• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Just Curious about Bush Expanding in the Middle East....

Dark Gypsy Curse

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was just curious because I have been reading a lot of theories such as Bush thinking about expanding into Syria.....I was wondering what you thought about that, like would he go into Syria, and why? Would he be doing the wrong thing or right thing? I am a little confused about it...
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The why would be that a false rumor was making the rounds that Russia helped Iraq by moving their WMDs to Syria. Condie Rice disspelled that rumor back in Jan 04.

The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U.S.-led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Friday.
Rice said, "Any indication that something like that happened would be a very serious matter.

"But I want to be very clear: we don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place, but we will tie down every lead," she said at a White House briefing about Bush's trip Monday to a hemispheric summit in Mexico.
After that was cleared up, Syria did vow to ban together with Iran to aid against threats from the United States (axis of evil accusations only tend to peeve people).

The US has accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons and has withdrawn its envoy to Damascus.

US tensions with Syria soared after Monday's killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a bombing, although Washington has not directly accused Damascus of responsibility.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate foreign affairs committee hearing the decision to recall the ambassador was a culmination of a "long series of problems" with Syria - notably allegations that Damascus has harboured Iraqi insurgents and allowed them to cross into Iraq to fight against US troops.
Is Syria next in the nation building? Well, we've got a president now who spoke against capricious nation building in the 2000 election and we're on number two now:
The vice president (Al Gore) and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Dark Gypsy Curse said:
I was just curious because I have been reading a lot of theories such as Bush thinking about expanding into Syria.....I was wondering what you thought about that, like would he go into Syria, and why? Would he be doing the wrong thing or right thing? I am a little confused about it...
In all sincerity, I doubt he'd invade, but if he did, I wouldn't be that shocked. If he did, obviously it'd be the wrong thing to do.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
 

Dark Gypsy Curse

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
akyron said:
Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.

Please prove that Syria has Iraqs old WMD...and isnt is already a dirty war? And when did we even prove that Iraq had WMD anyways? Talk is cheap...prove it.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
akyron said:
Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
Often I've heard you cons say this, but you seem to always simply claim that Syria has them, with no proof whatsoever. Does the thought that Saddam simply got rid of his weapons scare you? Or are you simply driven by hate of Saddam and love for Mr. Bush ("he's gotta be right!")?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
akyron said:
Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
Please read shuamort's post (#2) detailing Dr. Rice's comments on this subject stating there's no evidence that any WMD's were moved to Syria prior to the Iraq war. Not to mention there's been two federal reports that have said there's no evidence of this either. Of course, as you've pointed out in another thread, the Duelfer report does say there's no way to know for sure. Mainly because proving a negative is a near impossibility. Much like there’s no purple and green checkered ducks in the world, but you can’t prove they don’t exists.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


"Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered."

"The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts."


Like Pac said before. There is much speculation but it is highly suspicious activity to be taken too lightly with what is at stake here. Those trucks went into Syria and never looked back. No one knows exactly what our troops will have to face if we have to cross the Syrian border. I hope they do not have to.

Even Condi could/would not say for sure. It could be they do know and are holding back until they are ready to deal with it.


Like The President said "All options are on the table"
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
akyron said:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


"Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered."

"The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts."
Just wondering why you left out the 2nd paragraph of the piece:
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.
Considering the source, The Wash. Times, a notorious right wing paper. They are about as conservative as it gets, and let's not even talk about its owner!

Want to read a funny, sort of related piece on this subject from the Wash. Times?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040409-091306-5456r.htm

Western spies: Syria storing WMD in Sudan

LONDON, April 9 (UPI) -- Western spy agencies say Damascus is smuggling missile and weapons of mass destruction components to Sudan so they won't be detected anywhere in Syria.

Since January 2004, Syrian President Bashar Assad has ordered shipments of Scud C and Scud D extended-range missiles as well as weapons components to be flown to warehouses in Khartoum, Middle East News Line reported Friday.
LOL! So the question of the moment then is where is Sudan shipping these weapons? :eek:

Remember the game HOT POTATO?

Shall we talk about the creditability of "Western Spies"?
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
26 X World Champs said:
Just wondering why you left out the 2nd paragraph of the piece:


Considering the source, The Wash. Times, a notorious right wing paper. They are about as conservative as it gets, and let's not even talk about its owner!

