Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Oct 21, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
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.
All the same I think I will dust down my dessies.
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?
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.
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
Bush and his toy boy would be mental to start another war. So Lads don't unpack just head West by north west.
Since when has the White House given a tuppeny Damn about tribal bloodletting?
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
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.
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.
Part Time Pongo asked:
How does Secretary Rice propose we create these stable democracies?
With these. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm
Hey , this foreign policy stuff is a breeze
Ironic from me, hard policy from them
My understand of what Neo Con thinking is on this subject is let the french do it. There are on board in condemning the Syrians. Let them take the lead. There is a reason the Syrians have not been attacked already for what they are doing in Iraq. Try the diplomatic approach first.
Here are hard core Neo Con web sites. You can see for yourself what the Neo Cons are thinking.
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?
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.
Separate names with a comma.