Operation Syrian Freedom coming up?

#2
Can you really see the House of Commons and Lords condoning another pointless invasion, Tony Blair would almost definatley get a "vote of no confidence" and even if it did happen, arent our forces stretched enough even without mentioning the British Forces being undermanned regular and reserve-wise therefore making it not possible for another invasion. This is just my opinion.
 
#4
Would BLair even have to ask for permission from the House, couldn't he just use "The weapons we were after in Iraq have been moved....." and of we go again?
 
#5
I can't see it happening. The other neighbour of Iraq is a more likely target, and even that is unlikely.

The consequences of the UK supporting the US in military operations against Syria or Iran would be tremendous. I believe there would be many resignations from within the ranks of the Armed Forces and a widespread refusal to obey reservist mobilisation orders. There would be significant levels of civil disobedience, possibly even national strikes in key industries. There would be enormous splits in government, with the possibility of the impeachment of Bliar.
 
#6
From the Associated Press.

President Bush on Friday said the U.N. should deal quickly and seriously with a report implicating Syria in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, a killing that led to protests and withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon after nearly 30 years as overlord.

"The report strongly suggests that the politically motivated assassination could not have taken place without Syrian involvement," Bush said.

...

The United Nations investigative report, which Bush called "deeply disturbing," made a link between high-ranking Syrian officials and their Lebanese allies in the car bombing that killed Rafik Hariri and 20 others in February.

...

He said he had telephoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier in the day and instructed her to call on the United Nations to convene a Security Council session "as quickly as possible to deal with this very serious matter."

...

Separately, the head of the State Department's Near East Bureau said Hariri was the victim of a "political crime."

"We would like to see those responsible for this crime and others in Lebanon brought to justice," Assistant Secretary of State C. David Welch said in Washington.

Although Rice has refused to rule out military action against Syria, the Bush administration stressed that it has no plans for military intervention.

"We are seeking a diplomatic solution to this problem," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Friday.


"Bush calls for U.N. action against Syria" by Barry Schweid. 21 October 2005

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12962632.htm
 
#8
Since when has the White House given a tuppeny Damn about tribal bloodletting?
 
#9
From the Boston Globe.

[Sec of State Condoleezza] Rice, speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that President Bush would not need to ask Congress for authorization to use military force against Iraq's neighbors.

...

Rice, in her three hours of testimony, painted an upbeat picture of political progress in Iraq. But she also described the war as part of a long-term struggle that might last more than a decade. The war on terrorism, she said, would be won only after change spreads across the entire Middle East.

...

''Under the Iraq War Resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq," Senator Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Rhode Island Republican, reminded Rice.

''So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil," Chafee said, ''you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?"

Rice replied that the president did not need new authorization.

...

In her testimony, Rice said that the only real solution in the war against terror is the transformation of the Middle East into a region of stable democracies.


Rice won't rule out armed action against Syria, Iran
By Farah Stockman. | October 20, 2005
http://www.boston.com/news/world/ar...ont_rule_out_armed_action_against_syria_iran/
 
#10
Rice replied that the president did not need new authorization.
I can't believe I just read that. That is the one of the scariest things I ever read. It is scary, because I know Bush43/44 has no idea , and will not be thinking of the consequences. He is being led by people who will do anything to satisfy their own twisted agendas.

In her testimony, Rice said that the only real solution in the war against terror is the transformation of the Middle East into a region of stable democracies.
I'm sorry, this person is in charge of the State Department? 10,000 years of doing it the same way, and we are going to transform them into stable democracies within 10 years. How does Secretary Rice propose we create these stable democracies? Syria is stable, very much so , Iran whether you like them or not, are stable as well. The most unstable area, with the ruling class one tactical jump ahead of the reaper is Saudi Arabia.
 
#12
F**k YEAH!

Hey , this foreign policy stuff is a breeze :D

Ironic from me, hard policy from them :(
 
#13
#14
The Conservative Revolt
There are six reasons why conservatives have turned on Bush.
by Fred Barnes


1. We ain't nukleard Tehran
2. We ain't nukleard Damascus
3. We ain't nukleard Riyadh
4. We ain't nukleard Ka-bool
5. We ain't nukleard Jalalalalalalalabad
6. We ain't nukleard Mecca

Does that cover it?
 
