 |
Welcome to thebackpacker.com create account login |
 |
ON TO SYRIA!View Messages“Agreed. My point was that Nigal is painting this as we are doing them a favor. Right now, I think the jury is still out on that one.” 3:56:24 PM 4/17/03 “Nuke them all!! My taxes bought and paid for nuclear weapons. I want to see them used, not wasted on something silly like 'disarmament'.” 4:02:25 PM 4/17/03 “Gordon, if you weren't so close to being my neighbor, I'd agree and suggest they use your house as a test facility.” 4:05:21 PM 4/17/03 “I think Gordon smokes spent fuel rods...” 4:12:49 PM 4/17/03 “Pretty smooth move of Syria to introduce a Security Council resolution to create a ME free of WMDs. Hey! Why are you looking at us?” 4:12:50 PM 4/17/03 “I see the Iraqi protests as a positive sign for the future. They’ve been suppressed for so long, it’s kind of encouraging that they feel the urge to publicly demonstrate.” 4:18:01 PM 4/17/03 “well...treedude, i dont have any misconceptions about terrorists. that's why i'm glad we moved on iraq. like mutt said, they will think twice. and countries like syria will think twice about harboring them or supporting them. i think it's a testiment to the administration that noe have occured, even after all the doom0n-gloomers predicted there would be attacks. ped, i was playing of of something that donman said...which was that all of "my" sources are disconected idiots. rosey, and anyone else, like phead said, the suffering that these people have endured is epic. not just a little bad, but truely evil. i would gladly give my right leg to get out from under a government like that.” 7:55:57 PM 4/17/03 “startdewd, if we're so concerned about the suffering people have endured, why didn't we do something about the genocide in Ruwanda? This is one of those things I don't understand. I hope you can explain it for me.” 8:36:06 PM 4/17/03 “Strat, do you think this scared off the bin ladens of the world? Really, man. Take off the rose colored glasses once in a while...” 9:09:55 PM 4/17/03 “navi-i don't know onedam thing about ruwanda, i must confess. therefore i have nothing to say about it. i know there was a terrible mass murder campaign there but i don't know how much we kenw about it at the time it was happening, or who was in office here at the time, or what our reasons were for staying out of it. why did the UN not help out? i'm sure if we had wanted to go it to help, and it was a republican president, the leftist would be up in arms, as they were about iraq. everyone's made mistakes. every nation, every political party, every religious demonination....the past is gone. the discussion here is iraq, and in my opinion, we did the right thing this time. somebody put up a link to proove that "not all iraqi people are happy the US invaded" gee wizz golly splazoinkers...YA THINK!?!?! history will bear out the atrocities of hussein, and the misery of his subjects. you are wishfully speaking WAY too soon. tree, wrong again, i said...and was reffering to the "informed naysayers" lock stock and barrel, predicting all of these terrible reasons we shouldn'tgo into iraq. one of their main points was that if we attack, there will be a whole bunch of retalitory strikes against us. well, so far that hasn't happened. complaincancy will not be a problem as long as bush is in charge. perhaps in 6 more years, when there's another president, we again grow fat, dumb, and happy......which is of corse, coupled with our support of isreal, is the reason they hate us in the first place.” 10:25:56 PM 4/17/03 “I'll gladly put on weight if this country can stop being the worlds police force and remodeling crew. And most of all stop dicking around in everyones business.Remember--the 19 best terrorist in history were harbored and trained in the USA.Light your pipes and think REAL.” 11:01:25 PM 4/17/03 saleboard... “you're the bagdad bob of trailtalk...” 11:05:32 PM 4/17/03 “"navi-i don't know onedam thing about ruwanda" strat, I think that is my point. There are a bunch evil dictators out there. There are a bunch of evil things happening to people. Why Iraq before some of the others? Why now? I was listening to an interview of Charles Senet (sp?), a reporter for the Boston Globe, on NPR. One thing he said really hit home to me. "We went into Iraq for all the right reasons. And failed, failed miserably, to explain it to the world."” 