Here we go again...

[skunk]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=520397

Fasten your seatbelts, please. We're in for another ride....
Syria is now officially in the firing line.

[blackfox]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=520397

Fasten your seatbelts, please. We're in for another ride....
Syria is now officially in the firing line.
OMFG No-one could be that stupid, or reckless, or ...OMFG...(that's all I can say for now, I will
have a more substantive post when I calm down...)

[wowser]

"daddy, I'm bored with Iraq - who else is there i can bully?"

[Sayhey]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=520397

Fasten your seatbelts, please. We're in for another ride....
Syria is now officially in the firing line.

Combine this with the recent tightening of the screws on Cuba and it's easy to see that Wolfowitz and the neocons aren't done in their attempts to redraw the maps of the world. It would make Cecil Rhodes proud. The question becomes not if, but when. Will it be as an "October surprise" or will they wait for a second term to use US military might again.

[Ugg]

It also accuses Damascus of failing to prevent foreign insurgents from crossing its border into Iraq.

I like this statement.

Uh, duh! If there had been a post war plan in place that included border guards, this wouldn't have been an issue. What a bunch of idiots. Blaming Syria for neocons inability to plan for the future.

Cuba is on the list because like Saddam, Castro is more or less a paper tiger and what better way to garner all those Cuban-American votes than to crack down on Castro. It's a lot like re-opening the case of the 14 year old black kid who was killed all those years ago. All the people involved are dead, so it's a safe way to get votes.

[poopyhead]

Combine this with the recent tightening of the screws on Cuba and it's easy to see that Wolfowitz and the neocons aren't done in their attempts to redraw the maps of the world. It would make Cecil Rhodes proud. The question becomes not if, but when. Will it be as an "October surprise" or will they wait for a second term to use US military might again.

my uneducated guess is right before the election. bush's numbers are faltering and while americans have been disturbed by the recent photos we are still as a whole complacent about the predicament in Iraq. A military strike in Syria will bring back active hostilities between the US and a defined power (unlike the current somewhat amorphous "insurgents" and "terrorists") this will hopefully polarize the American people as they are inundated with rhetoric such as "a vote for Kerry is a vote against american service people" or "a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism." This could possibly be a foretelling of bush's final solution in which he attempts to extend his reign for another 4 years by reminding the masses of the corpses of slaughtered americans as a call to the ballot box.
bush has so far reigned in blood and by blood he will remain.

[miloblithe]

This really is nothing new. Bush has been making belicose comments towards Syria since the beginning of this war. These sanctions also are a relatively minor response in what is a war zone (the middle east in general). At least he's not bombing Syria. Of course, realistically, that's probably only a matter of time. We'll find some "insurgent camps" across the border and bomb them. But I doubt Bush is going to go for a full invasion of Syria. Certainly not impossible, but I'd put it in the unlikely column.

Bush needs to read a primer on--who an I kidding; have explained to him--the basic concept of "imperial overstretch."

[mactastic]

Yeah, any kind of invasion of Syria at this point would be political suicide for Bush. It would mean we'd basically have to empty Iraq of our soldiers and move them to the west on the border with Syria. That would guarantee Iraq plunges into near-instantaneous chaos.

The neocons may have dreamed of 'regime change' in Syria, but the wildly off the mark troop estimates of Iraq should give them pause at least.

Maybe after the election, but certainly not before.

[zimv20]

Maybe after the election, but certainly not before.
i'm not so sure. isn't the point to affect the election? or is it the promise of invasion that gets the effect they want?

[mactastic]

i'm not so sure. isn't the point to affect the election? or is it the promise of invasion that gets the effect they want?

It's the promise of action, of embedded reporters, of 'shock and awe'. The realities aren't anywhere near as glamorous as the predictions. Getting people hyped up and ready to go to war is the easy part.

I could see a drumbeat to war with Syria prior to the summer, but not an invasion. Also, Bush runs the risk of the election becoming a referendum on the war, which is currently losing support.

[Sayhey]

I think if we watch the messages coming out of the WH we will be able to tell if it is possible they will move before the election. There will be somekind of campaign to put either Cuba or Syria before the electorate if they mean to invade. I think it would be hard to pull off, but I also wouldn't put anything past this group. It maybe particularly hard to pull off around Cuba. If you haven't already read the following BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3702431.stm) story take a look.

Cuban dissidents attack Bush plan

A group of Cuban dissidents has sharply criticised the US for measures aimed at speeding up the end of Fidel Castro's communist rule.

Leading dissident Oswaldo Paya said it was up to Cubans, not the US, to bring about change in the country.

US President George W Bush on Thursday endorsed new sanctions and a $36m plan to promote change in Cuba.

Two other Cuban dissidents handed in a protest letter at the US diplomatic mission in Havana.

One of the authors, Manuel Cuesta, said the US had "no right to set the pace of a transition in Cuba".

The other, fellow dissident Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo, said: "This is a total interference that does not benefit the building of democracy in Cuba."

[miloblithe]

It all depends on what happens in Iraq (and if anyone remembers Afghanistan). Actually, speaking of Afghanistan, weren't we planning on gearing up over there once winter ended and actually extending beyond Kabul? What happened to that idea?

We just don't have the troops for yet another war. We don't have the troops in Iraq now.

[poopyhead]

We just don't have the troops for yet another war. We don't have the troops in Iraq now.

unless we get a sweeet draft going
then there will be plenty of cannon fodder and with the lives of their children on the line Americans will be forced to support the war