US Fears Over Lebanon

[M.Dancer]

The United States has said there is "mounting evidence" that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are planning to topple the Lebanese government.

The White House said Syria hoped to stop the formation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the killing of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6107224.stm

[myata]

Following a number of reports from US administration that recently proved wrong (WMD, Al-Kaeda in Iraq, 90% enriched uranium in Iran), I just don't know what to make of it. Is there some truth behind them, or is it another questionnable intelligence or some kind of a diversion ploy?

[geoffrey]

Al-Kaeda

How many spellings will there be for al-Qaeda...

[jbg]

Following a number of reports from US administration that recently proved wrong (WMD, Al-Kaeda in Iraq, 90% enriched uranium in Iran), I just don't know what to make of it. Is there some truth behind them, or is it another questionnable intelligence or some kind of a diversion ploy?

I still feat that the US intelligence was dead on the money and that our State Department didn't like the way it came out.

[jdobbin]

I still feat that the US intelligence was dead on the money and that our State Department didn't like the way it came out.

So al Qaeda was operating in Iraq and planning new attacks on the U.S.?

[jbg]

I still feat that the US intelligence was dead on the money and that our State Department didn't like the way it came out.

So al Qaeda was operating in Iraq and planning new attacks on the U.S.?

Let's put it this way. When a country has unlimited access to funds, a hostile leader, vulnerable countries near its borders and helpless citizens, we did the only right thing to do.

[Black Dog]

Let's put it this way. When a country has unlimited access to funds, a hostile leader, vulnerable countries near its borders and helpless citizens, we did the only right thing to do.

What's that? Cook up a public justification for war based on shoddy intel compiled from convicted felons and third-hand sources, cherry-picked to support the foregone conclusions of the idealogues in charge?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Let's put it this way. When a country has unlimited access to funds, a hostile leader, vulnerable countries near its borders and helpless citizens, we did the only right thing to do.

What's that? Cook up a public justification for war based on shoddy intel compiled from convicted felons and third-hand sources, cherry-picked to support the foregone conclusions of the idealogues in charge?

When Iraq was "stable", it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wants a stable Iraq?

What were the questions in Iraq? Was there this bad man? Was he running a bad country? That did bad things? Did it have a lot of oil money to do bad things with? Was it going to do more bad things? If those were the questions, was the answer "more time to let international sanctions and U.N. weapons inspections do their job"? No, the answer was blow the place to bits.

[Black Dog]

When Iraq was "stable", it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars.

Iraq was attacked by Israel in '67 and did not participate in any of the fighting. It contributed one division to the Syrian efforts in Yom Kippur Wars.

It attacked Iran.

With American support.

It attacked Kuwait.

With (what they thought was) American permission. And they were punished for it.

It gassed the Kurds.

Which your hero Reagan responded to by vetoing a bill calling fo sanctions against the regime.

It butchered the Shiites.

While the U.S. stood around and watche d(and with good reason: at least one Bush knew better than to get embroiled in the internal afairs of Iraq)

It fostered terrorism in the Middle East.

You think Saddam was bad? Wait till all the jihadis cutting their teeth in Iraq start fanning out.

Who wants a stable Iraq?

My wild guess? Iraqis.