11:46:27 PM 4/17/03 “"My point was that Nigal is painting this as we are doing them a favor." No silly dip snot! 8P Did you totally skip the line I wrote just before saying going in there would be doing the region a favor? Let me repost it for you... "Syria is one of the biggest terrorist states there is. Cleaning house there would be doing the region a favor…just not right now.". It's about killing people (terror groups) that want to kill us first. And you can post all the pictures you like. Why are you not posting pictures of Kurds laying in the street gassed? Why aren't you posting pictures of some of British POWs who came out of Iraqi prisons who were tortured?” 12:03:28 AM 4/18/03 “Bagdad Winger's the name.I was named after the extreme wings of the two worthless political parties. I'm a 108lb.lesbian german shepard for hollywood and my favorite pastime is to chase my tail until I get so dizzy I can understand trail talk,then I go to sleep and fart.” 12:07:45 AM 4/18/03 “navi..you know why iraq and why now. don't be coy. syria is the disneyworld of terrorist....... one funny thing i heard on NPR ws when they said syria "has a presence" in lebanon....3 sentances they the US in 'occupying" iraq. no bias there... i just heard on FOX that syria is saying they are gonna turn over some bad guys....” 7:00:57 AM 4/18/03 “IMHO, the only way we'll ever eliminate terrorism is by eliminating the terrorists...an improbable task. Our President has an unfortunate propensity to shoot from the lip. My good buddy Teddy Roosevelt had it right; 'Speak softly, and carry a big stick'. The world has recently witnessed the size of our 'stick' and our willingness to use it when the need arises. A little 'back-door diplomacy' would have better served our concerns with Syria. All this chest-thumping will only exacerbate the situation.” 7:09:47 AM 4/18/03 “you friggin appeaser, fatherG!” 7:17:15 AM 4/18/03 WRONG AGAIN , STRAT!!! “Osama binLaden already committed the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil under the watch of none other than George W. Bush (fantastic new superhero of the current economic slump). You think he wouldn't do it again? Just because there's a new 'sheeeriff' in town? You rfeally think he's saying, "ok, wait until six years from now. Wait till they get a democrat in there?" Give me a break, man!” 7:31:25 AM 4/18/03 “Will al qaeda strike again? Do they have a realistic goal? In attacking the U.S. on 9/11, their primary goal was to create an Islamic superstate - through popular unrest. But America attacked Afghanistan - no revolutions. America has inserted its military into a host of new countries - no revolutions. America conquered Iraq - no revolutions. Just what would be the motivation of al qaeda members to continue their quest for Islamic utopia, when none of their strategy has panned out thus far?” 8:17:15 AM 4/18/03 “These people don't rationalize the way we do, Mutt. Hatred knows no bounds. I may not have a direct answer to your question, guy. But, don't rule out an attack. Maybe they are waiting for us to build up again so they can throw another thorn in our side economically and inflict some collateral damage while they are at it. More than enough reason for another attacks for these bastards. on the economic front, I live in the place that was hardest hit economically by 9/11. This place was affected in ways that perhaps you aren't seeing. The rest of the country has had their alert statuses changed, but you wouldn't believe how many constant reminders there are of that fateful day here in New York. We are still on high alert here and have been for almost two years. Our businesses are suffering so bad. Our services are being cut. Life has changed here, and not for the better, my friend. So, if all is so well because Saddam is gone, then why are we still so knee deep in kaka here?” 8:28:48 AM 4/18/03 “I'm sorry to hear that, treebeard. Are you suggesting there hasn't been enough attention on domestic issues, such as the revitalization of NY, by Washington?” 8:32:18 AM 4/18/03 “Well, Mutt. A big yes, to answer your question. But, on the record, I wasn't going to voluntarily open that can of worms here...” 8:38:52 AM 4/18/03 “dewd, No, I don't know why Iraq now. Maybe you should reread my post. You accuse NPR of bias, then quote FOX? Dude! This says alot about your credibility. Or lack there of.” 10:10:41 AM 4/18/03 “Fox news is biased? C'mon!” 10:28:00 AM 4/18/03 “Stratdewd... we have occupied Iraq, big deal. We'll get out once they are stable and have a government of their own. Just because you don't like the sound of the word doesn't mean it's biased” 12:54:52 PM 4/18/03 “after the "war" in iraq, they sure weren't much of a threat to the US; it now all depends on whether they find WMD. which begs the question, if hussein