Syria?

Remove all ads!

Is the US going to attack Syria? Now, given the fact that I hate all those terrorist supporting nations in the Middle East (yes, I know that I am speaking broadly and exaggerating, though IIRC Hamas has its headquarters in Syria) I'm not sure that I am opposed to blowing Syria off the map. What does concern me is that Syria hasn't invaded another country (like Iraq did with Kuwait) and is therefore not under any UN sanctions. I supported US action in Iraq because I felt the UN was too wimpy to enforce its own rules, but in this case, Syria has broken no rules that I know of. Up until a few days ago, I thought they were helping the US in the war against terrorism. What happened?

 

I agree with you, but I think Bush's thinking is "we're in there already, let's blowsome more stuff up."

 

If Bush 43 wants to be in office for a second term, he better not. At least without presenting real evidince that Syria is guilty of something a whole lot worse than what we have seen so far!

Basically, he better have enough evidence that even the UN has to fall in line.

Personally I believe that this one can be handled diplomatically, if the UN will show a little backbone. The axis of weasils are going to have to put their economic interests behind that of security, assuming of course that real evidence is provided to them.

This is totally different than Iraq, so don't go running the "where was the real evidence to justify Iraq?" line. Iraq knew the consequences of not complying with resolution 141. Unfortunately the US and UK were the only ones with the fortitude to enfoce it, because now no one takes the Security Council seriously.

 

He has another problem: He can hardly accuse Syria for having chemical weapons - as the US themselves did so for a long period over the 20th century. So ownership of WMDs alone doesn't make a rogue state.

More, Syria's Leader Assad Jr. is a reasonable and rational man. He also enjoys support of Turkey (which is usually reserved towards syria) and Iran in this matter. And Syria has the support of the wimpy UN and the wimpy european internationalists in this matter.

Unfortunately that is no guarantee that the paranoid hawks don't start with another campaign of lies along the line "Trust me, he's evil". There is substantial battle between the neocons and the practicals in Washington. Till now the neocon tribe has had more success in winning the ear of the president. And the neocons don't care about sound evidence, international law and details like that.

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0208war_body.html
and there was another interesting article about it in the right as ever Wall Street Journal yesterday, p A2.

[ April 15, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

To invade Syria without having the Iraq issue settled will release a political earthquake. Syra is ... ah ... just your small irrelevant dictatorship around the corner. There is no one as cruel or hated as Saddam in power, nor have the Syrians any real quarrel with anyone except Israel.

Ha, ha, and the US haven't even found one WMA. 1 month ago, the WMA's of Iraq where a "clear and present danger" to the USA.

To invade Syria would upset the Arabs like nothing ever. And transatlantic tensions would be fueld, because a lot of Europeans despise already the powerpolitics of Washington.

 

If Bush goes to war with Syria, it will not only make diplomacy with Middle Eastern nations (discounting Israel) almost impossible, but will further strain relations with Europe. It might even break the American-European alliance. If that happens, there is no stopping a real world war from happening, especially if American adventures in the Middle East go on (Syria, Iran attacked). Europe will not allow such advetures to even go further, and by that time Britain might also rethink its position and withdraw from its support of the U.S.

 

I am deeply worried to say the least, i have a feeling we may be seeing the beginnings of the great united states empire. If he attacks syria then he will have at least MY full opposition.

But it won't happen, it can't happen. Even Bush isn't that stupid....

 

The United States is not going to start attacking nations to create an empire. We just aren't interested. If Bush attempts it, he will find himself unemployed in the next election. There are a lot of Americans talking tough on going into Syria, but before it happens they will think it through and decide that it isn't worth it, and that we have no right to. Unless things change a whole lot, why should we spend American lives on it? We made our point with Iraq. Even the UN should be able to handle Syria, I think...

America has reterned every nation we have occupied to its people for the past hundred years or so. The war in Iraq was not about occupation, or oil. If the US wanted more oil reserves we could send the New York national gaurd north and the Arizona National gaurd south. As soon as the first tanks fired their guns Quebec and Mexico City would be surrendering faster than you can say oui adn si.

 

I really don't think that attacking Syria is something the average american would like. I'm absolutely convinced that the american population isn't a bunch of warmongers. They may (irrationally IMO but anyway - when you get that preached on tv for a decade perception changes) *feel* that Saddam is/ was a threat - but not so for Syria.

But seemingly that doesn't hinder some leading neocons, first of all Cheney, Perle and their goons Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz from considering it a pretty good plan. It's a problem of the government and the people who actually make the foreign policy.
The consequences of them messing up US foreign relations and half of the middle east is something that's far worse than Bush Jr. ending up unemployed. They might leave behind the middle east in ruins and the US isolated.

 

Ragusa,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but, Bush does want to get re-elected, and Republicans is Congress are not going to let him take them down with him. Don't forget that in reality, the executive branch is the weakest of the 3 in the US.

Also I think that the US could invade Syria on trumped up charges without having to worry about being isolated. The world economy is just too dependent on the US for that to happen at the momment. Besides, too many nations are on our bribery, um, sorry, I meant international aide programs.

 

The problem is that the neocons hold key positions - they determine what the president and the congress get to hear. Rummy reportedly complained that Tenent was not providing the reports on Iraq and WMDs he needed to justify the war that was already planned. The crude disinformation about it, publicly considered to be grossly wrong or badly faked (see the srutiny thread) is probably a result of that.

Interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,812827,00.html

 

I do believe that no US citizen is willing to see USA entering into another war but i also remember that all the US citizens in SP stated that the USA will get in and get out of Iraq.
Right now we have a declaration of a Iraq goverment consisted of US citizens mainly and pro-American Iraqies the troops will stay for a longer time than it was stated in the beginning and with more problems created (siites sunites and kurds now have claims of their own) than the one solved (Saddam Husein) and the US administration now is using the same path as with Iraq.
Do i believe that Syria is next; I'm afraid so yes despite the hopes of the USA citizens.

 

Powell already said that there was no plans for war with Syria.

We'd sooner attack France or Germany.

 

Darkwolf wrote:

Darkwolf, the right word is "interdependence". As you remember the OECD data, Europe and East-Asia combined are a huge economical power. And I want to stress, that it was the clever idea of former Presidents FDR and Truman, to secure the USA with a network of allies.

Now, the Republicans are shattering all. And I think some damage that has already been done is beyond repair. IMHO, the Bush-Administration is risking a backlash. This backlash, of course, would be an economical one.

Maybe Wolfowitz is not only reshaping the Middle-East, maybe he's reshaping the World without knowing it ?

 

Is the Bush Administtration plannin on a military campaign in Syria? Well, from yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937105,00.html

I espescially liked this line: "Anyone who lives in the real world would never see this as more than noise."

For some reason, some of the comments in this thread stir up memories of the comments in the thread not long ago about what a colossal mistake the coalition warplan was. Those comments seemed premature at the time, about a week to week and a half into the campaign, and some of the doomsday prgnostication here seems a tad premature as well.

 

Well, if you will get away from your optimism, just read this nice chronology:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/coalition.html

With that gvt of yours, get ready for trouble.