Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Countrydave55

Lebanon

Recommended Posts

I am a bit confused about this.

 

The Bush administration says that an occupying force in Lebanon (Syria) is a destabilizing influence in the middle east. They go on to say that reason Syria claims to be there (in Lebanon) is to reduce violence. But the administration argues that Syria is clearly not achieving that goal as evidenced by the recent political assassination.

 

Can't you change Lebanon to Iraq and Syria to USA and have the same or worse scenario? I ask not because I am supporting Syria's occupation of Lebanon or am opposed to the US occupation of Iraq. I ask because won't all (or at least many) of the terrorists use the administrations own words in support of their cause? Isn't this kind of rhetoric just adding fuel to the Jihadists fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. This administration would use any incident to implicate Syria.

Somebody else has already confessed to it, dammit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is quite a different matter.

 

 

The presence of the US in Iraq, regardless of motivations and accusations, has happened with a plan in mind whose ultimate goal is to get the heck out and allow the people to have their country. That plan is being followed quite well. There is no such thing going on in Lebanon.

 

It is simply quite a different matter.

 

Who or what is implicated by this administration as moon puts it has little to do with the priciple of comparison that you put forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the difference between the US and Syria is that we have an ever changing but public plan and Syria has no public plan? I think that the average Jihadist will not think that this is a significant difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the difference between the US and Syria is that we have an ever changing but public plan and Syria has no public plan? I think that the average Jihadist will not think that this is a significant difference.

Ever changing?

 

When did it change?

 

It has been the same all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i just don't understand the plan. I thought we were supposed to destroy his WMD, use the oil to finance the war which was planned to cost 2 billion dollars and set up a democracy and leave. But Rumfield says that we may have to be there 10 or 12 years to set up a viable democracy. So the plan is that we leave in 2019?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Syrian Expatriate Affairs Minister Buthaina Shaaban said she was "baffled" by the US reaction to the killing.

 

"To point to Syria in a terrorist act that aims at destabilising both Syria and Lebanon is truly like blaming the US for 9/11," she told the BBC.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4270859.stm

 

 

Meanwhile Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, speaking in London, said Iran was just six months away from making a bomb.

Which doubtless could be launched within 45 minutes. Deja vu, anybody ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fragged one

what we do is sent michael jackson over there, and hole him up in a house. then we threaten to let him out if they all start attacking each other again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i just don't understand the plan. I thought we were supposed to destroy his WMD, use the oil to finance the war which was planned to cost 2 billion dollars and set up a democracy and leave. But Rumfield says that we may have to be there 10 or 12 years to set up a viable democracy. So the plan is that we leave in 2019?

Yes, I would say you misunderstood the plan.

 

Regarding how long the Coalition stays, I would hardly be listening to Rumsfeld or anybody else in the US government about it anymore. Yet people keep asking them.

 

The correct answer is simply as long as it takes. Why is that so hard?

 

And why ask the US about that at all? It won't even up to them at all. That call will be left to the new government of Iraq as has been very publicly stated over and over again. That is the commitment they made and judging by their track record in the matter of Iraq so far I expect they will stand by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what we do is sent michael jackson over there, and hole him up in a house. then we threaten to let him out if they all start attacking each other again...

Two problems:

 

1) He has the flu. He will need round the clock care and I am certain will be on bed rest.

 

2) The US penal system may need him for a good long while before he goes anywhere.

 

Then again they could just have him serve his sentence there...in general population.....that could work.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'doc;

The Syrian Expatriate Affairs Minister? 

 

Well, I guess everybody has their opinion.

They do. Here's another one;

Part of this riveting and volatile story is that American credibility is in very short supply - at home as well as abroad. Is the Bush administration, many wonder, likely to be more right about Iran than it was about Iraq?

 

"There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war," commented David Kay, who led the search for banned weapons of mass destruction in postwar Iraq, in a Washington Post article.

 

"Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would be a grave danger to the world. That is not what is in doubt. What is in doubt is the ability of the US government to honestly assess Iran's nuclear status and to craft a set of measures that will cope with that threat short of military action by the United States or Israel."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journa...1415966,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Kay? :lol:

 

Eerie similarity? I would say there are strking differences! But then what do I know? I am not the one who was in Iraq looking for WMD and now has an opinion on everything else.

 

He has no more qualification to comment on the matter in that regard than anybody else.

 

Yup, lots of opinions out there. You don't have to convince me of that.

 

former chief weapons inspector, stepped down in January, after his Iraqi Survey Group, a 1,400-member team whose mission was to uncover Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, failed to find any evidence of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in Iraq. He stated that the team was “almost all wrong” about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Gee...whose team was it? Oh, his..... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921154.html

 

 

Prior to his appointment in 2003, Kay led the analysis of the Iraqi nuclear program and its implications for non-proliferation and arms control activities in 1991. During this time, he spent four days as a hostage of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein when he and other inspectors refused to surrender incriminating documents they had seized.

http://www.findbiometrics.com/viewnews.php?id=951

 

David Kay is a bellicose and grandiose liar who is simply pointing out that the US needs MORE BUDGET to spend on intelligence gathering, not less.  This is not to suggest that David Kay is by nature dishonest - it is to suggest that he is a PATRIOT and very capable of disseminating misinformation if it services the United States' National Security properly.

http://acsa.net/dkgambit.htm

 

 

Yup...lots of opinions....

