This is great.
-
"I think that we believe there are chemical weapons in Syria, for example," Bush said. Does he want to start another war? Also, is the US claiming that they, the Russians, the Chinese etc. don't have chemical weapons, that having chemical weapons became a big issue? AFAIK, whatever their reputation be, Syria has not done a military offensive on a neighbouring country like Iraq did. Anyway, the statement sounds ominous. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
What about the chemical, biological and nucelar weapons in Israel, or their violation of UN resolutions ? Oops, can't mention that X| The tigress is here :-D
-
Thomas George wrote: No one wants UN to have teeth. Really?! Someone should tell the UN, because they keep making resolutions that are ignored. Thomas George wrote: Then Israel will also have to comply. It always comes back to Israel. Why? Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
Double standards ! The tigress is here :-D
-
we could probably take out Syria in a week. there wouldn't even be time for the news networks to update their graphics. it would be perfect. Iran would take too long, and i don't think the US population is up for yet another war. (of course i'm probably wrong about that) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I think Syria would be harder to take; they didn't have 10 years of embargo, and might have really cool weapons sold by weapon merchants all over the world. Also, to win in a war in Syria, with the expected modern weapon would mean a lot more bombing, and destruction; and from what I know, the people are not held in vise like the people in Irak, they might love to fight for their own freedom against USA. Max.
Maximilien Lincourt For success one must aquire one's self
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: this answer should have been read in the context of, "I can already hear the Arab countries claiming the US are an israeli puppet." - not the entire world. Ok, sorry. However, Egypt and Jordan have already signed a peace treaty with Israel. With a negociation about the Golan (and the syrian "influence" on Lebanon), I think syria could sign one too
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: However, Egypt and Jordan have already signed a peace treaty with Israel. With a negociation about the Golan (and the syrian "influence" on Lebanon), I think syria could sign one too Let's start by saying, the governments of these two countries have signed an agreement. Follow by realizing that neither are representative governments so it is safe to say the wishes of "the Arab Street" may be quite different. Since underground tunnels wee found from Egypt into Gaza for the import of weapons, a couple of months ago, it is safe to assume that there is some level of disagreement with the peace treaty. For an Israeli / Syrian agreement to be effective the government of Israel would return the Golan Heights? That would be sucicide for Israel. Just my opinion. obviously. I happen to be a skeptic on the subject. I believe there needs to new generations born that all see the world, race, land and religion differently before there will be peace in that region. Or, new leaders need to rise that think much differently. Mike
-
Double standards ! The tigress is here :-D
-
Thomas George wrote: No one wants UN to have teeth. Really?! Someone should tell the UN, because they keep making resolutions that are ignored. Thomas George wrote: Then Israel will also have to comply. It always comes back to Israel. Why? Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
If UN passes a resolution that asks US to open itself to weapons inspectors from other countries, will it comply? I am certain that it will not; and there will be nothing that UN can do about it. If Saddam had a few nuclear weapons mounted on a couple of ICBMs, everyone would still be negotiating. What can be enforced is inversely proportional to the military strength of the opponent. It comes back to Israel because all the issues that are in the Middle-East today are directly linked to Israel - the patronizing of Israel by the West; and the hatred of Israel by Arabs. This issue that causes the most tension around the world, whereas most other conflicts are localized. They are localized particularly because there are no third-party superpowers involved. I don't expect the middle-east problems to get solved until the hatred dies down on both sides. I have no particular affiliation to either Israel or Arabs; but I get the feeling that the western policies heavily favour the Israeli side. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
KaЯl wrote: unless the US back for this time the UN policy, even if it doesn't follow strictly the american point of view. The same can be said about France, Germany & Russia. ;P The UN's irrelevence comes from it's inability to deal with the "Iraqs" of the world not from the lack of backing from the US/UK. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
Mike Mullikin wrote: The same can be said about France, Germany & Russia Yes, of course for France and Russia, which are veto powers. For the moment, the international role of Germany is still weak, but grows slowly. Mike Mullikin wrote: The UN's irrelevence comes from it's inability to deal with the "Iraqs" More than half of the countries on Earth are Iraq-like (minus the oil, of course ;P), bloody dictatorships. Mike Mullikin wrote: from the US/UK USK? :rolleyes:
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
Seems to be a bit of buzz around US going into Syria next. It would be a bad mistake at this point. I don't think it will happen, but I don't rule out trying to put some heat on them for being an ally to Saddam. But of course at some point weren't we all partners with him? BW "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
Naah, M1A1 can't manuveur in small places:-D
-
What about the chemical, biological and nucelar weapons in Israel, or their violation of UN resolutions ? Oops, can't mention that X| The tigress is here :-D
Well you can mention it, but you'll be left cold and grey from about 9am EST.
