Syria's WMD's could someday be used here on us.

[Drummond]

The only thing Revel had right was that security is an illusion.

I don't remember which security official said this....."The bad guys only have to be right once...we have to be right every time". ( a paraphrase)

I certainly agree with that second sentence.

Even so, to just stand back and say that nothing useful can be done, is the same as inviting the WORST to happen. Even getting partial control of a bad situation is definitely better than having no control at all.

The Syrian situation is a messy one - and it would've been way easier to militarily resolve if the Russians and Chinese weren't so intent on supporting Assad. Which is why I think that a solution has to involve them. Far better that they butt out, but I doubt they would.

So you make the best of a bad job, and solve whatever you can, as best you can.

But what you DON'T do is stand back and do nothing .. unless, of course, the idea is to maximise the chance of the very worst happening.

Who's for surrendering US security to whoever, or whatever, wants to be a player in this ? Al Qaeda, maybe ?

[revelarts]

I'm not sure what a 'rouge power' is supposed to be. One consisting of 'reds', maybe ? And I have to ask .. is a WMD wearing cosmetics more dangerous than one that doesn't ?

But you have a point of sorts, in that proliferation of WMD's just has to make it that much easier, certainly statistically, to imagine that terrorists will one day get their hands on some.

But Syria is a particular concern, though for reasons best known to yourself you're refusing to see the truth of that. What if Assad's regime is overthrown, and we see a situation develop there much like Libya, with rebel forces just taking everything over ? What if some of those rebels had sympathies with terrorist groups ? What if some WERE terrorists, who'd infiltrated ?

Some Nation States are more stable than others, and by nobody's standards is Syria stable today. BUT, Revelarts, you seem not to have taken that into account, or, to WANT to ?

Now ... why would that be ?

Because some Leftie imperative would rather have it that you didn't ?

LOL Putin asked the U.S. the same question long ago? And the Same question in Lybia? Where we KNEW we knew Absolutely that we were assisting "fromer" Alquida take over from Qaddafi.
Who do you think will take over here? it will be the Muslim Brotherhood and or alquida afiliates most likey . do you think it will be a secular democratic minded group?

Libya and egpyt are the examples here. We had no real problem with Assad or many of these other Jacked Up dictatorships other than they were more friend with Russia than we like. NONE of them where really working with terrorist. What ME Country had the most terrorist come from it OH that's Saudi Arabia!!!. Our good friends!
Drummond the Idea that suddenly Sryia is more of threat with Assad than without him is Kool aid drinking imperialist propaganda.

I think Gen Clack had it part right, it's a plan to break up the old ME soviet satellites and sow disorder in the region, and give the brotherhood and other radicals a leg up to what final purpose i don't know.

But it's NOT to protect us from Syrian or any other M.E. WMDs.

you need to wake up friend.

[Roo]

I certainly agree with that second sentence.

Even so, to just stand back and say that nothing useful can be done, is the same as inviting the WORST to happen. Even getting partial control of a bad situation is definitely better than having no control at all.

The Syrian situation is a messy one - and it would've been way easier to militarily resolve if the Russians and Chinese weren't so intent on supporting Assad. Which is why I think that a solution has to involve them. Far better that they butt out, but I doubt they would.

So you make the best of a bad job, and solve whatever you can, as best you can.

But what you DON'T do is stand back and do nothing .. unless, of course, the idea is to maximise the chance of the very worst happening.

Who's for surrendering US security to whoever, or whatever, wants to be a player in this ? Al Qaeda, maybe ?

I am not saying do nothing....I am simply saying that we can never be 100% secure.....the only thing that will make someone like revel sit up and take notice is if an attack gets someone he loves...until then he lives in a theoretical world in which he will believe in the innate "goodness" of mankind.

Right now his argument is only that his "hear say" is better than ours.

[Drummond]

LOL Putin asked the U.S. the same question long ago? And the Same question in Lybia? Where we KNEW we knew Absolutely that we were assisting "fromer" Alquida take over from Qaddafi.
Who do you think will take over here? it will be the Muslim Brotherhood and or alquida afiliates most likey . do you think it will be a secular democratic minded group?

Libya and egpyt are the examples here. We had no real problem with Assad or many of these other Jacked Up dictatorships other than they were more friend with Russia than we like. NONE of them where really working with terrorist. What ME Country had the most terrorist come from it OH that's Saudi Arabia!!!. Our good friends!
Drummond the Idea that suddenly Sryia is more of threat with Assad than without him is Kool aid drinking imperialist propaganda.

