in the end, even if I sound like I advocate attacking...I dont. I agree that the political and practical considerations would deter me from flatout attacking Syria or Iran. If they are doing something wrong(Chem weapons et al) then at least lets have the good sense to try to get some international pressure on them to ateast agree to help shut down the terrorist organizations..
Yeah, and maybe we should send in "Splinter Cell" to deal with those rogue countries. Right... Sam Fisher?
Syria's regime is much different than saddam's was, IMO. Syria will probably respond to economic pressures. Then again, you'll probably have some countries who won't support US-led economique actions against Syria, thus leaving war as the only viable option. (Actually, don't think we're remotely close to war w/ Syria, but the admin will take this opportunity to try to straighten Syria out...wonder when the carrot will be offered?)
Hehheheheh, I've been waiting for somebody to grab onto that one all day long. Maybe I just registered today, but maybe I've been secretly hanging out in the shadows all day long, and maybe I'm not even here now.
I'm sorry, but threats to Israel DO NOT equal threats to the U.S. Yes the bombing of the marine barracks was a scumbag thing to do, but it was a military target and we knew what we were doing when we went over there. Israelis aren't heroes. They play the assassination game just as dirty as the islamic fundamentalists play the terrorism game.
[/I]Who's next? (Washington, D.C.): The Bush Administration is obliquely serving notice on Syria that it could be the next country liberated in the war on terror. Mr. Bush's critics at home and abroad are horrified at the possibility that this conflict might take such a turn. If they wish to avoid such a step, however, they should learn a signal lesson from the now-nearly- accomplished liberation of Iraq: War is more likely to be made unnecessary if would-be critics support the President, than by their opposing him. Lessons from Iraq After all, it now seems clear that Saddam Hussein made the latest -- and probably last -- of his famous miscalculations by believing that the United States would be talked out of, or otherwise forestalled from, launching military operations against Iraq. In the end, he bet his regime on the ability of peace activists and sympathetic veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council to prevent Gulf War II. If all else failed and President Bush actually initiated hostilities, Saddam evidently felt confident of his forces' ability to shed enough American blood to inflame anti-war movement and assure his survival yet again. With the swift and decisive destruction of the Iraqi regime, things should look very different to the remaining members of the "Axis of Evil" (North Korea and Iran) and other rogue states like Syria. If not encouraged to believe otherwise, these countries' governments --which are no less odious than the one ruled until recently by Saddam Hussein -- have every reason to believe that they are at risk of meeting a fate similar to his, unless they undertake significant and far-reaching changes. Why Syria? Syria most especially has cause to take seriously President Bush's demands for behavior modification. Like Iraq, it is a long-time sponsor of international terrorism. Most of the world's terror organizations have long been given headquarters, branch offices and/or training facilities on Syria's territory or in Syrian-controlled Lebanon. Like Iraq, Syria has also been involved for decades in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In addition to its own chemical and biological stocks, and considerable quantities of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles for their delivery, Damascus may have acquired some of Saddam's WMD spirited out of Iraq. Lately, the Syrian regime has foolishly offered Mr. Bush several further justifications for the use of force against it. It appears to be granting refuge to members of Saddam's ruling clique; on Sunday, U.S. forces captured his half-brother, Watban Ibrahim Hassan, near Mosul on one of the principal roads leading to Syria. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said other Iraqi officials have been allowed to elude capture by transiting Syria for third countries. The U.S. government has alleged that Syrians have also provided night-vision equipment and presumably other war materiel to enable Saddam loyalists to attack American servicemen and women. Worse yet, they have permitted another deadly export: "busloads" of non-Iraqi death squads, some of whom have been apprehended with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and leaflets offering bounties for those who kill U.S. personnel. These are indisputably unfriendly acts. An Object Lesson President Bush has said that, in the war on terror, countries are either with us or against us. While some in the CIA and State Department insist that the Ba'athist regime in Syria qualifies as being among the former insofar as it has provided us with some helpful intelligence, a net assessment suggests that such assistance is more than offset by Syria's ill-concealed efforts on behalf of our enemies. Should the Syrians fail to end such hostile activity forthwith, the United States and a coalition of the willing should bring to bear whatever techniques are necessary -- including military force -- to effect behavior modification and/or regime change in Damascus, as well. By so doing, freedom stands to get a two-fer: liberating both Syria and Lebanon, the country Hafez Assad rapaciously