1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bush Tried to Get Israel to Attack Syria in Latest War

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by glynch, Aug 10, 2006.

  1. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,087
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Well I guess for Bush "war is not my last resort" as he lied.
    *********

    US neocons hoped Israel would attack Syria
    Israel considered expansion of conflict in Lebanon 'nuts.'

    By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

    The White House, and in particular White House advisors who belong to the neoconservative movement, allegedly encouraged Israel to attack Syria as an expansion of its action against Hizbullah, in Lebanon. The progressive opinion and news site ConsortiumNews.com reported Monday that Israeli sources say Israel's "leadership balked at the scheme."

    One Israeli source said [US President George] Bush's interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy against Islamic militants.

    After rebuffing Bush's suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at rooting out Hizbullah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.

    In a July 30 story about Israel being prepared for a possible attack by Syria in response to its attacks in Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post noted the White House interest.

    The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] was also concerned about a possible Syrian attack in response to the ongoing IDF operations in Lebanon. It was also known that Syria had increased its alert out of fear in Damascus that Israel might attack.

    Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.

    Neoconservatives, or 'neocons,' believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled military power to promote its values around the world. Several prominent neocon columnists have recently written about the need for Israel to take the current conflict beyond Lebanon to include the countries they consider to be Hizbullah's main backers – Iran and Syria.

    In his blog for National Review, columnist Michael Ledeen wrote last month that "we have to [go] after [Syrian President Bashir] Assad."

    The hard work on the ground belongs to the Israelis, and you are right to say we have done well to support them rhetorically. But we have to [go] after Assad, and we have not done that. Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance; it may be going on behind the scenes (not movie scenes, the real ones). I hope so. But I don't see it. I don't see or hear our leaders condemning the Syrians and the Iranians, aside from the original White House statement (in direct conflict with the statement from the State Dept, let's not forget) holding Syria and Iran responsible. Okay, so they're responsible. And then?

    There has to be a "then." And it has to be aimed at the total destruction of Hizbullah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus. Otherwise, it will all rewind. There will be no semblance of a strong, free, and independent Lebanon, and the next time around things will be much worse. You will see more and more Iranian missiles, in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Israel. It's a war, not a debate.

    William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, also believes the US needs to go after Syria and Iran.

    For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

    The right response is renewed strength – in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions – and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

    But Alon Ben-Meir, professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, argues the opposite side, that now is the time to engage, not attack Syria, and that the Bush administration "will forfeit another historic opportunity to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, however remote that prospect may now seem."

    The Syrian government knows only too well that the administration is fully committed to a regime change in Damascus. From the Syrian perspective, this, in itself, justifies any effort to thwart the American design. If the administration wishes to see a real change in Syria's behavior, it must first assure President Bashar al-Assad that the United States has no intention of undermining his government. It is absurd to think that any government will cooperate in its own downfall. That said, however justified American grievances against Syria may be, Damascus can also compile a long list of its own grievances. Neither side's complaints against the other can be adequately addressed by public pronouncements or recriminations. Only a direct dialogue provides the clarity to realistically assess each other's intentions.

    In a recent piece entitled "Ending the neoconservative nightmare," Ha'aretz columnist Daniel Levy writes that the neoconservative agenda for Israel has actually hurt the country. Israel, he said, found "its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hizbullah's advantage..." Mr. Levy wonders if, after the Israel-Hizbullah crisis is over, Israelis will understand the "tectonic shift that has taken place in US-Middle East policy?"

    The key neocon protagonists, their think tanks and publications may be unfamiliar to many Israelis, but they are redefining the region we live in. This tight-knit group of "defense intellectuals" – centered around Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Elliott Abrams, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and others – were considered somewhat off-beat until they teamed up with hawkish well-connected Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Newt Gingrich, and with the emerging powerhouse of the Christian right. Their agenda was an aggressive unilateralist US global supremacy, a radical vision of transformative regime-change democratization, with a fixation on the Middle East, an obsession with Iraq and an affinity to "old Likud" politics in Israel. Their extended moment in the sun arrived after 9/11.

    Finding themselves somewhat bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, the neoconservatives are reveling in the latest crisis, displaying their customary hubris in re-seizing the initiative. The US press and blogosphere is awash with neocon-inspired calls for indefinite shooting, no talking and extension of hostilities to Syria and Iran, with Gingrich calling this a third world war to "defend civilization."

    Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel. The sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem.

    Finally, Spencer Ackerman writes in The New Republic Online that a growing split between traditional conservatives (champions of 'realistic' foreign policy) and neoconservatives (champions of 'moralistic' foreign policy) will only become more pronounced over the next few months, as traditional conservatives increasingly rethink the Bush administration's actions in Iraq.

    Conservative recriminations over Iraq are igniting all across Washington, with opponents of the war loudly assaulting its leading champions (see Francis Fukuyama v. Charles Krauthammer and George Will v. William Kristol.) But what the Hulsman incident [the dismissal of senior foreign policy analyst, John Hulsman, from the neoconservative bastion the Heritage Foundation last month] reveals is that the war's supporters aren't about to passively absorb criticism and issue public apologies. They are going to fight back against their critics – and an ugly debate will become much uglier.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/dailyUpdate.html
     
  2. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    There you go, Zionist-Neocon cabal == biggest threat to world peace.
     
