Are we about to attack Syria?

[Skink]

CSPAN is playing Lebanese tv.

[Technowitch]

1. No! That would be ridiculous!

That said, all cards are on the table.

Da Chimp said so!

[EVDebs]

2. The target was always Hezbollah, not Syria. Syria may deal...and expell

the Iranian-backed group. Or Syria may choose to keep Hezbollah...and see what happens.

[Skip Intro]

9. That would be easier to believe had bush not invaded, insanely, Iraq

I tend to think Syria really would be the target.

Whether that slaughter is the next one on bush's list, who could know.

Sad that we have a guessing game about which nation we bomb next.

[EVDebs]

11. Think again...Hezbollah, tied to Iran, IS the main target...not Syria

judge: iran behind '83 beirut bombing
by Allan Lengel (Washington Post) - May 30, 2003

Saturday, May 31, 2003; Page A08

"A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that Iran was behind the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen, clearing the way for more than 600 of their relatives to collect financial damages against the Islamic republic."

"In a 30-page decision that resulted from a lawsuit filed by the families, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote that the terrorist group Hezbollah carried out the attack at the behest of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security."

>snipped full text link at http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/news/id3444/pg1/

Marines have long memories...and I guess the Bush administration is playing on those feeling for revenge. So it looks like the time for Syria to deal with hosting the Hezbollah terrorists is sooner than we think.

It would be wise for the Syrians to seek a peaceful solution by expelling the Hezbollah to consolidate back into Iran, where the mullahs (remember that picture of them pissing on the dead Delta Force after the crash in the desert ?) can huddle up and think of their next move.

[rzemanfl]

3. No, Israel is and we are going to hold their coat. (Is that too old

an expression for DU?) This is as in "I'm going to beat the crap out of that guy." "Fine, I'll hold your coat."

[smoogatz]

4. What are you, nuts?

That's why we bought Israel. Attacking Syria is THEIR job.

[YDogg]

8. I understand ...

... your characterization ("we bought Israel"), but I think they own us. Whatever they want, for better or worse, we do, it seems.

Not making any judgement; I'm just sayin'.

[rzemanfl]

10. Two minds on the same path at the same time, see my post

above.

[applegrove]

5. Syria is small, Iran is big.... Yup!

[Ernesto]

6. With what troops? N-T

[Deja Q]

7. Seems that way. But I must admit, I no longer know what's right...

Only to get peoples' minds off of Iran until the time is right.

You know, any president with real charisma could pull this nation-building stuff off.

Except for corporate america and the trashing of the US economy and credit rating over the last 24 years by 3 of its 4 last presidents, never mind our 'need' for all this energy (is it really worth it to keep no-talent twits like Britney Spears to power the voice modulator and FM mike?!) I'd almost believe it myself.

Never mind that, if you ask me given how the M$M acted at the time, the concept of 'freedom' and 'liberation', never mind his overuse of the words as a sick person would spew diarrhea, it was obvious that true liberation never had anything to do with it. But later adopted it because, spun like that, people would believe it.

A true multi-national coalition is MANDATORY if someone wants to play "change the leader" or "force my way unto you (though it's not rape, honest)" with other countries. Too many of the larger nations were skeptical if not knowing from day 1 about those 'running' the US. But, no, * went ahead anyway. And now we're in a big mess. I suppose the job's got to be finished, but the price is too high.

We can't think of the past anymore. Yes, "no war" and all that. But it's already started. We made more enemies. Logic and rationality both aree for once that it is better to make friends. Unfortunately, if you want to make an enemy, logic and rationality also agree that there comes a point when reconciliation is IMPOSSIBLE until one side or the other has had enough of a whipping to concede.

* made a big gamble and for no reason; scratching to find one that anyone loyal to him would give him. And it gave him enough of an edge to win in 2004.

And may the Lord(s) have mercy on our souls.

[stillcool]

12. bush is putting the pedal to the metal.....

and we have no brakes!

[Misinformed01]

13. Only if they have a dictator, WMD, and ties to 9/11

Yeah. We are.

[Chomp]

14. Hang on a moment...

...I'll really start worrying about more Bushco invasions if someone could please explain where the Little Man would find:

- The money for it
- The troops for it
- The thousands of support personnel for it
- The military logistics and hardware for it
- The military allies for it
- The international political support for it
- The domestic political support for it
- The Sec. of Defence to plan it
- The lies under which it could be sold

At most, * could cobble together one or two of these things...but he'd need ALL of them to come off.

And I just cannot see how it stacks up...unless (gulp)...the man feels it is the endtimes, and all this stuff don't really matter...

[Psephos]

15. We don't need to, it would seem n/t