"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?

They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led
war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents
of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later
came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that
was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was that
the convoys were heading west to Syria."

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...

If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?


They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led
war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents
of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later
came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that
was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was that
the convoys were heading west to Syria."

If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?


NOYB wrote:
They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led
war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the contents
of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed. Confirmation later
came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned by a U.S. team that
was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But all they knew was that
the convoys were heading west to Syria."


So, why did we invade Iraq and not Syria? I guess because Syria has no oil?

If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least
unveil them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie
whackos believe this news you quote)?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the Bush Administration has reliable intelligence sources that can
track a single van thru the Bekaa Valley in Syria, why do you think they
couldn't track multiple big tractor-trailer truck loads of WMDs?


NOYB wrote:
They did:

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/...y25/may25.html

"Over the last few months, the intelligence community has received new
evidence that a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and
platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the
U.S.-led war in Iraq in March 2003 .

The convoys were spotted by U.S. satellites in early 2003, but the
contents of the WMD convoys from Iraq to Syria were not confirmed.
Confirmation later came from Iraqi scientists and technicians questioned
by a U.S. team that was searching for Saddam's conventional weapons. But
all they knew was that the convoys were heading west to Syria."


So, why did we invade Iraq and not Syria? I guess because Syria has no
oil?

The convoy was spotted as we were invading Iraq. Iraq is a much more vital
cog in the wheel for our plan in the Middle East. And, yes, oil is *part*
(and only part) of the reason.





If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least unveil
them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie whackos
believe this news you quote)?


Because it was the Russians who helped smuggle the weapons to Syria...and
dealing with Russia is a little bit more complicated than dealing with Iraq.

Regardless, the latest revelation of Syrian ties to the assassination of
Hariri will now force Russia to sit on the sidelines as a case for regime
change is made before the UN against Assad.

If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least unveil
them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie whackos
believe this news you quote)?



NOYB wrote:
Because it was the Russians who helped smuggle the weapons to Syria...and
dealing with Russia is a little bit more complicated than dealing with Iraq.


Oh, are the Russians our pals now? Maybe because of the nuclear material
they're selling to Iran, we should keep a "hands off" approach?

And besides, I've personally watch US missiles on a scope as they
slammed into Syrian and Jordanian anti-air sites, killing Russian
technicians. Perhaps a bit of a risky power play, but they took the risk
of backing the loser.

Frankly if the Iraqi WMDs existed in the post Gulf War era (which the
best US intel now doubts strongly) and if they went to Syria (which
nobody except a handful of fascist half-wits believe) then your
"reasons" are little more than lame excuses. Those WMDs (if they exist)
constitute a SERIOUS threat, perhaps an even greater one if laying
around in Syria where there are all kinds of uncontrolled half-baked
fundie hellraisers instead of Iraq, where a very strong & well
disciplined force controlled by a very secular gov't kept the terrorists
out.



Regardless, the latest revelation of Syrian ties to the assassination of
Hariri will now force Russia to sit on the sidelines as a case for regime
change is made before the UN against Assad.


I thought the UN was ineffective? I thought the UN was corrupt?

Can't you "neo-conservatives" make up your minds?

BTW I am glad to hear that you pulled thru the hurricane OK.

DSK

I thought the UN was ineffective? I thought the UN was corrupt?

it is. it is

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:11:46 -0400, DSK wrote:


Frankly if the Iraqi WMDs existed in the post Gulf War era (which the best
US intel now doubts strongly) and if they went to Syria (which nobody
except a handful of fascist half-wits believe) then your "reasons" are
little more than lame excuses. Those WMDs (if they exist) constitute a
SERIOUS threat, perhaps an even greater one if laying around in Syria
where there are all kinds of uncontrolled half-baked fundie hellraisers
instead of Iraq, where a very strong & well disciplined force controlled
by a very secular gov't kept the terrorists out.


Yeah, it's a little difficult selling the world as a "safer place" with
all those WMDs unaccounted for, if they existed. Something else to note,
the nitwit in charge has marginalized the two *secular* states in the
area, Syria and Iraq. This has proved a boon for the area's fundie state,
Iran. We've eliminated one of their sworn enemies, Iraq, and added to
Iran's sphere of influence, the Iraqi Shias. If Iraq doesn't hold
together, and it's still an even money bet, we have destabilized the
entire area. There will likely be a Kurdish state, something Turkey very
much wants to avoid, and the big player in the area, will not be the US,
it will be Iran. Pure genius, this President we are saddled with.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
If the WMDs were in Syria, why didn't we go get them... or at least
unveil them FOR REAL (I mean, does anybody except a few far-rightie
whackos believe this news you quote)?