  3. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,087
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    I would say objectively you are right. Iran, N. Korea and other so called axis of evil powers have not started offensive wars in many years, if at all.

    Now I realize that goes against prevailing American ideology and th ecoverage in the mainstream media, but looking at the facts, i.e., who is actually starting wars against outher countries it seems to be the case..
     
  4. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,822
    Likes Received:
    5,227
    We are so evil...Wouldn't it be great if we were more like Iran, or N.Korea gylnch? we would be so peaceful to the world...fa la lalala

    :D
     
  5. TeamUSA

    TeamUSA Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,770
    Likes Received:
    5
    and what if US was dominantly a muslim country.....
     
  6. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,822
    Likes Received:
    5,227
    We would slap our women around and rape them before killing them (if we had a govt. such as Iran)...! WOOOOOOOOOOO.

    Plus we could get a government sponsered "militia" gang as the leftists of the world like to call them (terrorists as a label from the evil right) who get to kill those idiot Canadian civilians...we get to go for the throat on those rat faced Canadian women, and children....Wooooo@! We would teach our children on PBS the virtues of suicide and getting it on...

    Sounds evil,...huh? Not according to Glynchy. These acts are refuted as: "so called axis of evil powers".

    All hell gylnch...mighty defenda of a cool world!...
     
  7. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    no if we were a middle eastern nation our internal affairs would be regulated by china or whoever would become a super power. maybe we'd have manhattan and everything east of the mississippi given to native americans.

    perhaps after that we'd have settlements all over the west. maybe our elected government wouldn't be recognized by the world. given our residence in UN camps our economy would be such a joke that we'd ask the native americans to come to our casinos to gamble.

    perhaps china would supply native americans with flankers and and j11s. a couple cluster bombs. help with some nukes.

    there would be enormous poverty and illiteracy. partly due to international influence but mostly due to the rulers tha controlled the country. yet those rulers would probably be supported by china. so we couldn't do anything about em.
     
  8. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,051

    How many countries have Iran and North Korea invaded and occupied in the last 20 years?
     
  9. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    I'd have to call horse**** on that article.

    This little Lebanon adventure is taxing Israel enough. They have to hold on to their assets for defensive purposes and they aren't politcally resolute among their own people. I don't think anybody would be stupid enough to suggest that now is the time to invade Syria.......from the West.
     
  10. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    Normally CSM is solid, but that article is pretty shaky.
     
  11. thumbs

    thumbs Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Objectively? ;) Come now, Glynch. I respect your opinions and your points of view, but "objectively" is a little much. Am I wrong in my observation that you tend to be as far to the left and anti-Bush as Trader_Jorge is to the right and pro-Bush? That Iran and North Korea haven't participated in wars during the past few years certainly doesn't mean they haven't started and fueled them -- they are the top arms dealers in the world, surpassing even the U.S. and Russia.
     
    #11 thumbs, Aug 12, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2006
  12. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    iran really isn't that much of an arms trader. it supports hezbollah definitely but a measly 100 mil a year is chump change.

    north korea definitely is a big arms trader. but compared to US and russia? you must be joking.

    i cringe to use wiki as evidence. but thats all the time i have right now.

    wiki
     
  13. Dirt

    Dirt Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,you're not wrong ......Glynch is a less boisterous,much snider lefty Jorgey.
     
  14. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    46,804
    Likes Received:
    12,395
    I'm not going to read the article because it sounds like nonsense. I'm sure there are some neocon kooks who wanted Israel to hit Syria, but I don't believe senior Bush advisors were leaning on Israel. The Bush Admin knows the likely alternative to the Assad regime would be a fundamentalist Sunni government that is far more dangerous. The ONLY advantage would be the ties to Iran and (maybe Hezbolla) would die. But if Syria falls to the "Islamofascists", the moderate regimes Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be put square in the crosshairs. Plus, the aid to the terrorists in Iraq supported by Al Qaeda would openly flow like a river and more of our troops would die. Iraq's 5-10% chance of working out would go straight to zero!

    Assad's regime is not good but it's to everyone's advantage they stay in power in Syria. They represent the much lesser of evils. Some even feel the Assad regime is salvageable and can be turned around. I doubt this very much.
     
  15. thumbs

    thumbs Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    So I used a little exaggeration -- I've learned that is the modus operandi here in D&D! :D :)
     
  16. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,822
    Likes Received:
    5,227
    History is not a guarantee of future results...What I do know is the broken record that is repeated of wiping Israel off the map...Perhaps that would be good for Iran to try, because Iran would be wiped off the map as well...But I care more for innocent civilians to use them as shields...
     
  17. arkoe

    arkoe (ง'̀-'́)ง

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    10,387
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    How reliable is the Christian Science Monitor? I've never heard of them before.
     
  18. blazer_ben

    blazer_ben Rookie

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    0

    100 mill a year?. Try 700 MILLION A YEAR. Not to mention some of the most high tech missiles on iran's program.
     
  19. aussie rocket

    aussie rocket Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,096
    Likes Received:
    201
    Nothing should surprise us as far as Bush is concerned.
     
  20. Burzmali

    Burzmali Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    0
    omgbushhitlar?

    We should go after Syria. And then wipe out pretty much every nation in the Middle East except for Israel. Don't worry about occupation; wipe out the native populations, and harvest the resources.
     

Share This Page