didn't use them to defend his own regime from destruction, was he ever a threat to the US? glad hussein is gone, but this was a war born out of paranoia. bush seems very comfortable leading in conflict, can he do the same with our domestic issues? time will tell.” 1:04:17 PM 4/18/03 “they've already started the spin that all of their chem/bio weapons have been moved to Syria. I love how they're characterizing Syria of having pourous borders as if they shouldn't be even though our immigration system lead to 9/11 and it's still not reformed” 1:07:34 PM 4/18/03 “MEMO From: Paul Wolfowitz To: Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol, Jim Woolsey In re: PNAC's next moves (**For Your Eyes Only**) Rather than submit this memo to the entire Project for the New American Century board, I thought I'd run it by you guys first -- the front-line, so to speak, of PNAC. OK, here goes. I think we need to lay low for awhile, take it down a notch or two, if you know what I mean. Given what's happening in Iraq, with the Arabs throughout the Middle East getting increasingly enraged about the U.S. wanting to "colonize" them, and finally with ABC's Nightline doing an entire program about PNAC and our enormous influence on U.S. foreign/military policy, and even a story on PNAC in the New York Times -- given all this publicity, plus the shrill invective against us on the internet, maybe we're just too much "out there," too visible, too much of a target. What happens in such cases is that people start paying too much attention and figuring out what we're up to, and their take on those investigations often is quite negative. And, of course, what we do affects the President, and, more than anything, we need him to be re-elected in 2004 in order for us to carry out our future plans. It's great that we're in a position to more or less dictate U.S. policy -- after all (and ain't it fun?), we ARE the makers of U.S. policy -- but now that the military/political programs we're advocating are being implemented, maybe we should disappear from the spotlight for awhile and operate less publicly. We needed the visibility earlier, when we were wandering alone and reviled in the desert, so to speak, and needed to get our ideas out to lure others to our cause, but we're in power now and I don't think it wise to be scrutinized so carefully these days, thus endangering our long-range goals. So I'm suggesting at least a six-months moratorium on public appearances and statements by PNAC officials, especially the six of us, who are the ones usually called on by the media for comments. Meanwhile, we work, sub rosa, to implement more of our agreed-upon programs. Which brings us to our strategy and the problems with being so public about it: In our papers and articles, we talked about aggressively using military and other means to establish our primacy in various regions and in the world in general; I think we should spin it so that, from now on, we throw in the term "diplomatically" as well. So it doesn't appear that the U.S. is just militarist in nature, with no other means at our disposal to impose our will. For example, after Iraq is stabilized more, we may want to urge a move on Syria or Iran or even, some day, on Saudi Arabia -- although it might make more sense to start with a country that, as with Iraq, can't put up much of a fight: Lebanon, say-- we go after Hezbollah -- or Yemen. Iraq, as you know, was to be our "demonstration project," as it were: i.e., we would provide an example of the kind of death and destruction we could visit on those leaders and countries that chose to oppose our desires. It looks like we might need one more demonstration project before everyone finally gets the message: mess with us, prepare for a little "shock and awe." And that's why I think it would be easier, more practical, and certainly less dangerous to our troops to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Yemen. It'll be easy as pie, with, most likely, the least number of casualties all the way around. Now, the object is to assert our hegemonic role in the area, either occupying a nation ourselves or, even better, a la Afghanistan, making sure that we help a native leader to power who will do our bidding. Won't be hard to find someone willing to join the "coalition" after we've destroyed half their country. But if our goals and motivations are bandied about too publicly, we may actually lose our influence and ability to program the future of U.S. foreign/military policy. Now, you may be surprised by the above. After all, I'm supposed to be the giant "hawk" of