Want to read a funny, sort of related piece on this subject from the Wash. Times?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040409-091306-5456r.htm



LOL! So the question of the moment then is where is Sudan shipping these weapons? :eek:

Remember the game HOT POTATO?

Shall we talk about the creditability of "Western Spies"?
Not to mention this article is seven months old and two federal reports have been released since that clearly state there’s no evidence any WMD’s were there or were moved. I could find reports that read not only that we know Saddam has WMD but we know exactly where he's hiding them, turns out those reports/articles were also wrong.

 

Dark Gypsy Curse

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
26 X World Champs said:
Just wondering why you left out the 2nd paragraph of the piece:


Considering the source, The Wash. Times, a notorious right wing paper. They are about as conservative as it gets, and let's not even talk about its owner!

Want to read a funny, sort of related piece on this subject from the Wash. Times?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040409-091306-5456r.htm






LOL! So the question of the moment then is where is Sudan shipping these weapons? :eek:

Remember the game HOT POTATO?

Shall we talk about the creditability of "Western Spies"?

Very well written...bravo.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
26 X World Champs said:
Just wondering why you left out the 2nd paragraph of the piece:
Cause pac quoted it earlier and I referred to it as well.


"Like Pac said before. There is much speculation "


There was an extreme amount of shady dealings and the intent was to get and USE WMD. It is all over the report as well. When he had them he used them. I am glad they dug him out of his dirty spider hole.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
akyron said:
There was an extreme amount of shady dealings and the intent was to get and USE WMD. It is all over the report as well. When he had them he used them. I am glad they dug him out of his dirty spider hole.
Not trying to be disagreeable, but what you wrote is simply untrue. Supposedly he "had them" for the 1st Gulf War in 1991 but he didn't use them....please explain? :confused:
 

Dark Gypsy Curse

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
akyron said:
Cause pac quoted it earlier and I referred to it as well.


"Like Pac said before. There is much speculation "


There was an extreme amount of shady dealings and the intent was to get and USE WMD. It is all over the report as well. When he had them he used them. I am glad they dug him out of his dirty spider hole.
Wow, you are confusing me. When you said it was all over the report as well....can you prove that? And when did he use these weapons?

I am glad that you are glad that they dug him out of his "dirty spider hole," but please tell me the whole point of going into Iraq. I never liked Sadamm. He did horrible things to people. He was a dictator. He ruined people's lives and killed innocent people. But weren't we after Ossama? There wasnt a link with those two horrible people. There was no evidence to prove it anyways. And dont give me what everyone gives me about him going into Iraq for Democracy. Also about the WMD. There arent any yet. Those are just huge cover ups.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
26 X World Champs said:
Not trying to be disagreeable, but what you wrote is simply untrue. Supposedly he "had them" for the 1st Gulf War in 1991 but he didn't use them....please explain? :confused:

I was referring to
Deulfer:
Iraq became the first nation to use a nerve agent on the battlefield when it used Tabun munitions against Iran in 1984.

During the Iran-Iraq war, CW use helped the Iraqis turn back Iranian human-wave attacks when all other methods failed, buying time for Iraqi forces to regroup and replenish. Iraq again used CW successfully to help crush the popular revolt in 1991.

By 1991, Iraq had amassed a sizable CW arsenal, comprising thousands of short range rockets, artillery shells, and bombs, and hundreds of tons of bulk agent. It also had produced 50 nerve agent warheads for the 650 km-range al Husayn missile.

Despite the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 in April 1991, which called for Iraq to disarm, Iraq initially chose to retain CW weapons, precursors and associated equipment, making false declarations to the UN. Even when Iraq claimed to have complied with UNSCR 687 and its successors, Saddam retained components vital to restarting a CW program.



He had them and did use them.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
akyron said:
I was referring to
Deulfer:
Iraq became the first nation to use a nerve agent on the battlefield when it used Tabun munitions against Iran in 1984.

During the Iran-Iraq war, CW use helped the Iraqis turn back Iranian human-wave attacks when all other methods failed, buying time for Iraqi forces to regroup and replenish. Iraq again used CW successfully to help crush the popular revolt in 1991.

