Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT--Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon...no big surprise again
Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NOYB wrote:
So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. Sort of like the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready. So now you're agreeing that Bush's attempts to fight a "war on terror" has largely been ineffective? DSK |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. We would we have staged from for an attack on Iran? And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. Last week? Horsepoop. You obviously don't read much. Here's a billed introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Boxer (yep...that's the current minority leader) and Congressman Rick Santorum, and passed by Congress on May 1, 2003: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s982.html Here's an excerpt: " 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. " Wow! You mean to tell me that all this happened almost two years ago? But I thought you just said that Syria was being friendly and cooperative towards the Bush administration? Then why the need to introduce an "Accountability Bill" in regards to Syria? Don't you feel stupid now, Dougie? Sort of like the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready. We're cozying up to Pakistan because: a) Musharraf is also at war with the radical fundamentalists in his country, and b) the country has nukes, which could end up in the hands of those fundamentalists. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. NOYB wrote: Last week? Horsepoop. Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. And unfortunately, that's the truth. ... You obviously don't read much. Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political tub-thumping, whereas you swallow every bit of that you can. DSK |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"DSK" wrote in message ... And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. NOYB wrote: Last week? Horsepoop. Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And unfortunately, that's the truth. ... You obviously don't read much. Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political tub-thumping Hehehe. So my citing the 2003 "Syria Accountability Act" is editing and spinning, eh? You're becoming a lost cause. If you read the bill, it's quite clear that the idea of holding Syria's feet to the fire is nothing new. BTW--Why did you snip the following? " 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. " This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that same year. It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq. Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed by a Democratic president. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. NOYB wrote: So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic and amoral? This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that same year. It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq. Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed by a Democratic president. And yet, Bush didn't do a darn thing about it for a couple of years... let's see now, Iraq had *nothing* to do with Sept 11th, and *no* connection with Al Queda or anti-American terrorism, and yet with a bill ready & waiting to justify disrupting Syria's ties to those terrorist organizations, Bush & Cheney chose to waste American lives and bazillions of dollars invading Iraq. DSK |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:50:04 -0500, DSK wrote:
And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. NOYB wrote: Last week? Horsepoop. Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. And unfortunately, that's the truth. ... You obviously don't read much. Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political tub-thumping, whereas you swallow every bit of that you can. DSK In other words, Doug, you really think Rather ought to keep his job, correct? John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:31:25 -0500, DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote: So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. Sort of like the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready. So now you're agreeing that Bush's attempts to fight a "war on terror" has largely been ineffective? DSK Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over. You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years ago. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
John H wrote:
Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over. Unless somebody blows up the whole world, it ain't over even then. You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years ago. Bush Sr *did* but he didn't finish the job. IMHO he was hoping to do more business with Saddam. DSK |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:50:17 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over. Unless somebody blows up the whole world, it ain't over even then. You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years ago. Bush Sr *did* but he didn't finish the job. IMHO he was hoping to do more business with Saddam. DSK Humble opinions are something we all have. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|