the group -- well, OK, Perle's up there, too -- and here I am seeming to be urging caution and go-it-slow. I know that some of you feel that, with the momentum generated from Iraq, we should just keep going immediately into Syria, while the Arabs are in a state of confusion and shock. But, even though I think we could fight a mop-up war on Iraq and take on Syria at the same time, and maybe even North Korea is we have to, I just don't think it makes sense to stir up the Arab hornets' nest in the Middle East one right on top of another. It could backfire on us, and blowback is never pretty. Plus, we have a lot of rebuilding, repairing and reshaping of our military and stock of machines and weaponry after Iraq -- damn the intelligence that predicted a cakewalk and immediate high-level surrenders! (On the other hand, the defense contractors, who are our financial supporters, are quite happy that the U.S. military depleted so much of its stores in Iraq.) So a few months won't make that much difference, and would permit us to get back up to fighting speed, so that our military threat is credible and might induce Syria to give in without a fight. Anyway, maybe it's all a moot point. Maybe things are proceeding so fast -- with Assad being provocative in Syria, harboring Iraqi officials, making rude noises, thumbing his nose at the U.S. -- that we should consider kicking into the original plan and try to get the current government to leave peacefully or else. If it works, we democratize the place, putting in U.S.-sympathetic officials and, as with Iraq, opening the economy to U.S. corporations. But taking on Syria frontally might be premature; I say, let's hit them in their proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon. They'll get the message. Final note: Wherever we establish democracy in the Middle East, we have to make sure that radical Islamists are not ever in a position where they could assume power. That is, we can't have democratic elections in any of these countries that turn out the wrong way; it wouldn't look good if we had to go back in there after an election and re-do the whole procedure. (Already, we're hearing too many Iraqis thanking us for freeing them from Saddam's cruel yoke and then telling us to get out and leave their country to them. Those ungrateful bastards.) We have a lot of work to do. How long we -- I mean the Bush Administration -- will be able to get away with this kind of policy is always unknown, so let's get our act together, before our goals get unmasked and perhaps negatively impact on the 2004 election. If there is one. apj” 1:08:10 PM 4/18/03 “...the suffering that these people have endured is epic. not just a little bad, but truely evil. - stratdewd 07:55:57 PM 04/17/03 So Cuba is next?” 1:34:36 PM 4/18/03 “Enteretaining satire there Mr. ViOli-” 1:41:00 PM 4/18/03 “How about China? Cambodia? Zaire? Ivory Coast? Indonesia? Tibet? Etc., etc., etc...” 1:43:13 PM 4/18/03 “killing is bad” 1:51:09 PM 4/18/03 “As the bow crosses the string,only Corps. shoulder vote in 2004.Who knows better what is good for the top 1% of Americans,for, they're the only ones that count( all the money, that is). Large international interest,like the oils,construction and war tools makers should be considered as the business UN's of the world.If the UN is bad......where do they?Yah! light the pipe........” 1:56:27 PM 4/18/03 “Are we there yet?” 2:11:07 PM 4/18/03 “What makes you think that was satire?” 2:23:43 PM 4/18/03 “I like the part about "if there is one" if reference to the next election.” 2:29:08 PM 4/18/03 “"How about China? Cambodia? Zaire? Ivory Coast? Indonesia? Tibet? Etc., etc., etc..." ~roseymonster Patience, grasshopper. I think this Syria-aimed sabre rattling is cool - I bet even they didn't see it coming (seeing's how they weren't amongst "The Axis'o Evil"). Il is doing a new dance. Iran is sweating. GWB is the man. Worldwide terrorism is on the way out - akin to how high seas piracy was eliminated in the days of yore. "We will not rest..." "Commander in Chief of the Economy"? Not hardly. Who cares - he has bigger fish to fry. We'll make do... we'll get through this economic slowdown.” 2:30:08 PM 4/18/03 “heck ya, and in the meantime we'll keep paying Dubyas friend's companies (with our tax $$) to re-build other peoples countries! Damn it's good to be a neocon” 2:33:31 PM 4/18/03 “BTW I would be a lot happier if OUR President was paying as much time and energy on OUR country as he is on foreign countries.” 