By 1991, Iraq had amassed a sizable CW arsenal, comprising thousands of short range rockets, artillery shells, and bombs, and hundreds of tons of bulk agent. It also had produced 50 nerve agent warheads for the 650 km-range al Husayn missile.

Despite the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 in April 1991, which called for Iraq to disarm, Iraq initially chose to retain CW weapons, precursors and associated equipment, making false declarations to the UN. Even when Iraq claimed to have complied with UNSCR 687 and its successors, Saddam retained components vital to restarting a CW program.



He had them and did use them.
Yes, but none of this has anything to do with current events (84 & 91). And the Duelfer report, as well as the more recent President's commission, clearly state there's no evidence that Saddam had WMD's at the time we invaded. So I have no idea how this has any thing to do with the current Iraq war. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. It would be fairly asinine if we attacked them in 1955 and used that as an excuse.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Pacridge said:
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. It would be fairly asinine if we attacked them in 1955 and used that as an excuse.

Well that not exactly a fair example since Saddam clearly demonstrated the appearance of having them, The willingness to use them, The desire to develop/obtain them for purpose of conquest. How were you going to know if you did not go in there an look?

Deulfer also clearly states how varied the level of cooperation they received was and how clearly Saddam tried(and succeeded in some cases) to circumvent UN sanctions to keep his weapons programs alive.
I agree waiting until 2003 was a mistake and not clearing out the regime in 91 was only letting a wound fester.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
akyron said:
Well that not exactly a fair example since Saddam clearly demonstrated the appearance of having them, The willingness to use them, The desire to develop/obtain them for purpose of conquest. How were you going to know if you did not go in there an look?

Deulfer also clearly states how varied the level of cooperation they received was and how clearly Saddam tried(and succeeded in some cases) to circumvent UN sanctions to keep his weapons programs alive.
I agree waiting until 2003 was a mistake and not clearing out the regime in 91 was only letting a wound fester.
I agree that Saddam was thumping his chest. If nothing else making it appear he was doing something he wasn't. As Dr. Blix put it several years ago- many people have "Beware of Dogs" signs posted on thier property yet they have no dogs. And yes Japan was clearly not doing any such thing in 1955, I not trying to say they were. I'll I'm saying is just because someone had weapons at one time doesn't maen it makes logically sense to attack them ten years later and use statements they made ten years earlier to back up your logic for your invasion. Not logically.

And Dr. Blix and many others were trying to tell Bush and company there's a lot of doubt here as to whether Saddam actually has these weapons- turns they were right- Bush was completely wrong. Not kind of wrong- completely wrong. We've committed hundreds of our sons and daughter lives to this and hundreds billions of dollars in our tax dollars. Not to mention thousands of Iraqi lives and countless men and women are returning with drastic wounds. And they were wrong. And they told us they had no doubts about this, it was a slam dunk, they not only knew he had them they knew where he was hiding them. Again they were dead wrong about the whole thing.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Pacridge said:
Yes, but none of this has anything to do with current events (84 & 91). And the Duelfer report, as well as the more recent President's commission, clearly state there's no evidence that Saddam had WMD's at the time we invaded. So I have no idea how this has any thing to do with the current Iraq war. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. It would be fairly asinine if we attacked them in 1955 and used that as an excuse.
:good_job:
Despite all the evidence there's still a sizable group of Americans who still believe the WMD scam. It's truly one of the great mysteries of this century. These ardent Bushies believe every single word that Bush says, 100%, with no exception. I believe that if Bush said 2+2=5 these same people would agree! :2brickwal
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
26 X World Champs said:
:good_job:
Despite all the evidence there's still a sizable group of Americans who still believe the WMD scam. It's truly one of the great mysteries of this century. These ardent Bushies believe every single word that Bush says, 100%, with no exception. I believe that if Bush said 2+2=5 these same people would agree! :2brickwal


You never can tell.

The History of 2 + 2 = 5
by Houston Euler
"First and above all he was a logician. At least thirty-five years of the half-century or so of his existence had been devoted exclusively to proving that two and two always equal four, except in unusual cases, where they equal three or five, as the case may be."