colonized in the mid- 1970s and that Damascus has brutally dominated ever since, despite a formal, international commitment to relinquish it some twenty years ago. Few steps would do more to create an opportunity for a real, just and durable Arab-Israeli peace than to accompany the liquidation of Saddam's support for suicide bombers and other forms of terror with the elimination of the Syrian/Lebanese base of operations of and much of the support for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which Attorney General John Ashcroft has described as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world." The region's transformation -- and its hopes for a more peaceable future -- could be decisively advanced if behavior modification and/or regime change were to follow in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Bottom Line It should come as no surprise that there will be other fronts in the war on terror. As George W. Bush made known shortly after September 11, 2001, this is a global conflict that will take years to wage. With luck, by making an object lesson of Iraq to other enemies in that war and by garnering the broadest possible support for doing so, we can accomplish the conditions required for the Free World's victory without further resort to large-scale military operations. [/I] http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=03-D_15 Personally, I don't think that a military campaign will be necessary against Syria. I think that we will pressure them in other ways and that our primary demands will be that they A) withdraw from Lebanon, B) cease their support for Hizbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (and Hamas), and C) renounce terrorism as a legitemate form of political action. I think that Bashar will cave eventually, before a military campaign becomes necessary. After all, most of the demands center around the idea that they simply withdraw and stop fu*king with their neighbors (and us), and their new strategic reality - surrounded by hostile Israelis to the south, hostile Americans to the east, and hostile Turks to the north - would indicate to them that it might be wise to assume a defensive position and cut their extraterritorial ambitions... All that said, I do not think it would be wise to positively rule out military action against them. Just realize that it probably isn't necessary and is probably unlikely. Dude, you really ought to keep your military analyses to yourself. Syria has a third of the manpower Iraq had at it's height, fewer tanks, artillery, and aircraft, and far less sophisticated air defense and EW capabilities than Iraq ever had. Just because they can give the Israelis fits in the urban terrain of Beruit does not mean that they would give us Americans anything to worry about in Damascus. Militarily, they would be even easier to defeat than a weakened Iraq.
I want to know where all the evidence of WMD is that this administration says it had. All the tons and tons of WMD. The missiles to threaten neighbors (ha!). This fleet of chem carrying drone planes. Chem artillery shells being given to the Republican guard. It was said prior to war that we couldn't expose our intelligence sources to actually prove the existence of WMD to justify this war so where is all this intelligence now? Seems to me they either flat out lied their asses off or they seriously exaggerated what they did know.
Re: this and tree... tree, without getting into the latest extension of , er, Pax Americana, and how I was sooo wrong when I said that the war in Iraq was the beginning of the US deciding what's right for the rest fo the world, and before you tell me why this case is another exception, let me ask you one question...which can be verified, if needn be, but I'd like you to just own up, if you can, and agree with mu perspective: Haven't you shifted your stance on the WMD's? Weren't you, just prior to the war, and in the first couple of days of it , predicting both that SH would use them, and that we would find them quickly, as the gas masks found showed that they were being deployed, and as we knew of massive amounts, and if they had any intention of using the damn things they'd keep them in a position of strategic readiness...and now you are saying it's logical that we can't find them, as they have neeb moved, and are buried...But doesn't the 'logic' of that just slightly contradict what you earlier stated? If so...doesn't it raise, just for a second, any of the following options: 1) He never had, or had destroyed them. 2) He never had them, or had destroyed so many of them that the few he hadn't destroyed yet ( before the process was halted by the war) are so insignificant that they are easy to hide, and posed no real threat. 3) That even if he had more than a little, he must have had them in such a level of low strategic readiness that he himself thought them extrememy unlikely to be used, so they could be burried....knowing a war was coming, and burrying them...which would refute the arguments that the commanders wouldn't fire the out of fear of the US, as this would have to have been done before all that. Combined with whatever way you rationalize this, with the fact that the WMD search/usage has not gone accoring to what you expcected when you felt the threat of SH's WMD was a legit argument for war, have you has even the slightest inklings that you've been had? Not conclusions, but do you have enough of an open mind for all these things to give you any pasue for doubt about your almost automatic acceptane of whatever Rumsfeld, Bush et all say?
