PDA

View Full Version : MID-EAST GOVERNMENTS....COMMON ENEMY?



MR. PLUSHEDOUT
03-28-2003, 03:08 PM
Rumsfeld warns Syria on military shipments
U.S. also warns armed supporters of Iran
Friday, March 28, 2003 Posted: 3:13 PM EST (2013 GMT)


(CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued a warning to Syria Friday, saying it would be held accountable for shipments of military equipment -- including night-vision goggles -- that have been moved across the border into Iraq.

The Pentagon does not want "neighboring countries or anyone else" to be assisting the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, Rumsfeld told reporters.

"These deliveries pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces. We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing.

Rumsfeld also warned any country against sending any "military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies" into Iraq that are not under the control of Gen. Tommy Franks, chief of the U.S. Central Command.

The secretary specifically mentioned the Badr Corps, troops "trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard."

Rumsfeld said Badr Corps troops would be considered "combatants" and said the coalition "would hold the Iranian government responsible for their actions."

Earlier Friday, U.S. officials said airstrikes had knocked out one-third of the Iraqi Republican Guard's Medina Division south of Baghdad, and other divisions were moving in from the west and north to reinforce it.

Coalition troops working their way north toward the capital have been engaged in heavy fighting with Iraqi forces -- particularly in the southern cities of Nasiriya and Tikrit.

As the weather cleared, U.S. military officials said they learned the coalition's heavy bombing campaign had reduced the Medina Division to about 65 percent of its capacity.

In response, two other units of Iraq's elite Republican Guard were repositioning. The Hammurabi Division, which was west of Baghdad, was moving south in hopes of reinforcing the Medina, and another division -- which was around Tikrit in the north -- was moving in to replace the Hammurabi, U.S. officials said.

The Republican Guard was working to protect Baghdad from a ground invasion. U.S. officials have said the battles with the Republican Guard will likely be some of the bloodiest of the war.

[ March 28, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: MR. PLUSHEDOUT ]

Pete Nice
03-28-2003, 03:28 PM
damn, it's about time we started threatening the rest of that region. you know it's on when you start talkin' smack to countries with real weapons of mass destruction. go joe AR15firing.gif

mhd
03-28-2003, 03:30 PM
"we"

Mocambo
03-28-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by mhd:
"we" heh heh heh

Rom
03-28-2003, 03:52 PM
Yeah I was just reading about this. This is kind of a disturbing developement. Iraqs staunch defense may be emboldening our other 'enemies' in the area and beyond. I dont think this administration, backed by a serious majority support of American people, would hesitate to start bombing other 'beligerants' in the area. All this saber rattling could get out of hand. I dont think we can 'conventionally' fight Iraq, Iran and Syria at the same time...if you see what Im saying. If Syria joins then Isreal would probably jump in too. Once Isreal gets in the game our supposed allied arab friends will be hard pressed to stay neutral, including Pakistan. Europe may be hard pressed then to remain neutral as well. Someone else posted that world wars have sprung over lesser incidents. Im all for spanking azz but Mutually Assured Destruction is just that...MAD.

May cooler heads prevail.

MR. PLUSHEDOUT
03-28-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Rom:
Yeah I was just reading about this. This is kind of a disturbing developement. Iraqs staunch defense may be emboldening our other 'enemies' in the area and beyond. I dont think this administration, backed by a serious majority support of American people, would hesitate to start bombing other 'beligerants' in the area. All this saber rattling could get out of hand. I dont think we can 'conventionally' fight Iraq, Iran and Syria at the same time...if you see what Im saying. If Syria joins then Isreal would probably jump in too. Once Isreal gets in the game our supposed allied arab friends will be hard pressed to stay neutral, including Pakistan. Europe may be hard pressed then to remain neutral as well. Someone else posted that world wars have sprung over lesser incidents. Im all for spanking azz but Mutually Assured Destruction is just that...MAD.

May cooler heads prevail. VERY ELOQUENTLY SPOKEN. HOWEVER, ON WHO'S SIDE DO YOU THINK ISRAEL WILL FIGHT?

f0reverneverm0re
03-28-2003, 04:53 PM
unOriginally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
The Pentagon does want "neighboring countries or anyone else" to be assisting the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, also any country that are not under the control of Gen. Tommy Franks, chief of the U.S. Central Command.

The secretary specifically mentioned the Badr Corps, troops "trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard."holy state sanctioned holy war Batman!

mhd
03-28-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Rom:
Yeah I was just reading about this. This is kind of a disturbing developement. Iraqs staunch defense may be emboldening our other 'enemies' in the area and beyond. I dont think this administration, backed by a serious majority support of American people, would hesitate to start bombing other 'beligerants' in the area. All this saber rattling could get out of hand. I dont think we can 'conventionally' fight Iraq, Iran and Syria at the same time...if you see what Im saying. If Syria joins then Isreal would probably jump in too. Once Isreal gets in the game our supposed allied arab friends will be hard pressed to stay neutral, including Pakistan. Europe may be hard pressed then to remain neutral as well. Someone else posted that world wars have sprung over lesser incidents. Im all for spanking azz but Mutually Assured Destruction is just that...MAD.

May cooler heads prevail. unintended consequences

MR. PLUSHEDOUT
04-01-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rom:
Yeah I was just reading about this. This is kind of a disturbing developement. Iraqs staunch defense may be emboldening our other 'enemies' in the area and beyond. I dont think this administration, backed by a serious majority support of American people, would hesitate to start bombing other 'beligerants' in the area. All this saber rattling could get out of hand. I dont think we can 'conventionally' fight Iraq, Iran and Syria at the same time...if you see what Im saying. If Syria joins then Isreal would probably jump in too. Once Isreal gets in the game our supposed allied arab friends will be hard pressed to stay neutral, including Pakistan. Europe may be hard pressed then to remain neutral as well. Someone else posted that world wars have sprung over lesser incidents. Im all for spanking azz but Mutually Assured Destruction is just that...MAD.

May cooler heads prevail. unintended consequences </font>[/QUOTE]I THINK HE MAY HAVE A POINT!