#15
Its spending and illegal immigration, not immigration but illegal immigration. There are different factions in the Republican Party, most Republican like his foreign policy.


Fred Barnes did not get it right. He missed the major problems.
 
#16
Because most Republicans don't understand the ramifications. How can they , when Fcux and Newsmax etc are regarded as credible news sources?

They are blatantly moulding opinion and propagandizing , and it's being taken as stone cold fact.

Just look at Mil.com, any who take the line that perhaps they ain't the most authoritive news sources are soon lynched.
 
#17
Most US news sorces are left. Most European news sorces are farther left. Most european news sorces are pro europe. Most US news sorces are anti US.

We have a couple of news sources that are conservitive. To say that european news sources don't have a point of view, Just means that you agree with them.
 
#18
And that is where the rot starts.

Who told you the American news sources were leftist? Have you seen the board of directors that run most of them? These are hard fried capitalists , not new wave socialists. Perhaps the real problem is, the media in the US is not partisan enough for the GOP?

The BBC is NOT pro-Europe, neither is it anti. It reports the news. If anything, since the stitch up and Hutton, it's taken even more of a Blairite line. Sky News owned by the Fcux Murdoch (Who owns Fox) is not particularly pro-Europe either
 
#19
The BBC is NOT pro-Europe, neither is it anti. It reports the news

To say that european news sources don't have a point of view, Just means that you agree with them.

A
Nd that is where the rot starts.

Who told you the American news sources were leftist? Have you seen the board of directors that run most of them? These are hard fried capitalists , not new wave socialists. Perhaps the real; problem is, the media in the US is not partisan enough for the GOP?

The BBC is NOT pro-Europe, neither is it anti. It reports the news. If anything, since the stitch up and Hutton, it's taken even more of a Blairite line. Sky News owned by the Fcux Murdoch (Who owns Fox) is not particularly pro-Europe either.
Bill Gates .Ted Turner, George Sorros, John Kerry's wife. All billionaires, all leftist, except when it comes to there own money. More goverment spending, higher taxes and a smaller private sector.
Your right most Big dollar Media people are capitalist in the US but just barely.They support the left except when it comes to there pay checks . Unlike there European counter-parts who are hard core socialist. That's why I say that Europe is farther left than the US.

Most Big time capitalist are amoral when it comes making money. They will make it in Communist China or Capitalist America, one day Bill Gates will be meeting with a bunch of Bankers the next day he is trying to save the world at a Africa concert. Most boards of Directors could care less what is reported as long as its not so extreme that would damage the bottom line.

What determines the news output is the corporate culture of the news organization.Every organization has a culture or attitude. Reporters and very large majority of the staff are left or far left. In europe it even farther left. Murdoch influences out put by the people he hires .They reflect an attitude through a story selection process, editing. The BBC does the same thing. They select a different set of stories to emphasize. The New York Times runs Abu-Grave or Gimto stories . Fox runs Oil for Food UN scandal stories. All the stories are may be true its the selection of stories that determines your perspective. Its the same with every news organization.
 
#20
NEO_CON said:
Most US news sorces are left.
Apologies in advance PTP, I know this is supposed to be the cerebral part of Arrse, but the only reply I can give to this is as follows:

B0LL0CKS.

EVERY mainstream news channel was supportive of the War etc. in the initial phases. This is because, like journos the world over, they are largely a bunch of lazy slags who will repeat verbatim everything that is spun to them if it means they don't have to think for themselves. They also saw what happened to the likes of Helen Thomas, when a few of them tried to deviate from Ari Fleischer's and Scot MacLellan's talking points.

Notice now, they have only started to do their fecking job when there is more money to be made by reporting the negative stories. Notice, how amongst the latest feeding frenzies and 'outrages', not one journo is addressing the issue of where the hell they've been and what they've been reporting for the past 4 years.
 

Latest Threads

Top