David Wulff
"i said no to noddy like 20 times but in the end i just couldnt say no to him anymore" - Wishful Thinking
-
yes, i think they should. we're pretty sick and tired of seeing all those rich people enjoying themselves in Monaco. and, since they have no military, and everyone knows what the US thinks about the French military, it should start thinking about building bunkers. Luxembourg sounds like a dangerous place - they spent $148 million dollars on their military in 2002! what are they planning! Lichtenstein? their obnoxious neutrality and ties to the horrible Swiss make them prime targets for regime change. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
These three countries are well-known for their not-so-moral banks. I'm sure terrorist networks use them to finance their operations. Chris Losinger wrote: Lichtenstein? their obnoxious neutrality and ties to the horrible Swiss make them prime targets for regime change. Lichtenstein had a regim change a few days ago:)
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
What about the chemical, biological and nucelar weapons in Israel, or their violation of UN resolutions ? Oops, can't mention that X| The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: What about the chemical, biological and nucelar weapons in Israel, or their violation of UN resolutions ? What resolutions?
-
If UN passes a resolution that asks US to open itself to weapons inspectors from other countries, will it comply? I am certain that it will not; and there will be nothing that UN can do about it. If Saddam had a few nuclear weapons mounted on a couple of ICBMs, everyone would still be negotiating. What can be enforced is inversely proportional to the military strength of the opponent. It comes back to Israel because all the issues that are in the Middle-East today are directly linked to Israel - the patronizing of Israel by the West; and the hatred of Israel by Arabs. This issue that causes the most tension around the world, whereas most other conflicts are localized. They are localized particularly because there are no third-party superpowers involved. I don't expect the middle-east problems to get solved until the hatred dies down on both sides. I have no particular affiliation to either Israel or Arabs; but I get the feeling that the western policies heavily favour the Israeli side. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: If UN passes a resolution that asks US to open itself to weapons inspectors from other countries, will it comply? I am certain that it will not; and there will be nothing that UN can do about it If you remember correctly, Saddam agreed to inspections as a condition of surrender in the first gulf war. He knew the UN was spineless so he ignored the resolutions. Thomas George wrote: They are localized particularly because there are no third-party superpowers involved. While at the same time the "superpowers" are involved to keep a lid on a potentially catastophic situation created by the UN when it officially established the state of Israel after WW2. Do you appreciate the irony here? ;P Thomas George wrote: I don't expect the middle-east problems to get solved until the hatred dies down on both sides. I don't expect the middle-east problems to get solved until we (the world) develop an alternate energy source, abandon the area and let the current inhabitants kill each other. There is too much bigotry, racism and pure hatred for any other outcome. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
-
you sure thats not misover-estimate ? ;) BW "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
"I think that we believe there are chemical weapons in Syria, for example," Bush said. Does he want to start another war? Also, is the US claiming that they, the Russians, the Chinese etc. don't have chemical weapons, that having chemical weapons became a big issue? AFAIK, whatever their reputation be, Syria has not done a military offensive on a neighbouring country like Iraq did. Anyway, the statement sounds ominous. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: "I think that we believe there are chemical weapons in Syria, for example," Bush said. Well, the whole "chemical weapons in Syria" argument doesn't hold a lot of real weight. The fact of the matter is that bio/chem weapons are rather distasteful - in part because of their capability to kill civilians indescriminantly and in large numbers. But, they aren't any less civilian-friendly than, say, nuclear weapons. So, simply having them isn't really a big offense (unless we're going to say that having nuclear weapons is a big offense). And we all know of plenty of nations with nukes. I think that's different than the possibility of Iraq having bio/chem/nuclear weapons, however, because Iraq has shown a lot of bad behavior, so everyone recognizes that they should be disarmed (everyone, including the French, Germans, and Russians agree with that statement). It's a little bit like laws in the US: you own a gun, and you can be an ex-convict, but an ex-convict cannot own a gun. Merely owning the gun is not sufficient to be in violation of any laws. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
Thomas George wrote: AFAIK, whatever their reputation be, Syria has not done a military offensive on a neighbouring country like Iraq did. 1948,1967,1973 - Israel. 1970 - Attempt to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan together with the PLO. 1982 - Lebanon, Syria occupies it even today. Same as Kuwait, but Lebanon doesn't have oil (only drugs), so no one cares Almost war with Turkey few years, until they expelled Kurdish rebels. Damascus hosts every terror group on earth - Shia, Sunni, African, etc...
