Iran, Syria to Form 'United Front'

[gollum]

Maybe they are not "softening" as you so eloquently put it, but are infact handing over terrorist because they believe justice must be seen to be done.

You do tend to paint a very onesided, dare I say, war-mongering view on things Babs.

Again, I'm not baiting you.

'a super dupper power.' There's that childlike pattern emerging again Babs. It really does make your posts seem..... well, childlike.

You say your interests were on other things when you were younger. You don't have to have a degree in history to know your history Babs. It's simply current affairs in the past tense.

[wunarmdscissor]

Yeah, other countries may have asked Syria to get out of Lebanon, but they weren't 'a super dupper power.'

ok ok and that "big sper duper power" really has Iran shaking in its boots, funny how when the US asks them to do something they respond with "we'll fight to the death " and when france, germany and the UK ask Iran to do something they anounce they are suspending their nuclear programme.

mmmmm interesting perhaps bush should learn how diplomacy works.

[wunarmdscissor]

BTW what do u mean "And, I admit I don't have a history background....but that won't stop me from giving my views. I try to learn from you 'history guys' on the forum"

lebanon is a place that exists right now , present tense and has existed for a wee while noe lol , what does history have to do with anything?

[Babs]

BTW what do u mean "And, I admit I don't have a history background....but that won't stop me from giving my views. I try to learn from you 'history guys' on the forum"

lebanon is a place that exists right now , present tense and has existed for a wee while noe lol , what does history have to do with anything?

509696[/snapback]

OMG!...What does history have to do with anything!? That's what you have been chanting for 2 years...that I don't have a history background! Gee, I would have told everyone that a long time ago except for you going around ragging on me. You never gave me the chance to spill the beans.

I'll gladly tell you my deficiencies, which is a lot more than you and your cronies on here will do. I am secure in my knowledge.

[Babs]

Maybe they are not "softening" as you so eloquently put it, but are infact handing over terrorist because they believe justice must be seen to be done.

You do tend to paint a very onesided, dare I say, war-mongering view on things Babs.

Again, I'm not baiting you.

'a super dupper power.' There's that childlike pattern emerging again Babs. It really does make your posts seem..... well, childlike.

You say your interests were on other things when you were younger. You don't have to have a degree in history to know your history Babs. It's simply current affairs in the past tense.

509670[/snapback]

Comprende' there, gollum.

Comprende' on everything but the last paragraph.

[Kismit]

As far as Bush outcasting the very people that wanted to help him fight the war on terror_ What?? huh.gif ...No one wanted to help us.

No Babs this information is not quite right for a start, small nations like New zealand are always more than willing to roll there sleeves up and do the dirty work, we have a contingent in Afghanistan where we show a great deal of support with our S.A.S. troops. Who did quite a fair bit of the intelligence gathering there in the beginning. However Priminister Helen Clark would not support the invasion of Iraq. Our troops will help clean up and administer aid, because as a nation we believe the army should be used for peace keeping not attacking except in extreme cases like that where we actually go after the man responsible for an attack on us or our allies. Some individuals within the country may see it differently, but that is the policy the government keeps on our troops. You may have been told we didn't care, but you can't always believe what comes out of Mr Bush's mouth.

No we did not want to support the invasion of Iraq, and still I do not, but we do wish to fight terrorism. It is a separate issue, Iraq is a separate issue to 911 and they should not be confused. In the 80's we generalized terrorists as Libyan's and that was wrong these days we wrongly label them Muslim. We must remain clear on our objectives, all George has appeared to do is tie his reasoning in after the fact. Before the invasion it was the threat of W.M.D.s because of a terrorism scare, after the intel was proven false and a poor counterfeit, then it became all for the war on terrorism. So we concentrate our focus on Iraq, Why?. We are certainly not clearly focused on terrorism as a whole. Oh yes resources are being spent but not focused. Unless ofcourse the plan was to try and gather all the terrorists in Iraq and call them insurgents. But Iraq is where Mr. Bush cut his resources thin in the first place.

I understand your opinion of things is different to mine, I understand that we see the problems from different view points, you see a man who now says he stands to bring the world democracy. I see a man who has taken away my democratic right to say No. And he has never so much as even granted the people who disagree with him a second of respect. In my opinion he actually lacks the knowledge of what a true world wide democracy should involve. And he certainly is not the man I would have voted for to take on that role.

[Babs]

Iraq is not a separate issue than terrorism over here.

[jjtss]

Iran and Syria should form a mutual defense treaty. Iraq didn't have one and look what happened to them!! I think it's laughable the way G. Brish is trying to look tough and super powerful by demanding that Syria leave Lebanon TWO WEEKS AFTER Syria announced that they would withdraw their treoops from Lebanon. They have been keeping the peace there four years with minimal bloodshed. Syria is absolutely right when they predict a civil war after their withdrawal.

