If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Rumsfeld wants Syria, but Bush reportedly says "No"   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 486
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

57 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2003 at 1:37 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



486 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-04-16 02:19:50 AM
Shouldn't this carry an "UNLIKELY" banner?
 
2003-04-16 06:33:35 AM
This is wierd, because in the last day or so, Colin Powell has said "We have concerns about Syria ... We also have concerns about some of the policies of Iran [but] There is no war plan right now to go attack someone else" but Bush has said "Our victory in Iraq will be a crucial advance in the war against terror, yet the war on terror continues". You kinda wish they would make their minds up.
 
2003-04-16 07:31:10 AM
I apologise for my weird spelling of wierd.
 
2003-04-16 08:38:09 AM
This proves Bush is a god-fearing man of restraint. (Unless, of course, you shove lines of cocaine beneath his nose.)
 
2003-04-16 09:03:50 AM
Considering that Syria's oil production (0.7% of global production) is way below Iran's (5.1%). I suspect Operation Enduring Our Freedom To Bomb The Living fark Out Of You is going to visit Iran first. Especially with the elections coming up.

/troll
 
2003-04-16 09:41:38 AM
That's the smartest thing he's done since cheati... I mean, getting into office.
 
2003-04-16 09:52:17 AM
Zeno_: Syria has much less of a military buildup than Iran does. They're an easier next target. Iran could set us up the bomb eventually though if something isn't done.
 
2003-04-16 10:07:36 AM
It will happen, sooner or later.
 
2003-04-16 10:13:50 AM
Whatever happened to North Korea? They already have WMDs (attached to long range missiles) which in all likelyhood are pointed at the US, they are involved with terrorism, and they have an oppressive regime.
 
2003-04-16 10:25:27 AM
The only time bush says no to killing is when he doesn't understand the question.
 
2003-04-16 10:46:55 AM
Yeah, Jay_vee, but they don't have any oil.
 
2003-04-16 11:14:54 AM
Operation Enduring Our Freedom To Bomb The Living fark Out Of You

*spews soft drink out of nose*

Entirely too funny! And entirely too correct.
 
2003-04-16 11:18:24 AM
Jay_vee inquired:
Whatever happened to North Korea?


Yeah, I've been wondering about that myself. My assumption is that they're too mean to take on right now, or they're too pitiful to take on right now.
 
2003-04-16 11:51:11 AM
So is this what we have to look forward to if Bush gets a second term?

I know this is a dead horse, but god I miss the blowjob scandals. Back then the only thing that got hurt was a blue dress and the occasional cigar.
 
2003-04-16 12:31:42 PM
FVCK BUSH I AM SICK OF HIS WARS FOR ISRAEL! CAN'T THEY GO FIGHT THEIR OWN WARS? THEY HAVE NUKES, $14B A YEAR IN US "LOANS" AND THE MOST POWERFUL ARMY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHY ARE WE WRAPPED AROUND THEIR PINKY????
 
2003-04-16 12:40:45 PM
The only time bush says no to killing is when he doesn't understand the question.

Strong Bad: President Crap-for-Brains, I mean Bush, do you don't, not, dislike not, bombing people?

Bush: Um... what?
 
2003-04-16 01:42:21 PM
glass sea! glass sea!
 
2003-04-16 01:42:21 PM
OMG it's another Bu$h RUSH TO WAR!!11

/troll
 
2003-04-16 01:42:54 PM
Rumsfield is the man!
 
2003-04-16 01:44:01 PM
Surely its an *Obvious*?
& didn't somebody point out last week that Syria has huge tracts of Natural Gas filled land?
 
2003-04-16 01:44:12 PM
Where's Osama?
 
2003-04-16 01:44:27 PM
we took down Iraq, that's good enough
 
2003-04-16 01:45:12 PM
well, i think its pretty obvious why we arent going for North Korea right now, maybe the 1 million North Korean soldiers and the long range nuclear weapons have something to do with it.

And i hardly doubt we'll be going after Syria or Iran. Iran is too big and would require virtually the entire U.S. military for an operation that would take at least a month long of combat. Syria is no real threat.
 
2003-04-16 01:45:14 PM
FVCK BUSH I AM SICK OF HIS WARS FOR ISRAEL! CAN'T THEY GO FIGHT THEIR OWN WARS? THEY HAVE NUKES, $14B A YEAR IN US "LOANS" AND THE MOST POWERFUL ARMY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHY ARE WE WRAPPED AROUND THEIR PINKY????

It's called Oil.
 
2003-04-16 01:45:21 PM
Why does everyone keep saying we should go after North Korea? You guys do understand that attacking Korea is much more of a political minefield than attacking Iraq was, don't you?
 
2003-04-16 01:45:41 PM
I AM SICK OF HIS WARS FOR ISRAEL!

Yeah, we all know that 100% of all terrorist attacks have been against Isreal.

THEY HAVE NUKES

...and if they used them you would be screaming about someone not stopping them. I wonder who that someone would be?
 
2003-04-16 01:46:03 PM
Do you honestly think the Bush regime can hold a > 50% approval rating without another terrorist attack or without galavanting through Asia minor ridding the world of evil doers?
 
2003-04-16 01:46:44 PM
The only time bush says no to killing is when he doesn't understand the question.
OK, I'm a republican and I'm going to give you want you all seem to want. I don't believe it, but since I'm republican, it's all lie$ anyway, right?
"Killing a$ many Arabs a$ po$$ible in an in$ane ru$h for power and oil" is not the answer. It's the question. "Yes" is the answer.
 
