Middle East that does have WMDs. Don't you hate people like that?

More token Cheney-pounding to appease the hawks. Large projects in Syria have been virtually unfinanceable for years already, and export controls and customs issues have made doing any kind of business with the Syrian government a pain in the ass, going back to at least the late 80's.

	16-10-2003 22:47									#40
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by monkspider There will never be a war with Syria simply because America will never fight a war with someone who might make some vague attempt at fighting back.

The Syrians couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag if you grabbed the bottom of it and tried to pour 'em out just to give them some sort of a chance.

	16-10-2003 22:50									#41
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat More token Cheney-pounding to appease the hawks. Large projects in Syria have been virtually unfinanceable for years already, and export controls and customs issues have made doing any kind of business with the Syrian government a pain in the ass, going back to at least the late 80's.

I thought Baby Assad was trying to open up the economy.

	16-10-2003 22:52									#42
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark (...) not all dems, and no prominent republicans, think Dubya actually lied about anything signficant (there a lot of quibbling going on about the word "imminent" - Bush in his State of the Union address explicity said Iraq was NOT an imminent threat, we shouldnt wait for it to become imminent (...)

And you think that's any better?

Either he convinced the nation to go to war against an imminent threat that wasn't, or he launched a war against some nation that did not imminently threaten the US, but might someday. The latter gives me little comfort.

Besides, quibbling over what Bush said is almost a moot point, given that the man rarely appears before the press (remember that Republican complaints about Clinton on this? W's worse...). You have to consider the administration as a whole. Exhibit A: Bush never explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11, yet the cumulative impact of his insinuations and statements by other leading members of his administration led 3/4 of Americans to believe there was in fact such a link (despite a near complete lack of evidence).

He11, *Penis Cheney is still making unfounded allegations and false arguments about Iraq.

----------------

*Note: I use the name not to defame the man (who I in truth loathe), but to point out the idiocy of Apolyton's naughty word filter.

	16-10-2003 23:06									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Some people out there just don't seem to get it. Ever since 9/11 the US has been serious about going after any country which sponsor's terrorism. Why is that so hard to understand?

Nations like Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?
If Bush were serious about terrorism, he would not have evacuated the Bin Laden family (without FBI questioning) while every one else was grounded.

	16-10-2003 23:09									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The Syrians couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag if you grabbed the bottom of it and tried to pour 'em out just to give them some sort of a chance.

The Syrians may have bio or chemical weapons which they might just dump on invading troops. And American soldiers dying with the chemical shakes is not a pretty visual ...

	16-10-2003 23:12									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by mindseye And you think that's any better? Either he convinced the nation to go to war against an imminent threat that wasn't, or he launched a war against some nation that did not imminently threaten the US, but might someday. The latter gives me little comfort. Besides, quibbling over what Bush said is almost a moot point, given that the man rarely appears before the press (remember that Republican complaints about Clinton on this? W's worse...). You have to consider the administration as a whole. Exhibit A: Bush never explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11, yet the cumulative impact of his insinuations and statements by other leading members of his administration led 3/4 of Americans to believe there was in fact such a link (despite a near complete lack of evidence).

they said that iraq supported terrot - which was absolutely true - Iraq supported terror bombings in Israel, murders of Iraqi exiles abroad, and attempted to assasinate Bush 41.

they also said there was evidence of connections between Iraq and AQ - which was also true - It still appears that Iraq gave protection to Zarqawi, and there were several contacts between Iraq and AQ through the 1990's.

They said that there was a possibility of direct link to 9/11 - which is also true - some Czech officials continue to stand behind the claim that the Atta was in Prague and meeting with an Iraqi intel operative in August 2001. Some question the identification, based on the fact that travel records show that Atta did not leave the US UNDER HIS OWN NAME OR ANY KNOWN ALIASES in that period. Does not rule out that he might have done so under a different alias. In any case it IS known that he traveled to Prague several months, earlier, and AFAIK there is no explanation for that. None of which proves that Iraq knew about 9/11 even if the meetings did take place- they could have been working on another operation.


But in any case, all of this, including the attempt to justify the war without an imminent threat was fully known prior to the war - and was in fact a matter of considerable public debate.

	16-10-2003 23:37									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I thought Baby Assad was trying to open up the economy.

Baby Bashir is, but unfortunately, he can't escape Syria's reputation. It isn't too clear how much he's really in charge, and if he directly goes along with Syria's BS, if it happens under his nose and he looks the other way, or if he's simply insulated from reality.

Banks and capital lease lenders have been extremely leery of the political risks, and he hasn't been able to do even ten percent, probably less than five percent, of the infrastructure and development projects he originally wanted.

	16-10-2003 23:59									#47
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark tell that to Germany and Japan.

Maybe he should have said 'never attack' a country that can stand up to them.

Both Germany and Japan declared war on the US, not the other way around.

	17-10-2003 00:43									#48
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by el freako Maybe he should have said 'never attack' a country that can stand up to them. Both Germany and Japan declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Actually Japan didnt declare war, they just attacked (and did call off negotiations, but that message was delayed getting through to Washington) The US then declared war on Japan. But point taken.

OTOH we declared war on Germany in 1917. And I suggest that quite a few southerners could tell you about a US attack on a country that could fight back (but I suppose you dont consider CSA a country )

And in 1812 we declared war on a country that not only was able to fight back, but almost whupped us.