NOYB wrote:
Because it was the Russians who helped smuggle the weapons to Syria...and
dealing with Russia is a little bit more complicated than dealing with
Iraq.


Oh, are the Russians our pals now?

No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.

Maybe because of the nuclear material they're selling to Iran, we should
keep a "hands off" approach?


No. But you must use a little more diplomacy with a nuclear power.

Here's an interesting tie-in with this thread:


Wednesday, October 26, 2005 · Last updated 3:10 a.m. PT

Reports: Moscow opposes Syria sanctions

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MOSCOW -- Russia will try to prevent the United Nations from leveling
sanctions against Syria, a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry said
Wednesday, according to Russian news reports.

"Russia opposes sanctions against Syria," Mikhail Kamynin said while
accompanying Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on a trip to Israel, according
to the Interfax, Itar-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies. "Russia will be
doing everything necessary to prevent attempts to impose sanctions against
Syria."



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...be_Russia.html

Oh, are the Russians our pals now?


NOYB wrote:
No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.


Then why, during the last election, were you trumpeting that Putin
really really liked Bush & Cheney and wanted us all to vote for him?





Maybe because of the nuclear material they're selling to Iran, we should
keep a "hands off" approach?



No. But you must use a little more diplomacy with a nuclear power.


Russia's most credible nuclear threat to the US is via terrorist proxy.
Of course, President Bush is doing so little to combat *real* terrorism
that it's a huge threat.

Here's an interesting tie-in with this thread:


Wednesday, October 26, 2005 · Last updated 3:10 a.m. PT

Reports: Moscow opposes Syria sanctions

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MOSCOW -- Russia will try to prevent the United Nations from leveling
sanctions against Syria

Yep.

One of the best reasons for putting the hammer down on Bashir Assad is
that he has a knack for chosing the wrong side, that plus he's a brutal
dictator. OTOH his gov't is both stable & secular, and his help would be
(and was in the past) valuable against radical Muslim terrorist groups.
He is working at modernizing & Westernizing Syria, and if the U.S.
exerted a little smart diplomacy, could be a valuable ally.

We could influence him to grant slightly more human rights, too;
although somebody will first have to convince President Bush that
torture is for bad guys.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Oh, are the Russians our pals now?


NOYB wrote:
No. They're deceitful and cannot be trusted.


Then why, during the last election, were you trumpeting that Putin really
really liked Bush & Cheney and wanted us all to vote for him?

Diplomatic blackmail. Bush had Putin dead to rights on a number of issues:
violating the Iraqi sanctions by shipping them arms, helping Saddam smuggle
out WMD, and running interference for Iraq at the UN.









Maybe because of the nuclear material they're selling to Iran, we should
keep a "hands off" approach?



No. But you must use a little more diplomacy with a nuclear power.


Russia's most credible nuclear threat to the US is via terrorist proxy.
Of course, President Bush is doing so little to combat *real* terrorism
that it's a huge threat.

We'd know in a heartbeat if a Russian nuke was detonated on US soil. The
Russians aren't that foolhardy.


Here's an interesting tie-in with this thread:


Wednesday, October 26, 2005 · Last updated 3:10 a.m. PT

Reports: Moscow opposes Syria sanctions

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MOSCOW -- Russia will try to prevent the United Nations from leveling
sanctions against Syria

Yep.

One of the best reasons for putting the hammer down on Bashir Assad is
that he has a knack for chosing the wrong side, that plus he's a brutal
dictator. OTOH his gov't is both stable & secular, and his help would be
(and was in the past) valuable against radical Muslim terrorist groups.


He has no interest in helping us. In fact, he's working feverishly to
subvert our efforts in Iraq.


He is working at modernizing & Westernizing Syria, and if the U.S. exerted
a little smart diplomacy, could be a valuable ally.

Hogwash. Any country which supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah, is in
no way a potential ally to the US.



We could influence him to grant slightly more human rights, too; although
somebody will first have to convince President Bush that torture is for
bad guys.

President Bush already knows that torture is for bad guys. All of those bad
guys in US military prisons.