"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?



NOYB wrote:
I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same
thing about Iran: we needed a staging area.


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq?

We already had *TWO*: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, we were
supposed to have Turkey also...but they backed out at the last
minute...which cost us the ability to cut off the Baghdad to Syria escape
route used by fleeing Baath officials (and Russian Spetsnatz hauling WMD).



Why didn't President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that
Saddam reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a
staging area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he
said?

You never play poker, do you?



He's not "buddying up".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

No. We've made pretty strong demands on the Saudis and Pakistanis. We on
cordial terms with the rulers of both of those countries because we share a
common enemy: Islamic extremists.



... He's using them for whatever little help we can get from them until
the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on terror.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?


... It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.

You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.

Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave
them. They didn't develop them overnight.


So his policy by definition was effective.

Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing
their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective
policy.