What other countries were we going to invade?

[Lanya]

[...................]

    Many in the Bush administration were eager to invade Iraq immediately following the September 11 attacks, regardless of who was later deemed to be responsible. This is well-known. What's gotten less attention are claims, made by Wesley Clark in 2003, that Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list as well. New credence has now been given to these claims -- credence that comes from examining passages in Douglas Feith's recent book War and Decision. In the book, Feith wrote of the September 30, 2001, memo from Rumsfeld to President Bush advocating "new regimes" in some states -- in quoting from the document, Feith mentions Afghanistan but deleted the rest of the list, putting "some other states" in brackets, seemingly as an irrelevant aside.

    So the enterprising historian Gareth Porter did what, apparently, nobody deigned to do: he simply asked Feith what other states the Secretary of Defense proposed invading. Feith declined to say, for national security reasons, what the states were -- but the wily Porter pressed on, asking Feith what countries on Clark's list were in the document. Feith acknowledged, "All of them."

[.....................]
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805070003#2

[Christians4LessGvt]

[BT]

Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list as well.

What a surprise. All on the list are known to sponsor or harbor terrorists.

[Lanya]

And so it makes perfect sense to invade all of them?

[BT]

And so it makes perfect sense to invade all of them?

Yes. If we are serious about stopping terror at it's source.

Are we?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Yes. If we are serious about stopping terror at it's source

No, lets just "talk" with them as they take over Lebanon.

By the way, we don't need to invade anyone.....
Bill Clinton showed we can pretty much bomb countries into submission.(see Milosevic)

[sirs]

And so it makes perfect sense to invade all of them?

Yes. If we are serious about stopping terror at it's source.  Are we?

alas, for some, (which would be the vast majority of the ideological left), that would be no.  Many would even argue that there really isn't a threat for us to be concerned about, and thus nothing we really need to stop.   

[Xavier_Onassis]

By the way, we don't need to invade anyone.....
Bill Clinton showed we can pretty much bomb countries into submission.(see Milosevic)
===================================================================
No, he pretty much proved that Serbia could be bombed into submission. Serbia was small and puny and had few friends.


Might I suggest that it there is trouble emanating from a country where some people dislike you, if you invade that country or bomb it, it is extremely probable that damn near everyone will utterly loathe you after you do so.

Observe how after about twenty Arabs bombed just three buildings or so in the US, everyone here was willing to attack Afghanistan, amd even Iraq, which harbored not one of the twenty bombers. Had the government chosen to whomp up a little interest, they could have bombed Saudi Arabia, Yemen and several other countries for good measure.

Do we really want everyone in Syria or lebanon to loathe Americans?

I do not think it is in the best interest for the 6% of the world's population that is the USA to want the other 94% to loathe us as mad bombers, invaders, and such.

Plus, we really do not have the manpower to attack all the places mentioned, and this therefore will not happen.

Not even the dumbest fool in the incompetent Juniorbush administration is going to invade Lebanon or bomb it flat, let alone Syria or Iran.

[Plane]

Might I suggest that it there is trouble emanating from a country where some people dislike you, if you invade that country or bomb it, it is extremely probable that damn near everyone will utterly loathe you after you do so.

Note that Isreal (few freinds) bombed Syria (even fewer freinds ) and the worlds reaction was null , Syrias reaction was to immediately cover the evidence.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Note that Isreal (few freinds) bombed Syria (even fewer freinds ) and the worlds reaction was null , Syrias reaction was to immediately cover the evidence.
======================================================================================================

I think that it is quite safe to say that Israelis and Syrians despised one another with remarkable vigor even before the recent attack.

Few civilians were killed in Syria, and that is what really pisses people off.
============================
Just suppose some crazy Ay-rabs bombed that airbase where you work. How many Americans do you think would be okay with that?

[Plane]

"Just suppose some crazy Ay-rabs bombed that airbase where you work. How many Americans do you think would be okay with that?"

None.

I even suppose that you would object.

So what keeps Syria from getting any sympathy?

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Might I suggest that it there is trouble emanating from a country where some people dislike you, if you invade that country or bomb it, it is extremely probable that damn near everyone will utterly loathe you after you do so"

Oh my really?

So allow enemies to do what ever they want to do
because they will "utterly loathe you" if you try to
stop them from carrying out what they want to do?

 

[Christians4LessGvt]

Not even the dumbest fool in the incompetent Juniorbush administration
is going to invade Lebanon or bomb it flat, let alone Syria or Iran

Bombing Iran would suffice.
Destroy Iran's military from the air.
The others would very quickly fall into place.
Hezbollah can not survive without Iran.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So allow enemies to do what ever they want to do
because they will "utterly loathe you" if you try to
stop them from carrying out what they want to do?
=======================================
No, dummy.

It is not a choice of bombing them flat or allowing them to do as they please. You must be smart enough to know that.

You prevent them from doing harm to you without committing murder or mayhem upon them.

For example, is the only way to keep you from blowing stop signs and driving 75 mph down my street to open up on you with a AK-47?

I tend to think there are always alternatives to war.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Hezbollah can not survive without Iran.

==================================
That is an absurd statement.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party. It might not be able to lob rockets at Israel, but it could certainly survive without Iran. Your knowledge of world politics appears to be abysmal.

Bombing Iran will ensure that no moderate Iranian government will be able to come to power.

When Khatemi was in before Ahmedinejad, talks between the US and Iran could have resolved many problems. But Juniorbush was an asshole puppet of the NeoCons, and nothing happened. Iranians voted for Ahmedinejad because Juniorbush threatened their security