-- Jacques Futrelle, "The Problem of Cell 13"


Most mathematicians are familiar with -- or have at least seen references in the literature to -- the equation 2 + 2 = 4. However, the less well known equation 2 + 2 = 5 also has a rich, complex history behind it. Like any other complex quantitiy, this history has a real part and an imaginary part; we shall deal exclusively with the latter here.

Many cultures, in their early mathematical development, discovered the equation 2 + 2 = 5. For example, consider the Bolb tribe, descended from the Incas of South America. The Bolbs counted by tying knots in ropes. They quickly realized that when a 2-knot rope is put together with another 2-knot rope, a 5-knot rope results.

Recent findings indicate that the Pythagorean Brotherhood discovered a proof that 2 + 2 = 5, but the proof never got written up. Contrary to what one might expect, the proof's nonappearance was not caused by a cover-up such as the Pythagoreans attempted with the irrationality of the square root of two. Rather, they simply could not pay for the necessary scribe service. They had lost their grant money due to the protests of an oxen-rights activist who objected to the Brotherhood's method of celebrating the discovery of theorems. Thus it was that only the equation 2 + 2 = 4 was used in Euclid's "Elements," and nothing more was heard of 2 + 2 = 5 for several centuries.

Around A.D. 1200 Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci) discovered that a few weeks after putting 2 male rabbits plus 2 female rabbits in the same cage, he ended up with considerably more than 4 rabbits. Fearing that too strong a challenge to the value 4 given in Euclid would meet with opposition, Leonardo conservatively stated, "2 + 2 is more like 5 than 4." Even this cautious rendition of his data was roundly condemned and earned Leonardo the nickname "Blockhead." By the way, his practice of underestimating the number of rabbits persisted; his celebrated model of rabbit populations had each birth consisting of only two babies, a gross underestimate if ever there was one.

Some 400 years later, the thread was picked up once more, this time by the French mathematicians. Descartes announced, "I think 2 + 2 = 5; therefore it does." However, others objected that his argument was somewhat less than totally rigorous. Apparently, Fermat had a more rigorous proof which was to appear as part of a book, but it and other material were cut by the editor so that the book could be printed with wider margins.

Between the fact that no definitive proof of 2 + 2 = 5 was available and the excitement of the development of calculus, by 1700 mathematicians had again lost interest in the equation. In fact, the only known 18th-century reference to 2 + 2 = 5 is due to the philosopher Bishop Berkeley who, upon discovering it in an old manuscript, wryly commented, "Well, now I know where all the departed quantities went to -- the right-hand side of this equation." That witticism so impressed California intellectuals that they named a university town after him.

But in the early to middle 1800's, 2 + 2 began to take on great significance. Riemann developed an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 5, paralleling the Euclidean 2 + 2 = 4 arithmetic. Moreover, during this period Gauss produced an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 3. Naturally, there ensued decades of great confusion as to the actual value of 2 + 2. Because of changing opinions on this topic, Kempe's proof in 1880 of the 4-color theorem was deemed 11 years later to yield, instead, the 5-color theorem. Dedekind entered the debate with an article entitled "Was ist und was soll 2 + 2?"

Frege thought he had settled the question while preparing a condensed version of his "Begriffsschrift." This condensation, entitled "Die Kleine Begriffsschrift (The Short Schrift)," contained what he considered to be a definitive proof of 2 + 2 = 5. But then Frege received a letter from Bertrand Russell, reminding him that in "Grundbeefen der Mathematik" Frege had proved that 2 + 2 = 4. This contradiction so discouraged Frege that he abandoned mathematics altogether and went into university administration.

Faced with this profound and bewildering foundational question of the value of 2 + 2, mathematicians followed the reasonable course of action: they just ignored the whole thing. And so everyone reverted to 2 + 2 = 4 with nothing being done with its rival equation during the 20th century. There had been rumors that Bourbaki was planning to devote a volume to 2 + 2 = 5 (the first forty pages taken up by the symbolic expression for the number five), but those rumor remained unconfirmed. Recently, though, there have been reported computer-assisted proofs that 2 + 2 = 5, typically involving computers belonging to utility companies. Perhaps the 21st century will see yet another revival of this historic equation.
 
Top Bottom