Moe: Oho, an English boy, huh? You know, we saved your ass in World War II. Hugh: Yeah, well, we saved _your_ arse in World War III. Moe: [conciliatory] That's true.
This is the exact same thing that first came to mind. Serious consequences at the UN means an invasion so what does hostile acts and being held responsible mean? I have trouble believing that the Pentagon had no idea that Syria or Iran might try to help Iraq if this war came to pass. The evil conspiracy theorists might say well that as long as we've got 250,000 troops on the ground and 100,000 more on the way we might as well take care of Syria and Iran while we're at it and they might just give us enough of an excuse to have the political cover to blow them into the stone age.
Ho man! Just proof that Republicans are no different (or better) than Democrats. The completely unconditional allegiance to the president is astonishing. (I wonder if Carter got so much love?) Perhaps from now on Republicans and Democrats could refer to the president as Allah. Just a suggestion.
Uh... Ever heard of Hizbollah? There's a reason that Syria is on the State Department's list of terrorism-sponsoring nations. And on our general sh*tlist. The Syrians are now ferrying Hizbollah and other Islamic militants into Iraq to fight us. That bus we "accidentally" blew up in Syria was filled with them. You guys just don't get it: there are three major nations in the middle east that we have serious problems with - Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Iraq is being dealt with. Iran will hopefully be dealt with non-militarily (give it's reform movement a little nudge, and hope for a revolution), and Syria is actually showing some signs of getting the message - hopefully another nonmilitary solution. But be prepared to take them all down, because these three nations are the heart and soul of the global Islamic terrorist/militant movement. Their regimes must either change or be changed if we are going to win the War on Terror.
Oh, for what it's worth: 28 March, 2003 – Day Ten of Iraq War Assad to Saddam’s Rescue DEBKA-Net-Weekly 103 reported exclusively that, In two covert operations this week, US special forces blew up the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline carrying illegal Iraq oil exports from Mosul and Kirkuk to the Syrian Mediterranean oil terminal on the Banias for sale overseas, as well as the Syrian-Iraq railroad that was Saddam’s only route for importing war supplies. Nevertheless, US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld found it necessary to issue a grave warning to Damascus on Friday, March 28. He said shipping war material and equipment from Syria to Iraq is seen as a hostile action and that of a combatant. He also cautioned Iran not to interfere in the Iraq war. Earlier DEBKAfile reported that Syria was sponsoring a movement of Palestinian and other volunteers to fight with Saddam Hussein. Thursday, several hundred Lebanese Hizballah extremists traveled in convoy from Syria to Baghdad to join up with Iraqi forces. Last week, a US F-15 warplane fired a missile against a civilian bus near the Syrian-Iraqi border, killing five, whom our sources revealed were part of a group of Palestinian volunteers for Iraq. But unheeding of the missile warning, Syria continued the traffic. Friday, Rumsfeld put both Damascus and Tehran on notice: Continued shipments of war material, equipment and combat personnel into Iraq – including the pro-Iranian Hizballah – would lay both nations open to United States counter-action. The defense secretary made no mention of the Palestinians heading for Baghdad but, according to DEBKAfile’s sources, an American attack on Palestinian concentrations in south and north Lebanon cannot be ruled out. Both locations are recruiting centers for Palestinian volunteers who set out armed with weapons handed out by various bodies including al Qaeda agents. Washington has been keeping a close satellite and air surveillance watch on Syria’s all-inclusive smuggling service as President Bashar Assad’s contribution to Saddam Hussein’s war effort. DEBKA-Net-Weekly 103 added that, since the pipeline and railroad were blown up, the Syrian ruler has kept the supply routes running with the help of giant tanker trucks prepared in advance. War equipment in quantity and components for systems including night vision instruments and other vital commodities are being delivered at Syrian ports as per orders from Baghdad and pouring into Iraq aboard a fleet of trucks and other vehicles impounded by Syrian troops. www.debka.com They are also reporting that the WMD stocks positioned in Syria are being moved into Iraq, and Israel is going on a higher alert because of it. (there is evidence that Saddam sent much of his WMD stocks to Syria for safe-keeping while the inspectors were poking around)
Oh no. the Arabs aren't playing fair. Some of them might be helping the Iraqis.. Not that surprsing considering the talk by the Neocons of invading Iran and Syria next. Oh well, another contigency that the neocons didn't tell us about when selling he war. ************************ Rebirth of the dictator as Arab hero March 29 2003 Stiff resistance by Iraqis and anger at the onslaught have rekindled pride on the Arab street, writes Ed O'Loughlin, Herald Correspondent in Amman. Saddam Hussein may previously have been largely discredited as a dictator, but by standing up to the might of the United States-led coalition, however ineffectively in the long term, his men are transforming him into an Arab hero once more. In neighbouring Jordan the frequent anti-war demonstrations have taken on an ever-more pro-Saddam tone. On Tuesday protesters in Amman waved pro-Saddam placards and chanted "Iraq! Saddam! We will spend our blood for you!" Among Palestinians, always grateful for Saddam's financial support for hospitals, schools and the families of suicide bombers, his crimes against his own people are largely forgotten. "The people on the street and who are in the struggle for the rights of the Palestinian people, they look at Saddam Hussein as one of their own leaders," said Riad Awad, an accountant from the West Bank city of Ramallah. In Cairo, the respected Egyptian commentator Mohammed Sid Ahmad has noticed a similar change. "At the beginning there was a keenness amongst protesters to underline that we are not with Saddam, we are against the American war against Iraq," he said. "This distinction is certainly less stressed now than it was even a few days ago." Two things now unite the "Arab street". The first is anger at the suffering resulting from the Western onslaught. The second is a strong - if usually unstated - sense of relief that Iraq