There is a new resolution being drafted to make the entire mideast region a zone free of all WMD. The country to bring it before the UN is... Syria. UN resolution And in an apparent response to the US accusations, Syria is preparing to introduce a resolution at the UN Security Council on Wednesday, calling for the Middle East to be declared a "zone free of weapons of mass destruction" - a clear reference to Israel's nuclear weapons programme. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2951713.stm This is just a small part of an article on different things. I thought this was a pretty smart move on the part of the Syrians after recent WMD accusations against them.
don't worry the U.S. will veto this just like they have all the other UN resolutions against Israel. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
Once the cat is out of the bag, you can't stuff him back in..... This why we took out Saddam, so that instead of having 2 North Koreas with Nukes you still only have one. DD
i guess it's ok for us to use our veto but France must be evil or cowardly or greedy or stupid if they use theirs.
Different situations, Outlaw. Without knowing the particulars of the resolutions in question and their probable effects on the region, it's impossible to have an informed opinion on whether the US vetoes & "no" votes were justified or not.
Syria is calling Bush's bluff. Once again, the proper way to extradite ex-regime Iraqis from Syria is by cooperating with the Syrian intelligence agencies and using the CIA and special forces to capture them. This shouldn't even be a newsworthy issue, and I'm sure the CIA loves Bush and Rumsfield talking trash because it makes their job that much harder. By threatening Syria we're increasing the chances that saddam's inner circle will escape. But that's just from my perspective.
I don't see the problem with a WMD free zone. Please enlighten me. The U.S. will back any country that is attacked.
Not under all circumstances, and maybe not forever. In the end, countrys can only rely on themselves for survival. If they have no threats to their very existence they probably don't need WMD.
I see this as an opportunity. the US should back it....but with a provision that allows for uninhibited surprise inspections to ensure the resolution is being upheld. Israel won't like it, but then again, neither will any of the other countries in the middle east. THAT would be some bluff calling.
The UN doesn't work as a governing body guys. You can not treat all countries equally, especially those that are under a dictator. DD
This is one instance where I disagree with the Republican party's policy. I do not support Israel at all. They are the root of many of our problems in terms of worldwide perception. If the US were to at least ease up on their support for Israel, I believe a couple of things would happen. 1) Terrorist groups would be at least partially appeased, resulting in less threats to the US 2) Without the 100% backing of the US, Israel may actually have to adopt a more reasonable policy towards the settlements and Palestinians, possibly allowing a compromise to be reached. As it currently stands, Israel can do whatever the heck it wants, since the US is there to support them. Remove this support, and Israel has very little leverage over their neighbors. This could help bring them back in line and level the playing field in hopes of achieving some agreement. Removing WMD from Israel would be a step in the direction of creating trust in that region.
Is it fair to say that the U.S. support for Israel is a <i>Republican</i> policy? Isn't it more accurate to say that it is a U.S. policy? As far as I know, all U.S. administrations have supported Israel pretty strongly. Plus, aren't Jewish voters generally considered to be on the Democratic side of the aisle? It's probably reasonable to say that the U.S. needs to re-evaluate how it treats Israel with regard to the Middle East. However, this will be difficult as Jewish people make up a significant voting block, whereas I don't think Arabs do. While there is a significant Arab population in the U.S., do they have the lobbyests and the cohesiveness that Jewish Americans do? And when push comes to shove isn't politics mostly about getting re-elected?
Syria, not a countrty we should take advice from: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/syria.html Despite the presidential succession, Syrians continued to be denied civil and political rights. Freedom of expression, association, and assembly were strictly limited in law and practice; the local media and access to the Internet remained state-controlled; and the pervasive powers of the security forces under the country's long-standing emergency law, in force since 1963, were intact. There were no effective safeguards against arbitrary arrest and torture; civilian and military prisons, including the infamous Tadmor in the Palmyran desert, remained off-limits to independent observers; and the Kurdish minority continued to be denied basic rights, including the right to a nationality for tens of thousands. No one inside the country dared to advocate justice and accountability for current and former government officials responsible for gross human rights abuses, including the massacre of possibly as many as 1,100 unarmed prisoners at Tadmor in 1980, and the military assault on the city of Hama in 1982 in which thousands were killed.
We can't trust Syria because of which falsehoods? Did they hand in forged evidence claiming Iraq tried to buy Plutonium? Did someone in the Syrian administration claim that the tubes bought by Iraq could really only be used for a nuclear weapon program? Did the leader of Iraq say that that the commission that deals with nuclear weapons published a report saying that Iraq was only six months away from having nukes, when it turned out that no such report ever existed? Ooops no, that wasn't Syria after all. That was the U.S. under this current administration. I'm not trying to say you CAN trust Syria, just that you are trusting someone who has proven untrustworthy, while supplying no evidence for reasons why Syria can't be trusted. Despite Bush's lies, I don't hear anyone opposed to this saying 'Bush said it, enough said.'
Bush doesn't always tell the truth. But you can sure trust a democratic an open government more than a closed repressive one. At least Bush is accountable to the people, where the Syrian government is not. What has the Syrian government accomplished? What have they ever attempted to contribute to Middle East peace? If your druggie friend gave you advice on getting a new job, you'd take it with a grain of salt.