Iran swears that they will liquify Israel if Israel attacks Iran or Syria. The only weapons that can achieve this are neutron or antimatter bombs, which I'm pretty sure they don't have. Wonder what else they could use???

G.Brish just announced that he has given Israel permission to destroy Syria. LOL, and I'm losing respect for Israel when they let that chimp tell them what they can or can't do. BTW, Israel, that is very bad advice.

Anyway, I do hope that Iran and Syria don't disarm like Iraq did and become a target for that Texas Cowboy who murders unarmed people.

[wunarmdscissor]

BTW what do u mean "And, I admit I don't have a history background....but that won't stop me from giving my views. I try to learn from you 'history guys' on the forum"

lebanon is a place that exists right now , present tense and has existed for a wee while noe lol , what does history have to do with anything?

actually if youd read my post youd see i was commenting on the current issue with regards to lebanon in the present tense not past.

[wunarmdscissor]

Iraq is not a separate issue than terrorism over here

hmm the 9/11 commission

[Celumnaz]

good stuff

[Babs]

Iran and Syria should form a mutual defense treaty.  Iraq didn't have one and look what happened to them!!  I think it's laughable the way G. Brish is trying to look tough and super powerful by demanding that Syria leave Lebanon TWO WEEKS AFTER Syria announced that they would withdraw their treoops from Lebanon.  They have been keeping the peace there four years with minimal bloodshed.  Syria is absolutely right when they predict a civil war after their withdrawal. 

Iran swears that they will liquify Israel if Israel attacks Iran or Syria.  The only weapons that can achieve this are neutron or antimatter bombs, which I'm pretty sure they don't have.  Wonder what else they could use???

G.Brish just announced that he has given Israel permission to destroy Syria.  LOL, and I'm losing respect for Israel when they let that chimp tell them what they can or can't do.  BTW, Israel, that is very bad advice.

Anyway, I do hope that Iran and Syria don't disarm like Iraq did and become a target for that Texas Cowboy who murders unarmed people.

510352[/snapback]

What's wrong...don't you like our little cowboy? Iran better not touch one hair of Israel's head.

[wunarmdscissor]

What's wrong...don't you like our little cowboy?  Iran better not touch one hair of Israel's head.

lol the words new, plumb and depths come to mind babs .

"cowboy" i mean i know your attempting to wind us up by describing him as a cowboy (which he is) but you just dont get it do you lol.....

[bathory]

hmm the 9/11 commission

acknowledges Iraqs links to terrorist organisations, states the Iraq was not involved with 9/11

[Babs]

hmm the 9/11 commission

acknowledges Iraqs links to terrorist organisations, states the Iraq was not involved with 9/11

510871[/snapback]

We were scared after 911 and we could see Saddam heading in the direction to annihilate us. That is why I wanted to go after Saddam and invade Iraq. Bush felt the same way as did many many Americans. I was surprized that there weren't any WMD found....and I put the emphasis on 'found'_ the weapons could have been moved and still may show up. I don't buy it that they didn't have WMD. We haven't found any that's all. And even if we never find any or we find out that they didn't have any, I would still want to go after Saddam_ because of 911. It was not a mistake, it helped secure our country's safety.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Babs

[Babs]

What's wrong...don't you like our little cowboy?  Iran better not touch one hair of Israel's head.

lol the words new, plumb and depths come to mind babs .

"cowboy" i mean i know your attempting to wind us up by describing him as a cowboy (which he is) but you just dont get it do you lol.....

510841[/snapback]

jjtss...mentioned the word "cowboy" and I haven't the foggyist notion as to what "new, plumb, and depths" means.

Oh. I've gone to new depths, is that what you mean?

No, wun, you just don't get it.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Babs

[Scorpius]

I wouldn't be suprised if North Korea joins Iran, and Syria. You know, the commonly known Arab proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

[Kismit]

Iraq is not a separate issue than terrorism over here.

Iraq is or should be a very small piece of the war against terrorism, becuase terrorism is world wide. Why did Goerge make it such a large piece?

I know you where scarred in America, if there is one thing we all learned on 9/11 it was that we are never really safe and complacency is not an option. The government did have some idea that an attack was being planned that day, but didn't take the necisary precautions to avoid it. Since 9/11 they have uped the security and managed to keep a much better eye on these kinds of threats. Avoiding several incidents before they could happen. yet still Goerge wouldn't wait to get U.N. aproval before invading Iraq. Didn't he trust his intel team enough to be able to stop or uncover the next threat before it happened? Obviously they can. He trusted them enough to believe the information they brought him was true, he trusted them enough to employ them in such high and important positions. Why couldn't he wait? And one of my pet gripes. Why did he feel he was so special he had a right to discredit the U.N.?