 

Here is an interview with Kay following the release of Kay's interim report on Saddam's WMD programs. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=10165

Among Kay's comments on bio weapons evidence:

 

KAY: Well, that's one of the most fascinating stories. An Iraqi scientist in 1993 hid in his own refrigerator reference strains for — active strains, actually would've — were still active when we found them — Botulinum toxin, one of the most toxic elements known. He was also asked to hide others, including anthrax. After a couple of days, he turned them back because he said they were too dangerous; he had small children in the house.

 

This is typical. We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the UN didn't find.

 

Kay expresses "surprise" that some of the more revealing evidence he presented had not been reported much in the mainstream press. He is more surprised than I am.

 

DAVID KAY: Well, we certainly found that — have not yet found illicit arms. But that's not the only thing the report says. In fact, I'm sort of amazed at what was powerful information about both their intent and their actual activities that were not known and were hidden from UN inspectors seems not to have made it to the press. This is information that, had it been available last year, would have been headline news.

Hmmm...that's not all that the report said? How cleaver of the press to report incompletely on such things....

 

 

You wanna talk about Dr. Kay any more?

 

KAY: Well, we have found right now — and we're still finding them — over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared.

 

Now, at the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons. We found assassination tools. So we know that, in fact, they had a prohibited intent to them.

You still wanna talk about him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Let's cut to the conclusion after all the cherry-picking;

SNOW: So when you look at the totality of the investigation, in Iraq and in surrounding countries, what would you put the probability of finding weapons of mass destruction?

 

KAY: I simply don't know. I have tried to conduct a work program that guarantees us that if they are there, we will find them. Rather than estimate — I don't want to estimate. I want to have proof, and that's what we're driving toward that conclusion.

And as we all know now- there weren't any. If your links were intended to defame this guy as an incredible source, 'doc, they've failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Let's cut to the conclusion after all the cherry-picking;

 

 

And as we all know now- there weren't any. If your links were intended to defame this guy as an incredible source, 'doc, they've failed.

You know very well that was not my intent. I cannot imagine how you could say that.

 

 

Your quote does not support your point.

 

My quotations were to demonstrate the opinions of Dr Kay and opinions about him.

 

 

People I quoted say he found "no evidence" he himself is AMAZED (his word) at that, and he himself points to media distortion in the matter of misreporting his findings.

 

 

 

 

The point in the end?

 

1) There are many opinions.

2) He is NOT qualified any more than you or me on the regard that you quoted him!

3) He and his work are a perfect example of the misinformation spread by the media on the matter of Iraq and WMD. Even he says so.

 

 

In the regard that he is qualified to speak the media has filtered his comments and reports to present a farce that even you have bought into. In the regard that he is not of particular qualification to speak (just another opinion) you quote him!

 

Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And as we all know now-  there weren't any.

KAY: Well, we have found right now — and we're still finding them — over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared.

 

Now, at the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons. We found assassination tools. So we know that, in fact, they had a prohibited intent to them. 

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SNOW: So when you look at the totality of the investigation, in Iraq and in surrounding countries, what would you put the probability of finding weapons of mass destruction?

 

KAY: I simply don't know. I have tried to conduct a work program that guarantees us that if they are there, we will find them. Rather than estimate — I don't want to estimate. I want to have proof, and that's what we're driving toward that conclusion.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

I don't understand your point. You are now doing what the media has been doing. Are you that deeply indoctrinated?

 

If you take his language and compare it to Colin Powell's official presentation to the UN you will find the language eerily similar. It is quite simply consistent from start to finish on the matter.

 

at the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons

He makes that statement based on the previous statement regarding hard evidence:

 

Well, we have found right now — and we're still finding them — over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared

What could be more clear?

 

That he was looking for further evidence is no surprise. Whether or not the actual WMD was found does not matter. There is plenty of it known to be missing. In fact Kay himself was abducted over it.

 

 

 

 

 

So again. He is not particularly qualified to comment in the regard that you quoted him.

 

The parallel between Lebanon and Iraq etc is not valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters greatly to many. Odd that you should mention Powell's speech to the UN. Some viewpoints at the time;

http://pcpitstop.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1058&hl=

 

What has taken the place of embarrassment over the absence of wmd is the argument you are putting forward now.

You post viewpoints. I have repeatedly posted the text of the actual presentation here in this forum.

 

Emarrassment? I don't see that. What is there to be embarrassed about.

 

It is good that WMD was not found. It's nasty stuff. But it does not answer the question of where the missing stockpiles from years before have gone. It only tells us that they are likely not in Iraq or were destroyed in violation of the UN.

 

Not finding WMD does not negate the reasons for going in.

 

I respect the views of the people, but such views do not negate what was actually said, what the world was actually told. It only expresses the views.

 

In fact I can say that some views expressed in that thread were already inconsistent with what Powell said. They were already requiring WMD to be found when the reasoning for going in as presented by Powell never placed that requirement on it.

 

In fact it was you who did so. So you seem to be using your own misinterpretations as support for the same continuing misinterpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not finding WMD does not negate the reasons for going in.

War is illegal, 'doc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Times claims an annual audit due to be published later will show that 30kg of plutonium is classified as "material unaccounted for" during 2004.

 

A BBC correspondent expected British Nuclear Fuels to admit a "paper loss".

 

And the Department of Trade and Industry said the audit "does not represent any material going missing".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4272691.stm

 

Compare that, 'doc, with a few bottles of cough mixture and some elderly viagra found in Iraq.

30 Kg is enough for 7 bombs, I'm told. It's a 'paper loss' :lol:

 

 

One2;

 

 

me and you both know thats an outright lie

An outright lie, One2 ? I thought you knew me better than that.

Up yours;

9. Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own.

 

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the UN approves it

Unless the International Court of Justice rules that it's legal, if asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...