I think Gen Clack had it part right, it's a plan to break up the old ME soviet satellites and sow disorder in the region, and give the brotherhood and other radicals a leg up to what final purpose i don't know.

But it's NOT to protect us from Syrian or any other M.E. WMDs.

you need to wake up friend.

From a practical point of view, the problem with Assad is that he's not delivering stability as he ideally should be. So the question is, how will it be introduced ?

If it's true that Assad is causing the instability and is perceived as the enemy by a large percentage of Syrians, then how is his remaining in power helping anyone ?

OK, forces could move in and prop up Assad. Maybe the Russians and Chinese would like that. But such an arrangement wouldn't last. All you'd really have is the likes of Al Qaeda making this a basis for getting recruits on their side .. and an expanded Al Qaeda doesn't do anybody any favours (or do you argue that it DOES ?).

.. so I think that an Iraq-style solution is probably the best one.

Revelarts, I'm not pretending that any of this comes near to being 'perfect'. But consider that your chief concern has to be to ensure that forces move in which ensure that the area is free of WMD's !! There could be nothing more irresponsible than to stay on the sidelines and just hope against hope that they don't one day fall into the wrong hands.

This time, there's seemingly no doubt that the WMD's are real. Revelarts, are you just going to do the 'Leftie thing' and say that war is wrong, everybody should blind themselves to the dangers this entire situation has thrown up .. and just trust to comforting illusion, instead, and do NOTHING ?

[revelarts]

How many books have been sold by these folks? LOL And I see you're still spouting Kwiatkowski's name around, too funny. And Clarke? That cracks me up even more. Why do these people not have any solid proof and it's mostly hearsay, while their hawking their books and websites of course?

I can give you a list just as long, from people not looking to sell anything, and you won't believe it unless it's good news about the enemy. Bottom line, there would be quite a few top democrats that would be all over this if it had any teeth. Shit, only Paul and Kucinich are willing to buy the books, and we knew them 2 have about 5 brain cells between another to share.

And we were going in to remove Saddam unless he fully cooperated - WHICH HE NEVER DID. To this day, there are literally TONS of chemical weapons that WERE ACCOUNTED FOR in 1998 that never have showed up. That WAS PART of the UN resolutions, that they account for these weapons, and they not only never did, they outright refused. I don't care about the reports of what Blix believed, as his own words and words of his colleagues show that Iraq remained in material breach up till the day they were invaded.

But lets help some shitheads sell some books off of hearsay rather than based on 12 years of FACT finding from the entire effing world!

Ah well the Iraqi General everyone is in love with here told his story in what .....A BOOK!

Ergo therefore No Doubto HE IS A LYING SACK OF ----.

Really Jim I'm gonna be Bluntly honest,
that is a STUPID argument. You need to drop it.

"They wrote book so it's a lie" is a STUPID argument man.

Bush Cheney rumsfeld all wrote books therefore they are Dirty stinky liars. right?
No, the content stands or falls on corroborating facts, the trust worthiness of the individual etc etc.. not the simple fact that a books been written.
and most of the people in the list never wrote a book anyway.

But it shows just how desperate you all are when you IGNORE THE CONTENT COMPLETELY and attack the HUGE list of people I've posted yet HANG ON TO and BELIEVE without reservation EVERY COMMENT FROM 1 Iraqi general and a rumors of transport of WMDs that NOT ONE of you has seen or can say where it is.


a few folks here are in denial here, and i'm not one of um.

[Dilloduck]

I take it from your question that you accept the nature of the danger this situation poses ? All well and good, if so.

Well, it's difficult, I'll give you that.

One problem is that Russia and China both want to continue to defend Assad's interests. Which from a world security angle, MIGHT be reasonable, if Assad had the means of asserting power decisively. However, it's becoming clear that he doesn't.

So establishing stability is the key.

Both Russia and China need to be told (maybe via the UN ?) that all they're doing is helping to prop up an unstable situation, and that this must stop. They would be wise to cooperate in an initiative which lands forces in the area to lend stability to warzone areas (with American forces a part of that; you can't just have them march in on their own !!). Better that they cooperate than not, though if they don't, they need to butt out while others do the job instead.

The UN might have a role as a communications medium, but can they be trusted with any more than that ? I really think not.