Blue Scorpion, lets hope Goerge doesn't push Mr Putin into joining in that little huddle of Iran and Syria's.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Kismit

[bathory]

Iraq is or should be a very small piece of the war against terrorism, becuase terrorism is world wide. Why did Goerge make it such a large piece?

in terms of wars, its pretty darm small.

yet still Goerge wouldn't wait to get U.N. aproval before invading Iraq

he was never going to get it, France had promised to veto and vote of action against Iraq.

Didn't he trust his intel team enough to be able to stop or uncover the next threat before it happened?

His intel team told him that Saddam was procurring WMDs etc etc, as did britsh, russian french etc etc intelligence, everyone (including the UN) believed Saddam was up to something.

Why did he feel he was so special he had a right to discredit the U.N.?

Oil for Food scandal is a good example of why:)

as is Libya heading up the UN Human Rights section...

as well as France and other countries stance regarding Iraq.

Why couldn't he wait?

wait for what exactly? Intelligence worldwide was saying they had to act quickly...

Edited March 5, 2005 by bathory

[Mekorig]

Lately the US is looking like the hunter in South Park. The one that shout "Its gonna attacks us!!!" and shoot a bunny.....

[Kismit]

Bathory your information is allways well researched and logical, I apreciate it immensly.

However

in terms of wars, its pretty darm small.

in terms of wars it is small, but it is a massive part of the war against terror. It has been a huge focus of this war. Why?

Oil for Food scandal is a good example of why:)

as is Libya heading up the UN Human Rights section...

as well as France and other countries stance regarding Iraq.

The U.N. is most certainly not perfect, but the basis of it is a good idea. How much better has the world been since the U.N. was foundered. When George Bush looked as though he was going to get U.N. approval he showed a similar stance on the U.N. to mine. But when things where not so rosie for him, he actually did discredit them. Why did Goerge Bush feel he had a right to undermine the authority of the U.N.? Is it something we should encourage all countries to do? Just say to hell with the U.N..

In my opinion that would be a great big step backwards.

[bathory]

n terms of wars it is small, but it is a massive part of the war against terror. It has been a huge focus of this war. Why?

because imo it would make more sense going after the diplomatic lost cause that was Iraq (compound that with all the reasons for going into iraq), i think thee problem is that you see the reasons of going into iraq as an intentional lie which is going to have a huge impact on how you view the war in relation to the war on terror. Personally i also think the title War on Terror is inaccurate, realistically this is a war against Islamofascism, terrorism is merely a tool. (please note readers, i'm not saying its a war on Islam:)

The U.N. is most certainly not perfect, but the basis of it is a good idea. How much better has the world been since the U.N. was foundered. When George Bush looked as though he was going to get U.N. approval he showed a similar stance on the U.N. to mine. But when things where not so rosie for him, he actually did discredit them. Why did Goerge Bush feel he had a right to undermine the authority of the U.N.? Is it something we should encourage all countries to do? Just say to hell with the U.N..

I don't really know what you are trying to say? Bush hugged the UN before the NO because UN support is nicer than no UN support. When they gave the NO the US did its own thing, why? because for the US the issue was far too important to allow a currupt body such as the UN to weigh in on the discussion. What is this authority of the UN you keep talking about? i think the past 10 years regarding Iraq has demonstrated the UN never had much authority beyond the cruise missiles of the US.

Kosovo, the american bombing started prior to any UN authorisation. Do you see that as undermining the UN?

s it something we should encourage all countries to do? Just say to hell with the U.N..

all countries do this...should we encourage it? not really, but i think everyone knows the UN is a toothless tiger.

[Kismit]

You're right again Bathory, I do see it as an intentional lie, and it does colour my view. I also see it as 'not to well thought out', if it wasn't an intentional lie. And I personally don't think when people make life and death decisions like wether or not to start an invasion, that there is room for unintentional mistakes. I mean goodness me oops sorry, just does not cut it for me when you are talking about someone who is responsible for an entire country.

One of my other problems is also the fact that George Bush was described as a 'war monger' by *political annalysts before the elections back in 2000-2001, that was well before the dodgy intell on Iraq, and even well before the September 11 attacks.

where these people psychic ? quite possibly not.

(*)allthough transcripts are not available this information comes from "The Breakfast show with Mike Hoskings," on channel one New zealand, the week leading up to the American elections and was an opinion made by three different international analysts. Any-one willing to hunt down these transcripts is more than welcome to. The term War monger is an exact reference made by the analysts.

[lightbeyondthedark]

Iran & Syrian front? Not so much...

Can everyone say US - UK - Israeli front.... lol

I really dont think Syria or Iran want any of that... lol

j/j

LBD