2003-04-16 01:47:07 PM
We will not go into Syria nor Iran for that matter. If we do I will buy each of you a brand new Bush Voodoo doll. As for N. Korea, talks begin next week to resolve the issues. China will likely play a big part in keeping them in line as well.
 
2003-04-16 01:47:20 PM
Syria has won the toss and they've elected to receive..
 
2003-04-16 01:47:45 PM
Stephenv; go put your tin foil hat on.
 
2003-04-16 01:48:13 PM
What more godamned proof do you need that this is INDEED a neo-conservative, Christian, Zionist CONSPIRACY to dominate the Middle East and subjugate Muslims to Western hegemonic control?

Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could "shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria".

conspiracy (k?n-spr??-se) noun
plural conspiracies

1.An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2.A group of conspirators.
3.Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4.A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
 
2003-04-16 01:48:38 PM
From the article, it sounds like Bush just wants to catch his breath, since we already have to rebuild two countries that we basically destroyed. I think if he's to have any credibility at all, he should go after North Korea. I thought the reasons we went after Iraq in the first place was because they were developing weapons of mass destruction. What the hell's a nuke for Christ's sake?
 
2003-04-16 01:48:39 PM
AdamK: Syria is no real threat

Neither was Iraq, but we sure blew smoke up everyone's ass about those nukes weapons of mass destruction plans for liberations and stability.
 
2003-04-16 01:49:13 PM
Huh. That's odd. Considering we all know he wants to take over the world and all.
 
daz
2003-04-16 01:49:19 PM
I have a feeling 12 years from now, we'll look at this with the same disdain that we looked at Bush 41 and his not-going-into-Baghdad.

For you Bush Haters -- I mean morons, yeah, you're right. We should just let Syria be and let them continue cranking out more terrorists and arming them and sending them to Israel.

You morons are so hypocritical. You want Bush to solve the Palestinian problem, but then you want Bush to help preserve the terrorists that create the biggest problem in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis in the first place.

So which is it, are you for or against terrorism? Because so far, you guys have supported the Taliban, Saddam's regime, and now you're supporting Syria.

You're on the wrong side of history and common sense, if you haven't figured it out already.
 
2003-04-16 01:49:50 PM

What Bush's dart board look like:



The winner is the first one to hit the most countries we'd like to invade. North Korea is considered a Bullseye.

 
2003-04-16 01:50:11 PM
Sounds a bit like "good cop, bad cop". Rummy straining at the reins and W telling Syria, "Look, I'm trying to hold him back, but..."
 
2003-04-16 01:50:55 PM
Rumsfeld gives me the creeps, he looks like he might go postal any minute.
 
2003-04-16 01:50:57 PM
for those wondering about N.Korea. We're going to be meeting them for talks at the end of the month. I suggest reading the news. Google news would be good for ya'll.
 
2003-04-16 01:51:52 PM
These wars are having a devastating effect on the mideast economy. Homicide bomber vests have more than doubled in price in just the last month.
 
2003-04-16 01:51:57 PM
Macabre: "this is INDEED a neo-conservative, Christian, Zionist CONSPIRACY to dominate the Middle East and subjugate Muslims to Western hegemonic control?"

You say that like it's a bad thing...
 
2003-04-16 01:52:15 PM
I say let's not push our luck. Use special ops to see if they can route out any Iraqi escapees or something, but let's not initiate another war right now. We've got too much cleaning up to do, both here and abroad.
 
2003-04-16 01:52:19 PM
Bush vetoes Syria war plan
As in "Bush is opposed to a war with Syria.".....and you farkers are complaining about him STILL?!?!?! God farking dammit, get off it already!

So this means your for attacking Syria?
 
2003-04-16 01:53:14 PM
With the economy still in the doldrums and the recovery appearing to be about to back slide, Bush has pretty much lost the 2004 election unless he can create a good diversion. The build up and the attack on Iraq served Bush well in keeping the economy out of the spot light. But since he is not going to be a war President in the coming year he better keep his fingers crossed that some miracle occurs and the economy stops slipping, or the Democrats are going to crucify him.
 
2003-04-16 01:53:26 PM
Yay! It's the good ol "for or against" argument being trotted out! (that's "fer or agin" for you Texas farkers)

;-D
 
2003-04-16 01:53:48 PM
Right now we are going to hold multilateral talks with North Korea with I believe Russia, China, and Japan in attendance. If you are wondering why they all of a sudden decided to do this it is because they've been watching the war in Iraq very carefully and come to the conclusion that we are very serious and our military can kick the fark out of theirs.
 
2003-04-16 01:54:00 PM
On a related subject, duct-tape manufacturer leads American economic recovery
 
2003-04-16 01:54:12 PM
Whatever happened to North Korea?

Talks are next week.
 
2003-04-16 01:54:31 PM
Control: Honestly, I don't think Bush is a bad man. Seriously, hear (read?) me out.

I think Bush is an EX-cokehead. When a person gets hooked on a highly addictive substance - most often alchohol, crack, cocaine, or heroin - the ONLY way to get off it and STAY clean is to find some kind of overwhelming passion to devote yourself to. Like a son or daughter, an art form, or RELIGION. This is what I think happened to Bush. His devoutness is keeping him off coke. Unfortunately, good intentions can pave the road to hell.

I think President Bush really believes in his cause and, in his own way, really cares about the people he claims to. But he is also a bit delusional, and wants to make moral decisions for people that he has no right to.

I neither support nor oppose Bush himself, I'm not a conservative. But I do think most people with an opinion on the current US president are NOT being objective.

Opinions?
 
Displayed 50 of 486 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report