So, unless you also go in for carpet-bombing .. NOT my first choice ! .. I'd say you need to land troops there and either take the place over, or, do what the Soviets did in Afghanistan and prop up a native Government. Perhaps purely as a temporary measure, though ... I'm sure you'd prefer to institute proper democracy there.

Whatever the precise logistics of what would need to be done, one overriding imperative has to surely be applied .. which is to absolutely avoid just standing on the sidelines, and letting any manner of militant crazies step in, instead. You need CONTROL of the situation, and if YOU don't have it, then anyone else, no matter how savage or hostile, may grab it instead.

... and what would THAT mean for your security ??

Let's see----get the UN to tell Russia and China to fix it and if that doesn't work send in American troops ?

Do you have a plan B like sending in the Brits who started the whole mideast mess in the first place ?

[Roo]

Ah well the Iraqi General everyone is in love with here told his story in what .....A BOOK!

Ergo therefore No Doubto HE IS A LYING SACK OF ----.

Really Jim I'm gonna be Bluntly honest,
that is a STUPID argument. You need to drop it.

"They wrote book so it's a lie" is a STUPID argument man.

Bush Cheney rumsfeld all wrote books therefore they are Dirty stinky liars. right?
No, the content stands or falls on corroborating facts, the trust worthiness of the individual etc etc.. not the simple fact that a books been written.
and most of the people in the list never wrote a book anyway.

But it shows just how desperate you all are when you IGNORE THE CONTENT COMPLETELY and attack the HUGE list of people I've posted yet HANG ON TO and BELIEVE without reservation EVERY COMMENT FROM 1 Iraqi general and a rumors of transport of WMDs that NOT ONE of you has seen or can say where it is.


a few folks here are in denial here, and i'm not one of um.

LOL.....YOU can't say where it is, if it was or anything else......you've made conclusions based on hearsay you choose to believe, no more....no less.

[Dilloduck]

Who cares if they are there or not ? Sending in Americans to secure them is out of the question.
Next plan.

[aboutime]

Thankful that NOBODY on this forum has the power to do anything about this, either way.

After all. Eventually. As things seem to be going these days with Obama, and all of the Tree Hugging, Special Representatives of the HATE AMERICA crowd getting their way.
It won't be long now till OUR PREDOMINANTLY GAY Military starts to Wave their RAINBOW FLAGS of Surrender to the enemies of America, and Nancy Pelosi get's her WHITE HOUSE Western Version...in San Francisco, AT LAST, under the "Y. M. C. A." Banner of AIDS AWARENESS.

[Drummond]

Let's see----get the UN to tell Russia and China to fix it and if that doesn't work send in American troops ?

Do you have a plan B like sending in the Brits who started the whole mideast mess in the first place ?

I don't believe that Russia or China have any way of fixing this. They can make it worse, but not much better.

Sending in American troops would make more sense.

Dilloduck, IF Assad could assert proper, stabilising force to put an end to Syria's problems, then that would make the best of a fairly lousy situation. The difficulty is that he can't. If he could, why hasn't he succeeded already ?

So what's the alternative ? There HAS to be one, because otherwise, what's being risked is that crazies, and/or terrorists, move in and grab all the WMD's they can get their hands on. Or, dodgy deals are done which arrive at the same outcome.

If we had enough British troops to move in and take over, I for one wouldn't mind that a bit. I'm sure we'd do a cracking job. Since we don't ... it makes sense for American troops to take the lead. Maybe we could assist, as we did in Iraq.

Still, I know that there are war-weary Americans out there who are fed up with seeing their lads go out to the Middle East and see them put their lives on the line, again and again. I promise you, I've every sympathy with that point of view.

So the question then is, ... shall we all just do nothing, let matters unfold, and hope against hope that your terrorist enemies are so Neanderthal in their savageries that they can't work out how to detonate, or otherwise activate, the WMD's they are bound to get their hands on, given half a chance ?

[Roo]

Thankful that NOBODY on this forum has the power to do anything about this, either way.

After all. Eventually. As things seem to be going these days with Obama, and all of the Tree Hugging, Special Representatives of the HATE AMERICA crowd getting their way.
It won't be long now till OUR PREDOMINANTLY GAY Military starts to Wave their RAINBOW FLAGS of Surrender to the enemies of America, and Nancy Pelosi get's her WHITE HOUSE Western Version...in San Francisco, AT LAST, under the "Y. M. C. A." Banner of AIDS AWARENESS.

Really???

Moron alert.