Small correction: Syria sent troops to Lebanon in 1976 with claims of fighting terrorists. Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1982 whereupon Syria immediately claimed they were assisting Lebanon.
-
"I think that we believe there are chemical weapons in Syria, for example," Bush said. Does he want to start another war? Also, is the US claiming that they, the Russians, the Chinese etc. don't have chemical weapons, that having chemical weapons became a big issue? AFAIK, whatever their reputation be, Syria has not done a military offensive on a neighbouring country like Iraq did. Anyway, the statement sounds ominous. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Does he want to start another war? No. There will not be a war in Syria unless they start it or are linked to a terrorist act. There will not be the public support for a war with Syria like there is/was with Iraq. The point of this is a now that we showed how easy it was to disarm Iraq. How hard would it be to disarm Syria? This was a threat to the Syrians to cooperate and nothing more. John
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Saddam was a villain, easy to stoke the fires of war against Weird, I don't see differences betwwen SH and the Assad dynasty! Mike Mullikin wrote: Not to menetion, it's time for the UN to step up and prove it's relevence. Sadly, I doubt this will happen. I doubt it too, unless the US back for this time the UN policy, even if it doesn't follow strictly the american point of view.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: Weird, I don't see differences betwwen SH and the Assad dynasty! But you can't fight dynasties. Hafiz al Assad was, at best, a Saddam Hussein wannabe. (Though he was much smarter and much less vain and not nearly as paranoid.) Bashar al Assad is, by most accounts, a spineless idiot and is likely simply a figurehead. This makes it a little more difficult to figure out who actually runs the country.
-
What about the chemical, biological and nucelar weapons in Israel, or their violation of UN resolutions ? Oops, can't mention that X| The tigress is here :-D
NON-BINDING resolutions. There is a difference.
-
Thomas George wrote: If UN passes a resolution that asks US to open itself to weapons inspectors from other countries, will it comply? I am certain that it will not; and there will be nothing that UN can do about it If you remember correctly, Saddam agreed to inspections as a condition of surrender in the first gulf war. He knew the UN was spineless so he ignored the resolutions. Thomas George wrote: They are localized particularly because there are no third-party superpowers involved. While at the same time the "superpowers" are involved to keep a lid on a potentially catastophic situation created by the UN when it officially established the state of Israel after WW2. Do you appreciate the irony here? ;P Thomas George wrote: I don't expect the middle-east problems to get solved until the hatred dies down on both sides. I don't expect the middle-east problems to get solved until we (the world) develop an alternate energy source, abandon the area and let the current inhabitants kill each other. There is too much bigotry, racism and pure hatred for any other outcome. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Capitalism - Coming to a Country Near You!!
Mike Mullikin wrote: There is too much bigotry, racism and pure hatred for any other outcome History shows us that even the bitter enemies may become friends.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin