Rumsfeld Warns Syria

[conjur]

From CNN Breaking News:

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warns Syria that the U.S. considers military shipments to Iraq a 'hostile act.' Details soon.

 

[Insane3D]

Oh great...are we going to take on another ME country before we are even finished in Iraq? Does Rumsfeld want to fight everyone?

 

[conjur]

I hope not....too bad he didn't resign instead of Richard Perle, although it was right of Perle to do so.

 

[Insane3D]

I am watching the Rumsfeld/Gen. Meyers press conference now. He was just asked about Syria, and he largely sidestepped the issue and called it an "Intelligence Issue".

 

[GoodToGo]

Looks like Syria wants a new parking lot.

 

[Tab]

Syria has huge problems they are no better than Iraq or North Korea or Kosovo.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Syria has huge problems they are no better than Iraq or North Korea or Kosovo.

So you think we should go after them too? How many countries will we attack in the name of diminishing a percieved threat?

 

[Queasy]

snippet from foxnews:

Fox News reported Thursday that Defense officials said they are seeing "military equipment" coming across the border from Syria to Iraq.

When pressed about what kind of equipment and how much, the officials said, "night vision goggles and other things," but would not elaborate on how much or how it is affecting the campaign.

But on Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirmed that Syria was in fact engaging in such activities and sent out a stern warning.

"These developments pose a direct threat to coalition forces," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. "We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government responsible for the incidents."

Syria has effectively opened its borders for volunteers trying to get into Iraq to fight for Saddam Hussein's regime, as well as refugees trying to escape, U.S. government officials confirmed to Fox News Friday.

Intelligence reports began trickling in Tuesday night about the border activity.

By contrast, officials say the Turkish, Iranian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian borders were closed and more carefully watched. Officials say the U.S. government's concerns have been communicated to the Syrian government, though exactly how is unclear.

 

[Insane3D]

Oh great, he just said we would consider them combatants...Iran and Syria. Why don't we just take on everyone in the ME. :disgust:

 

[ToBeMe]

How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end? All Rumsfeld is doing is the usual foot in mouth inflame other countries before thinking. So, now we have labeled Iran and Syria "enemy combatants" in public. How would you expect their governments to react? This crap should not be in the press, it should be addressed in government channels rather than inflame a bad situation with public comments by his idiotness.

 

[Zipp]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Tabb
Syria has huge problems they are no better than Iraq or North Korea or Kosovo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you think we should go after them too? How many countries will we attack in the name of diminishing a percieved threat?

Tabb never said we should go after them. Take a chill pill.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Zipp

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Tabb
Syria has huge problems they are no better than Iraq or North Korea or Kosovo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you think we should go after them too? How many countries will we attack in the name of diminishing a percieved threat?

Tabb never said we should go after them. Take a chill pill.

Did I say he did? I believe the first part of my reply was...

So you think we should go after them too?

Sounds like a question to me.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

I understand that. My problem is the region is already a powder keg, more so than usual, and Rummy making public statements that only serve to inflame the current situation seem counter productive. If they want to warn these countries, why can't they use the usual channels....ie a phone? It seems the administration has no idea that there are different views out there, and that this is a sensitive situation that might justify being a little careful with public statements. He accused them of supplying night vision goggles....

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

I understand that. My problem is the region is already a powder keg, more so than usual, and Rummy making public statements that only serve to inflame the current situation seem counter productive. If they want to warn these countries, why can't they use the usual channels....ie a phone?

Because Rumsfeld has not tact.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

I understand that. My problem is the region is already a powder keg, more so than usual, and Rummy making public statements that only serve to inflame the current situation seem counter productive. If they want to warn these countries, why can't they use the usual channels....ie a phone?

Believe me............that was already done before the statement was made publicly! Also, what else should we do? Either allow the convoys to proceed or attack without warning?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

I understand that. My problem is the region is already a powder keg, more so than usual, and Rummy making public statements that only serve to inflame the current situation seem counter productive. If they want to warn these countries, why can't they use the usual channels....ie a phone?

Believe me............that was already done before the statement was made publicly! Also, what else should we do? Either allow the convoys to proceed or attack without warning?

Convoys?! So far, we are claiming they are supplying them with night vision goggles...not tanks, guns, explosives...etc.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

I understand that. My problem is the region is already a powder keg, more so than usual, and Rummy making public statements that only serve to inflame the current situation seem counter productive. If they want to warn these countries, why can't they use the usual channels....ie a phone? It seems the administration has no idea that there are different views out there, and that this is a sensitive situation that might justify being a little careful with public statements. He accused them of supplying night vision goggles....

Would you have preferred it if he said "Now Syria, play nice and stop sending military equipment to Iraq or we're going to have to put you in a corner for a time out" If there are convoys moving military equipment from Syria into Iraq then they are valid targets. One of the main problems in Vietnam was we never stopped the equipment and manpower flow from Cambodia into Vietnam. You aid our enemy, then you are our enemy and should expect to be attacked.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

I understand that. My problem is the region is already a powder keg, more so than usual, and Rummy making public statements that only serve to inflame the current situation seem counter productive. If they want to warn these countries, why can't they use the usual channels....ie a phone?

Believe me............that was already done before the statement was made publicly! Also, what else should we do? Either allow the convoys to proceed or attack without warning?

Convoys?! So far, we are claiming they are supplying them with night vision goggles...not tanks, guns, explosives...etc.

Um, how do you think they receive them?? Fed Ex? Also, the night vision hardware is not the only item disputed..........spare parts/ammunition/intel has also been sited.....................

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
How is this new or suprising? ANYONE whom aids or abeds an enemy while at war is viewed as a hostile force and subject to confrontation. That would make any convoy of military hardware/intel./aparatis enroute to Iraqi forces subject to coalition attack...........................that's about what was said and what the rules of war are and have been.....................

This may be, but how many countries are we going to attack? Seriously...when will it end?

LOL! You are NOT attacking a country if you attack a convoy enroute to enemy forces within (in this specific engagement) Iraq. The country(s) or entities arranging such action is fully aware of this. In other words, you issue the warning (as done) and then if a convoy is found, it is destroyed.

I understand that. My problem is the region is already a powder keg, more so than usual, and Rummy making public statements that only serve to inflame the current situation seem counter productive. If they want to warn these countries, why can't they use the usual channels....ie a phone?

Believe me............that was already done before the statement was made publicly! Also, what else should we do? Either allow the convoys to proceed or attack without warning?

Convoys?! So far, we are claiming they are supplying them with night vision goggles...not tanks, guns, explosives...etc.

Military aid is military aid is military aid.

 

[Insane3D]

Would you have preferred it if he said "Now Syria, play nice and stop sending military equipment to Iraq or we're going to have to put you in a corner for a time out" If there are convoys moving military equipment from Syria into Iraq then they are valid targets. One of the main problems in Vietnam was we never stopped the equipment and manpower flow from Cambodia into Vietnam. You aid our enemy, then you are our enemy and should expect to be attacked.

No. We are not talking about huge convoys with tons of supplies, we are talking night vision goggles. No lethal weapons have been reported. I think for something that is relatively minor at this point we might be better served to go through the traditional channels and talk directly with the government of these countries instead of having idiot boy call them out in public. We saw how well this tactic did with NK and the Axis of Evil speech.

 

[Insane3D]

Whatever guys. Let's just go fight the whole f'in world. I should have thought twice before questioning the wonderful tact of Rumsfeld and others. You guys are right. We shouldn't think about long term consequences for anything. Live in the now. F'em all. Blow 'em all up. Woohoo.


*sigh*

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Whatever guys. Let's just go fight the whole f'in world. I should have thought twice before questioning the wonderful tact of Rumsfeld and others.


*sigh*

No, that's fine and understandable........I simply do not think you have any or at least little information of how military/war procedures are followed...............this is actually common protocal...............

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Whatever guys. Let's just go fight the whole f'in world. I should have thought twice before questioning the wonderful tact of Rumsfeld and others.


*sigh*

No, that's fine and understandable........I simply do not think you have any or at least little information of how military/war procedures are followed...............this is actually common protocal...............

Why is is common protocol to call them out in the media like that? Why not keep it between governments?