2:38:25 PM 4/18/03 “"BTW I would be a lot happier if OUR President was paying as much time and energy on OUR country as he is on foreign countries." ~Donman Isolationism is sooooo 1930's. If kudzu were to begin encroaching on my lawn, I would think it a good idea to kill it before it reached the house.” 2:46:40 PM 4/18/03 “Isolationism is one thing, I'm just saying it would be nice if President Deserter actually had a domestic policy. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030417/ts_nm/economy_dc_18” 3:07:38 PM 4/18/03 “"President Deserter" LMAO!!” 3:16:36 PM 4/18/03 “Gojo,piracy is alive and well with drugs as the booty.Some estimate that 20% of drugs that reach the US have been stolen ,but still cross our border.” 11:18:11 PM 4/18/03 “Daaaang. Stealing drugs? What's the world coming to?” 9:29:15 AM 4/19/03 “I thought Isolationism was 90s Conservative, <G>. I guess it just depends on who's in the Oval Office.” 11:58:34 AM 4/19/03 “You really think he's saying, "ok, wait until six years from now. Wait till they get a democrat in there?" Give me a break, man!" treebeard no tree, but i do think the current administration is keeping a much better eye on things now. i think it's fair to say that they underestimated their ability to hurt us on our soil, and they actually cut funding to fight terrorism pior to 9-11. but now that he(bush) has seen their true capability to commit the ultimate evil, we will no longer be caught off guard, at least not on bush's watch. there have been many attacks thwarted since 9-11, worldwide. there probably will be another major attack someday, and then you will be saying "oh bush didn't do enough to protect us". 9-11 affected everything in this whole country, not just new york. the airline industry is still reeling. nothing will ever be the same. tough nuggies. in the words of kid rock..."life's a #&%!$ but i deal wit it." i saw wolfowitz interviewed last last week and he said "if i was syria , i would be very nervous right now" bush isn't paranoid, he's a realist. this crap has been going on for centuries and has spilled over into our country now and it is time to deal with it once and for all. those people are barbaric and backwards and only understand one thing, brute force. as winston churchill said, we must teach them a lesson that they and the world will never forget. wonder where we'd be sitting now if gore had been successful in his attemp to steal the election..... as far as us being the world's police force goes; so what? somebodies gotta do it. nobody in the world is gonna look out for our national interest but us. protecting the american public is government's number one job.” 12:38:27 PM 4/19/03 “"Just what would be the motivation of al qaeda members to continue their quest for Islamic utopia, when none of their strategy has panned out thus far?" - Mutt Actually - I think a lot of al queda members and their sympathizers have found some of their strategy has panned out pretty well, they wanted a much wider conflict between the US and the Islamic world and they've got it. I'm sure they wish there was more anti-US violence and turmoil in the world and would like to have seen the invasion of Iraq take a bigger toll on the US - but I'm sure some of them are pretty optimistic. How we handle things in the next year or so will play a big role in telling whether Al-Qaeda's dreams are crushed or realized.” 1:58:32 PM 4/19/03 “they wanted a much wider conflict between the US and the Islamic world and they've got it Al Qaeda has not succeeded in creating a conflict that has united the arab/muslim people in a common course of action against the West or the United States, in particular. That's the goal of Al Qaeda. What's the point of al qaeda creating wider conflict if it doesn't unify the arab and muslim people against the enemy that al qaeda is trying to bring down? If anything, they themselves have been brought down. They've exposed the weakness and divisions in the Muslim world.” 3:57:20 PM 4/19/03 “Mutt - I'd say the outcome is still in doubt. If its a chess match, the US has taken the gambit (seized the bishop's pawn) and has the initiative. If the US plays follow up to the Iraq invasion as well as it did the invasion, its in good shape. If it does as badly as it did in the lead up to the war, things could get hairy. If Bush needs a military confrontation to win the 2004 election, because the economy is still bad - it could increase the chance of a mis-step. I must hope the ecomony and the military situation work out as well as he says.” 4:18:39 PM 4/19/03
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
|
SearchReady to Buy Gear?Sponsored Links
Great Outdoor SitesLinks |
