Ellsberg says Syria IS Next

by dataflow 4 Thu Apr 17, 2003 19:16

http://www.guerrillanews.com/intelligence/doc1639.html

by King George & Adolph Rumpsfeld Thu Apr 17, 2003 19:29

If we fail to discover any WMDs in iraq, it is clear that this can only be because they have been moved somewhere ......

And that somewhere is probably Syria.

Therefore we call on the Syrian government to hand over these WMDs .... immediately ........

If they fail to do so we will take appropriate action ......

And if we still fail to uncover thw WMDs in Syria .... well then there's Iran isn't there ?

Are you getting the picture Earthlings ..... ?

by tony blah-blah Thu Apr 17, 2003 19:31

One of our tip-top intelligence sources has come up with reliable reports that the WMDs we are looking for have been shifted over the border into Syria ......

by my name is bond Thu Apr 17, 2003 20:08

Italian police uncover al-Qaeda link in Syria

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172655079.html

by Phuq Hedd Thu Apr 17, 2003 20:17

George's handlers want him to win the 2004 election so they're best off stabilising their power in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Opening a new war in Syria wouldn't suit them right now because it would mean another gamble and they don't need it to fan the flames of patriotism. Two "succesful" imperial assaults under his belt means that George can return to the Death Star assured of the support of his loyal lieutenants in the media, politics and industry. That should carry the next election just fine.

by ipsiphi Thu Apr 17, 2003 20:45

we have seen some of the most impressive military successes in history.
hmmm.-
So the child with no arms is a success?

as for Syria, Baath state number two.
military the next strategy will be to expand eastwards you silly billys, we did write it all down for you through eight months of near maddened postings.
i remember the interactive game.
so:
has anyone been monitoring Iran/suni militants?
oh no.
no mention of those for two months.
they must be busy.

by head phuq Thu Apr 17, 2003 20:48

George's handlers want him to win the 2004 election so they're best off stabilising their power in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Have you done a stability check on Afghanistan recently .... I hear that Mr. Karzai is afraid to stick his head outside Kabul ......

by Phuq Hedd Thu Apr 17, 2003 21:28

The name is "Phuq Hedd".

The post says that they need to stabilise the Iraq and Afghan situations. Nowhere does the post say that Afghanistan is stable. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to stabilise it. Now would there?

The logic still applies. Syria is likely not to be invaded until after 2004. There's no immediate need and the Bush administration needs to consolidate its hold on power at home (got to see Patriot Act 2 aka Domestic Security Enhancement Act, and other measures implemented).

by head phuq Thu Apr 17, 2003 21:40

I take your point(s), Mr. Hedd.

But I still think it may be a tad optimistic to expect the Americanos to be able to stabilise Afghanistan.

It's easy enough to stir up a hornet's nest but not so easy to calm the little phuqquers down again.

Let's wait and see.

But don't be too surprised if we see some movement on the road to Damascus.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Apr 17, 2003 21:53

You still don't explain why it would be reasonable for the USA to invade Syria. If you stack up what's to gain versus what's to lose then it looks unlikely.

Gain: -control of Middle East?

Lose: -any chance of controlling Middle East without further expensive military intervention.
-the opportunity to capitalise on having made a "succesful" invasion w.r.t. domestic politics
-more EU support (Blair needs a breather)

by kokomero Thu Apr 17, 2003 22:06

If that was their plan Phuq then they have fallen well short of the mark. Marines butchering people in Mosul has shades of Mai Lai and it is a matter of time before they are caught live on camera. At that point I would expect to see the broad liberal streak present in most Americans to resurface ... God help Dubya when they eventually wake up!

by Evil Dave Fri Apr 18, 2003 12:53

Blair is already (wearily) beginning his campaign against Syria in precisely the same way he behaved re: the Iraq question. Jack Straw has dutifully condemned Syria as per the Rumsfeld request.
George Bush has zero chance of being re-elected if he is forced to rely on domestic politics. He's frignteningly incompetent at macroeconomics (almost to the same extent as his catastrophic failures at microeconomics - running Oil Exploration companies into the ground)
he is pushing through massive tax cuts at a time when the federal Budget is falling over and dying...
No, Mr Bush has to keep up the jingoism (gross patriotism) that is only possible in a country at war and it's easy to spin (lie) when the media is so weak that it barely qualifies for puppet status.
Bush needs America to be in at least Orange alert status when the polls open, the department of Homeland security should be another arm of his election campaign. He will be brushing up on his George Orwell (possibly commissioning a childrens cartoon based on 1984 for his own benefit)
For these dreams to come true America needs to be involved in another spectacular military victory against a defenceless yet massively threatening muslim world (there aren't that many muslim voters in the states)

Bush will spare no expense so the cost of the war is irrelevant, Haliburton will clean up, Boeing (who get most of their money through the American defence budget) will be overjoyed, the oil companies will be ectatic. (Bush isn't good at exploring for oil so he just takes over places where the oil has already been discovered)

by S. Aerobics - Reclaim te Runways Fri Apr 18, 2003 14:41

From the 'Butcher of Baghdad' to the eh... 'Dentist of Damascus'

Hmmm.... there's going to have to be some tweaking done to the propaganda line.

by Ju-Ju Fruit Sat Apr 19, 2003 01:24

Surprised the RA hasn't come up with chem and bio weapons, actually. Can't they place an order with the Libyan Colonel?