[aboutime]

Who cares if they are there or not ? Sending in Americans to secure them is out of the question.
Next plan.

Sure thing Dilloduck. Who cares? Just let them give the terrorists all of the Deadly Nerve, and Gas weapons to attack their own people...on the way to attack ANYONE LIKE YOU, who doesn't care.

[aboutime]

Really???

Moron alert.

ROO.... Take that back. You just insulted Moron's. The backbone of real Liberalism.

[Dilloduck]

I don't believe that Russia or China have any way of fixing this. They can make it worse, but not much better.

Sending in American troops would make more sense.

Dilloduck, IF Assad could assert proper, stabilising force to put an end to Syria's problems, then that would make the best of a fairly lousy situation. The difficulty is that he can't. If he could, why hasn't he succeeded already ?

So what's the alternative ? There HAS to be one, because otherwise, what's being risked is that crazies, and/or terrorists, move in and grab all the WMD's they can get their hands on. Or, dodgy deals are done which arrive at the same outcome.

If we had enough British troops to move in and take over, I for one wouldn't mind that a bit. I'm sure we'd do a cracking job. Since we don't ... it makes sense for American troops to take the lead. Maybe we could assist, as we did in Iraq.

Still, I know that there are war-weary Americans out there who are fed up with seeing their lads go out to the Middle East and see them put their lives on the line, again and again. I promise you, I've every sympathy with that point of view.

So the question then is, ... shall we all just do nothing, let matters unfold, and hope against hope that your terrorist enemies are so Neanderthal in their savageries that they can't work out how to detonate, or otherwise activate, the WMD's they are bound to get their hands on, given half a chance ?

OK--I'll try to make it really simple. Who do you trust with all of Syria's WMD's ? America has it's hands full right now.

[jimnyc]

Ah well the Iraqi General everyone is in love with here told his story in what .....A BOOK!

Ergo therefore No Doubto HE IS A LYING SACK OF ----.

Really Jim I'm gonna be Bluntly honest,
that is a STUPID argument. You need to drop it.

"They wrote book so it's a lie" is a STUPID argument man.

Bush Cheney rumsfeld all wrote books therefore they are Dirty stinky liars. right?
No, the content stands or falls on corroborating facts, the trust worthiness of the individual etc etc.. not the simple fact that a books been written.
and most of the people in the list never wrote a book anyway.

But it shows just how desperate you all are when you IGNORE THE CONTENT COMPLETELY and attack the HUGE list of people I've posted yet HANG ON TO and BELIEVE without reservation EVERY COMMENT FROM 1 Iraqi general and a rumors of transport of WMDs that NOT ONE of you has seen or can say where it is.


a few folks here are in denial here, and i'm not one of um.

STUPID is falling for shit that no one else will, being gullible, thinking everything in life that goes on around you is a grand conspiracy. Even the worst of enemies that you make claims against don't want to be a part of this hearsay. WHY won't they do so, Rev? Because they have pretty much zero in the evidence department and a lot in rhetoric and hearsay. You choose to believe the bare minimum with bare minimum of evidence, while outright ignoring other things presented to you. Unless your nutter hero is taken seriously, you proclaim every avenue of government to be some sort of conspiracy. That must really suck to go through life like that. And why do you outright ignore the portion of my reply dealing with the stuff in Iraq that we all know as fact? You don't like much in the facts department but sure do love you a conspiracy, and any conspiracy that can make our country looks bad, even if it means defending another country.

Rev, no one is addressing the meat of your "argument", as our entire government, who LIVE to "one up" the other party, won't even listen to this hearsay garbage. That's what you ignore - HEARSAY. It's always so and so heard this, then of course they keep it to themselves for years, then want to discuss it when it may help sell a few books. And Clarke? Holy crap, the man stole confidential documents and STILL has nothing!

If you want to pin your tail on hearsay, so be it, as usual I will side with the facts. The facts about what WMD were proven to be in Iraq, bagged and tagged, never to be heard from again. And not just a little - literally TONS. And you love to bring up Blix and his opinion that things might be finished in a few months, but don't acknowledge that even Blix admits they remained in material breach of resolutions and were not fully cooperating.

Hearsay. Cherry picking. More hearsay. Ignore facts.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway. The US was going in regardless and it had only a small portion to do with WMD and a 12 year history of shooting at out planes and ignoring UN resolutions. Everyone and anyone saw this coming from 1998 on. 'Cept for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Revelarts.