Do we have a lot of small wars against tiny powers - grenada, panama, Iraq etc - well yeah, but thats what great powers do.

Take France = there military has been all over africa the last few years, and they fought Iraq in 1991. When did they attack somebody who could fight back? Egypt in 1956? Hardly. algeria? WW2? But though they declared war, do you consider that an attack on Germany? Ditto WW1. I think you have to go back to the 1850s. Britain - - well they did have the falklands thing - but didnt argentina attack them? Mainly they fought little colonial wars, and they fought in Iraq in 1991. Russia - hmm, Chechnya, afghanistan, Hungary ...
China - Viet Nam, Tibet - oh wait, they did attack India in 1962. And who attacked whom on the Amur in 1969 - was it russia or china?

	17-10-2003 01:21									#49
	Suffering from ads?

I can't imagine you being at war with Syria as long as you're stuck in the Iraqi quagmire. Syria is a way tougher enemy, since its army hasn't been strangled for 12 years (but maybe it'll have the same skill as 1991's Iraqi army, so it doesn't count), and the Syrian population will not enjoy at all to see the US topple their government. Indeed, unlike Iraq, Syria's regime doesn't use mass terror to inspire loyalty, but rather promotes political apathy and nationalistic fervor. There is not such a personality cult for Assad as there was for Saddam, and blood remains generally low.
You're going to have a much more significant popular resistance during the invasion than what you had in Iraq. You won't see people dancing in the streets very often. This will make the war effort and the peacemaking effort definitely more deadly. And I don't think the Yanks have the guts to tolerate thousands of their men being killed. At least, some heads will fly at the white House, including the prez's.

	17-10-2003 01:29									#50
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I can't imagine you being at war with Syria as long as you're stuck in the Iraqi quagmire. Syria is a way tougher enemy, since its army hasn't been strangled for 12 years (but maybe it'll have the same skill as 1991's Iraqi army, so it doesn't count), and the Syrian population will not enjoy at all to see the US topple their government. Indeed, unlike Iraq, Syria's regime doesn't use mass terror to inspire loyalty, but rather promotes political apathy and nationalistic fervor. There is not such a personality cult for Assad as there was for Saddam, and blood remains generally low. You're going to have a much more significant popular resistance during the invasion than what you had in Iraq. You won't see people dancing in the streets very often. This will make the war effort and the peacemaking effort definitely more deadly. And I don't think the Yanks have the guts to tolerate thousands of their men being killed. At least, some heads will fly at the white House, including the prez's.

In fact this is essentially correct (leaving aside the remark about guts - we'd have the guts if we thought it was worth it, which i dont think is the case now vis a vis Syria) . The long term "strategy" for Syria, as far as i can tell, is to try for change in Iran first, and then hope that loss of its principle ally changes the situation wrt Syria. And even then the goal is probably a Syrian withdrawl from Lebanon, not regime change. Thats way down the road. I do believe the reason for the current focus on Syria is due to the ferment in the Pal territories - not only the renewed terror against Israel, but the apparent illness of Yasser Arafat, and the dispute between Arafat and Abu Ala, and the possible succession maneuvering. The main goal is to warn Syria to stay out. Syria's vote at the UN today would seem to indicate theyve gotten the message.

	17-10-2003 01:48									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by The Templar The Syrians may have bio or chemical weapons which they might just dump on invading troops. And American soldiers dying with the chemical shakes is not a pretty visual ...

They'd have to deliver those systems, assuming they had them. We'd ass**** their arty and air capabilities, such as they are, before they even knew what hit 'em. Sorry, this is Syria against the US Army we'd be talking about.

	17-10-2003 01:54									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

That's why they have got to pre-emptively attack you in Iraq, Michael.

	17-10-2003 03:00									#53
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: a nation the United States says is harboring terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Why does this sound familiar?

	17-10-2003 03:06									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark attempted to assasinate Bush 41.

We only have the Kuwaiti government's word for that, and they have absoltely no reason to lie.

	17-10-2003 04:19									#55
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat They'd have to deliver those systems, assuming they had them. We'd ass**** their arty and air capabilities, such as they are, before they even knew what hit 'em. Sorry, this is Syria against the US Army we'd be talking about.

Syrian security just seems like the type of guys who'd just dump them indiscriminantly in an urban theater. Enemy troops, their troops, civilians ...

But yeah, other than crazy **** (which they may or may not have the WMDs for), they got nothing. Just goes to show how unmanly the Bushies are. If they liberate Tibet I'll even vote for them next time ...

Now that would be manly!

	17-10-2003 06:38									#56
	Inflate your Upload Space

The US does so little business with Syria that this is a nice photo opt and a nice vote getter for conservaives and people in NY, NJ and Florida, but toherwise does little.

Waiting for Change in Iran isn;t going to pan out, and honestly, what does Iran give Syria? It's not like Iran funnels tens of billions that way: terrorism is cheap. Israel spends in a few days more on the IDF than all the terrorist orgs fighting it do in a a quarter or so. A suicide bomber consta fraction of what a single armored vehicle goes for.

I also do not see Syria support as critical to the Pal. orgs. Wouyld they be worse off without it? Yes. Would it weaken them significantly? probably not. As for Hizbullah, they are now in the Lebanese gov. and have become a political movement: all the huffing and puffing by the US and Israel won't undo them.