Clinton - Syria running out of time to reform

news.yahoo.com...

VILNIUS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday that Syria is running out of time and will face increasingly organized opposition if it does not undertake reform.

Speaking at a news conference, she also said she was disheartened by reports of fresh violence in recent days and that the Syrian government's decision to allow one opposition meeting in Damascus was not sufficient.

Well, I guess the clock's ticking on Syria now. Well, I guess I mean that they actually came out and said the clock's ticking.....not like it wasnt behind closed doors.

So what's the next step? Hmmm......

I wonder what would happen if another country or countries told the U.S. we had to reform, or else.


Deebo

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria (Pending), Iran (Pending). When is the last time a country attacked 5 (potentially 7) different countries at once, WW2?

reply to post by ztruthseeker


You forgot Somalia

US 'extends drone strikes to Somalia'

The attack was not immediately identified as a drone strike, but a senior US military official familiar with the operation told the Washington Post newspaper on Thursday that it had come from such an aircraft.

I think that maybe public rhetoric as I read yeasterday that Obama is assisting Assad with staying in power.

Regards, Skellon.

Originally posted by ztruthseeker
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria (Pending), Iran (Pending). When is the last time a country attacked 5 (potentially 7) different countries at once, WW2?

It was Germany. And how well did that work out for them? I no longer think we would've been worse off had McCain become our President. Though, when you think of it, one fascist is just as bad as another.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
I no longer think we would've been worse off had McCain become our President.

Doesn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by Senteri

Originally posted by The Old American
I no longer think we would've been worse off had McCain become our President.

Doesn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

Iran is suspected of being in possession of enough uranium, but it's unlikely they have the current capability to manufacture them. The only nation they would use them on would be Israel. After that point Iran would become the world's largest sheet of glass.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


So you do not really know either? Thank you. I am curious why you think the US or anyone would get away with nuking Iran into oblivion or how that would be good for the planet. Besides, do we really have the money to rebuild Iran like we did Japan?

Originally posted by Senteri
reply to post by The Old American

 

So you do not really know either? Thank you. I am curious why you think the US or anyone would get away with nuking Iran into oblivion or how that would be good for the planet. Besides, do we really have the money to rebuild Iran like we did Japan?

You first question about Iran and nuclear weapons was completely out of left field, unless you were talking about McCain singing "bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Even though I couldn't see why you were directing your question to me, I answered anyway.

But my answer said nothing about support for any action for or against any nation. I was simply stating that if Iran used their one or two nuclear weapons on Israel, they would be faced with retaliation from Israel and NATO. It's pretty academic anyway since bombing Israel means also bombing "Palestine", which would bring a swift reprisal from Saudi Arabia

It would be very bad for the planet, but so were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rebuilding them was easy. Baghdad would literally be unlivable for centuries.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
You first question about Iran and nuclear weapons was completely out of left field, unless you were talking about McCain singing "bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7f587dd1603.jpg[/atsimg]

Even though I couldn't see why you were directing your question to me, I answered anyway.

Really?

Originally posted by The Old American
I no longer think we would've been worse off had McCain become our President.

That is why I asked. It was a question and only a question.

But my answer said nothing about support for any action for or against any nation. I was simply stating that if Iran used their one or two nuclear weapons on Israel, they would be faced with retaliation from Israel and NATO. It's pretty academic anyway since bombing Israel means also bombing "Palestine", which would bring a swift reprisal from Saudi Arabia

Which kind of confuses me since I asked because of what you said about McCain who advocating striking Iran first which would mean they would be the ones retaliating. I am not sure how them attacking Israel fits in at all.

It would be very bad for the planet, but so were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rebuilding them was easy. Baghdad would literally be unlivable for centuries.

/TOA

Ease and cost are two very different things are they not?

Hey man, it was just a question. You answered it. I have no desire to fall into your plot twisting trap.