Rice concerned over Syrian nukes

[questionmark]

Rice concerned over Syrian nukes

Rice concerned over Syrian nukes

In TV interview, US secretary of state addresses reports of possible nuclear facilities in Syria, says, 'We have to have policies that prevent the world's most dangerous people from having the world's most dangerous weapons'

Ynet

Published: 09.14.07, 11:39 / Israel News

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an interview on Fox New's Sean Hannity Show Thursday night expressed concern following reports that Syria may be building nuclear facilities, saying, "We have to have policies that prevent the world's most dangerous people from having the world's most dangerous weapons."

Rice did not mention any possible attack on Syria, but said the United States was working with its allies to "shut down activities".

"That's why we have a Proliferation Security Initiative that tries to intercept dangerous cargos. So this is something that's been at the highest point of the President's agenda since he came into power and we work every day and we watch it every day and we're vigilant about it and we're determined," Rice explained.

When asked about her political plans for the 2008 presidential election, specifically if she would run for vice president, the secretary of state said, "It's not for me."

Full story, Source: Ynetnews

[ships-cat]

Hmmm... are we seeing a change of emphasis here ? Perhaps the US government have been reading my posts about how they are incapable of attacking Iran, and have decided to go after Syria instead ? (well... it IS a smaller country...)

Meow Purr

[questionmark]

Hmmm... are we seeing a change of emphasis here ? Perhaps the US government have been reading my posts about how they are incapable of attacking Iran, and have decided to go after Syria instead ? (well... it IS a smaller country...)

Meow Purr

Kitty, kitty, if you continue like that you are going to be hauled to Guantanamo!!!

But I had that feeling too.

[Spurious George]

I don't believe a word they are saying about these "possible" nuclear facilities.... is this some sort of damage control? Israel gets busted flying through Syria and they make it all better by saying "North Korea, nukes!!"? I think so

[questionmark]

I don't believe a word they are saying about these "possible" nuclear facilities.... is this some sort of damage control? Israel gets busted flying through Syria and they make it all better by saying "North Korea, nukes!!"? I think so

The point here is that you can't be cautious enough, Kim Yong (bad Haircut) Il(l) is capable of selling the soul of his grandmother in a sack as long as he gets some money to invest in Disney movies. He has absolutely no qualms in selling some of his excess enriched uranium to whom ever if the price is right.

Having said that, except from Israel there is absolutely no confirmation that any unusual radiation has been detected in Syria, and that is also a call for caution. The best we can do for a while is sit back and have a look at the situation. If Condi Rice shows up with a Powerpoint (TM of the dark side) presentation at the UN we know for sure that something is fishy with this story.

[Cradle of Fish]

'We have to have policies that prevent the world's most dangerous people from having the world's most dangerous weapons'

[rhyknow]

My thoughts exactly. The majority of the countries she's talking about didn't have these weapons 'till we gave them to 'em. It's a bit hypocritical, I think.

[Moon Monkey]

*bump*

A good article filling in some of the gaps we have been missing on this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2461421.ece

[keithisco]

So lets add Syria to Iran...the US Govt needs to seriously get a grip. The only nation to ever have detonated a nuclear device in anger is..... The US. Pakistan (home of the 9/11 bombers - possibly), India, China, N. Korea, Israel UK, France, Russia (and some post USSR states) all have nukes, some of these I wouldnt trust as far as I could throw them. What makes Syria and Iran any different? Because they are small!!

Give it up USA, killing people because they "might" get a nuclear capability is plain wrong. Delivery systems, means and methods are what should be looked at. I think this whole thing is just a cloud-cover for ulterior motives.

[Conspiracy]

im not really surprised that the Bush administration is saying Syria's a problem to now, funny how this all started cause a bunch of extreminists from Saudi Arabia (hence SAUDI ARABIA) took down 2 towers and damaged a bit of the pentagon

[stevewinn]

*bump*

A good article filling in some of the gaps we have been missing on this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2461421.ece

Cheers for that link moon monkey, it was interesting very interesting! like you say, fills in a few gaps,

Steve,

[Moon Monkey]

**double bump**

Finally the big networks are reporting the story, top story on Sky tonight, almost 2 weeks late. N. Korea are denying any involvement. Shock.

[questionmark]

**double bump**

Finally the big networks are reporting the story, top story on Sky tonight, almost 2 weeks late. N. Korea are denying any involvement. Shock.

Well, if it is on Sky two weeks late that is because they either could not find anything else or Don Rupert has an agenda.

[stevewinn]

Hi,

Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian chemical weapons experiment

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

[Lord Umbarger]

The majority of the countries she's talking about didn't have these weapons 'till we gave them to 'em.

So, they never had any kind of wepapons before in teir long histories? How did they ever defend themselves from other people before the U.S. gave them weapons? Political situations change. I bet you are not still best friends with that kid from first grade, are you?

What makes Syria and Iran any different? Because they are small!!

Some one didn't do their geograghy homework! Iran is a rather large nation. Syria isn't all that tiny either. Nonetheless, both are larger than North Korea and Israel combined.

Give it up USA, killing people because they "might" get a nuclear capability is plain wrong.

Letting a known lunatic develop the means to destroy you is just plain stupid. A stab in the dark here; you are probably in favor of gun control, am I right? Aren't you in fact advocating the same thing on a smaller scale? Hoping to keep some idiot from acquiring the means to kill innocent people?

...took down 2 towers and damaged a bit of the pentagon

Huh? I thought it was because they killed three thousand innocent people.

Delivery systems, means and methods are what should be looked at.

Uh? Yeah.

Delivery Systems - How big a truck you think they are going to need?

Means - It's the Middle East, they've got petroleum.

Methods - Drive it into a town and flip a switch.

Actually, I'm being a little felicious here. It is common knowledge that a short range missile is more than enough to get it reasonably close to where you want it. Close is good enough if the bomb is big enough. Any doubts on rather they can build or buy one? NOt very long ago there were a number of threads here about all the wonderful new Russian weapons technology they were buying and how it would be able to wipe out U.S. forces. Now, it seems that it was all either incorrect or wasn't good enough to light a cigar. Well, which is it?

[bathory]

don't most of those nations have short/medium range delivery methods, basically meaning they are capable of striking throughout their immediate region as well as the fringes of europe?