has confounded predictions that its soldiers would surrender en masse to superior US forces, as they did in 1991. The new mood is in marked contrast to the feelings of only a couple of weeks ago. Then, the world's 250 million Arabs watched in shame and anger as their autocratic leaders - nearly all of them clients of the US - failed to stand up to Washington's plans at an Arab League summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Suspicious of US intentions in this oil-rich region, bitterly angry at its continuing support for Israel against the Palestinians, most Arabs saw the squabbling summit as final confirmation of their powerlessness. The US-led invasion of Iraq would be only the first step in the complete recolonisation of the region, Arab journalists forecast. At best - or worst - Arabs would respond with a wave of unprecedented terrorism. The sight on Al-Jazeera television of dead US soldiers and of terrified, helpless captives, combined with the Western media's overblown war rhetoric and false coalition boasts of gains, has changed all this. Mustafa Hamarneh, director of the University of Jordan's Centre for Strategic Studies, says Iraq's resistance tells frustrated Arabs that even if they can't win they can fight back. "The resistance has changed everything," he said. "It has ignited the street, and showed that Arabs are able to resist with dignity. "This has boosted Saddam and complicated matters, some say for the better, some say for the worse, depending on where you stand politically." Dr Hamarneh believes the Iraqis' resistance will encourage radical Arabs - whether secular nationalists like Saddam or Islamic fundamentalists like al-Qaeda operatives - to believe that they can organise Arab sentiment against Israel and the US. But for the many Arab regimes that are reliant on US military or financial support - Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, for instance - prolonged Iraqi resistance will make it harder to control anti-American and anti-government sentiment at home. Finally, says Dr Hamarneh, the mood of exultation could yet have a downside for the Arab street. "The resistance is creating a feeling that this is a winnable war and that Saddam may ultimately be victorious," he said. "If that doesn't materialise it could be taken as another great defeat and disappointment in contemporary Arab history." In truth, despite the events of recent days, few thinking Arabs expect Saddam to survive this war, and very few will mourn his passing. But even as the battle for Baghdad looms many believe that the aggressive Iraqi defence has already blunted what they see as the US expansionist drive in the region. Three weeks ago many Arab intellectuals were noting with concern and gloom the talk among White House hawks that the conquest of Iraq should be only the first step in a US-imposed reordering of the Middle East. There was talk of further attacks likely against Syria, Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia. Behind this alleged agenda many Arabs saw the hand of Israel, which has close links with prominent neo-conservatives within the Bush Administration. Now that the US is seen to be relearning the true human and financial cost of war, these fears are beginning to recede. "We still believe the Americans are operating to the concept of moving against other states in the region," says a Jordanian political commentator, Labib Kamhawi, "but now it will be difficult for the President to persuade his people of the need for another such war." An Egyptian commentator, Mohammed Sid Ahmad, holds the same view. "There is no question of Iraq winning but there is now not much chance of America getting everything that it wants either. "The whole thing will have to be back sooner or later in the United Nations for a compromise solution which we can't see yet." In Ireland's Easter Rising of 1916, an incompetent, short-lived and initially unpopular act of quixotic rebellion transformed a staid home-rule agitation into a passionate armed struggle for complete independence from Britain. As the Irish poet W.B. Yeats wrote: "All changed, changed utterly. A terrible beauty is born." The moral is that sometimes a little fighting goes a long way, and the unexpectedly tenacious Iraqi resistance of recent days has galvanised the Arab world.
Oh, boy. We aren't rewriting timelines here or anything, are we? Saddam was popular on the Arab street *before* the war started. Actually, it was a close race between him and Osama for Hero of the Arab World... What does that tell you about the Arab street?
*groan*...Seriously, have you ever heard of the term 'jingoism'? So now the entore Arab 'street' can be condemed, along with the opinion of most of the rest of the world...it must be nice to be so sure you are right and everyone else is wrong...and not at all a dangerous mindset in international relations....
I know what jingoism is. What does it have to do with this? Polls pre-Iraq war (even pre-9/11) showed Saddam to be very popular among Arab populations. Are you disputing this? If not, then your post is meaningless. *groan*
Jingoism: "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do, We've got the men, we've got the guns, we've got the money too." -------------- Applies to the current situation pretty well i think, and for all sides too...
I would just tell them that any convoy coming into Iraq will be stopped and searched, and if they find weapons, they will confiscate them and arrest the people as war criminals. DD
No Macbeth, but should we treat them as enemy soldiers, and make them POW's? I think just arresting them, and having them sit out the conflict is a good enough plan. DD
Remarkably, I disagree... Remember that I am completely against this war, and don't think we should be there at all... That said, if we consider ourselves at war, then we should consider those giving material military aid to the enemy as, yes, enemy soldiers, or the equivalent....even though, as said, we are in the wrong... To call them 'war criminals' assumes that we have international law on our side, which we do not, or that these people would be in breach of same, which they are not, as far as I know...( are they posing as Red Cross or something that I haven't heard?)
War Criminals is a term that I knew would be interpetted wrong when I hit submit. I meant to treat them as a similar thing as POWs but not equal. Just hold them and release them after the war is over. DD
BBS post from 1942... Are we going to attack every country that helps the Nazis? Did we really think Germany wasn't going to have any help? Article: U.S. gives stern warning to Italy. Forward to 2003...come on pagabriel...give me a break.