Didn't mean to upset you treeboy, left out WMD in my post. BTW- have we found any WMD in Iraq yet? From Slate: you enjoy nitpicking so you can go dig up the link if you doubt the numbers. Syria Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities and Programs1 Chemical3 Largest and most advanced CW capability in the Middle East. Reported to have chemical warheads for Scud ballistic missiles, and chemical gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft. Estimated CW stockpile in hundreds of tons. Agents believed to include Sarin, VX, and mustard gas. Major production facilities near Damascus and Homs, with hundreds of tons of agents produced annually. Program remains dependent on foreign chemicals and equipment. Not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Just a few things to remember about Syria. They had troops that helped fight against Saddam in the first gulf war. They've given us information in the war on terror that has lead to apprehension of suspected terrorists. They are under no world orders or resolutions restricting them from having WMD, as long as they aren't nukes. They signed no agreements forbidding them, and no such conditions have been imposed upon them. If Syria does have WMD it could arguably and perhaps justifiably claim that they are a matter for their own national security given that their neighbor Israel has nukes.
MacBeth: Personally, yes, I did think that it was likely that they would be used. I also thought it was highly possible that they would not be used, and said so in at least one post on the subject. My reason for think so? I thought it likely that at least some of his commanders would refuse the order to use them against us, since doing so would effectively sign their death warrants. Not all to inconsistent with what I've been saying since, is it? When did I say that? I said they would be found, I did not say when. It could take months. Or days. Since we do not know exactly where they are, we don't know exactly how long it will take for them to surface, do we? I did say that one of the first things we would do would be to hit those sites where we believed they would be, and we did. They just weren't there. Could it be that in the six-month long runup to the war they actually had the brains to move them? Gee, I dunno... The gas masks showed that they were preparing for a chemical environment, nothing more. Draw whatever conclusion you want from it. We know of massive amounts that at one time existed and that there is no record of their destruction. The Iraqis are meticulous recorders, so why wouldn't they record an event that could get the sanctions lifted and get them off the international hook? Doesn't compute, unless they were never actually destroyed. With UN inspectors running around flipping over every damn hiding place they could think of? Do you think it would occur to the inspectors to check army ammo dumps - where they would need to be if they were ready to use? How stupid do you think the Iraqis are? I am saying that it's logical that Saddam didn't set them right out on the front doorstep of his palaces with a sign reading "Americans, left these for you, please dispose of for me, Thanx" attached... I have given you and others at least four plausible reasons - very probably reasons, any mix of which might account for what we've seen - that you somehow fail to even acknowledge as possible. For some reason, your logic appears to be "We did not immediately find them, therefore they must not exist". Do I need to point out how ridiculously false this logic is? Not at all. How do you figure it does? Please explain it to me without trying to draw circles... Well, we know that at least at some point he had them, so that is not an option unless we're rewriting history here. And again, if he destroyed them, then why A) kick inspectors out before getting a clean bill of health, and B) not record the events so as to prove to those pesky Americans that they were no more? Doesn't compute. That is probably why no one seriously believed(s) that they are/were WMD-free. Well, the "He never had them" is not an option, as we know as a matter of historical fact that he did... If he destroyed most of them but kept some? How much is "some"? A harmless jarfull of botulinum that he kept on his dining room mantle as a reminder of the good ole days? Or a mere single barrel full or sarin that was only capable or killing 300,000 people? Exactly what level of lethal capability qualifies as a threat to you? It would not be difficult at all to hide large amounts of extremely lethal substances. Not difficult at all. Give me one sealed 20'x20'x10' room, and I will store enough chemicals and beasties in there to kill ten million people. Not hard at all. They don't take up much space, you know. That's one of the great things about them. I pointed this out the other day, but it was ignored: How many days elapsed between the departure of the inspectors and the arrival of the US Army? Five days. Do you think he had enough time to break open the vaults and get the stuff to those who could use it? Knowing what I know about how chemical weapons are stored and military logistics systems, I know that he probably would not have had enough time. Even if the weapons were already ready-to-fire, it still takes time to sort them out and get them to the artillery units who wopuld use them. It would take us weeks to do a similar distribution. Uh, "knowing the inspectors were coming", duh? Use your head. Even if your [previous assumptions were correct, and they are not, no it would not. The act of actually firing the munitions would be the final act in the decision making process, the previous ones having no bearing on the final one. The factors that would influence whether or not a commander would fire would be: 1) Orders from higher up. They would not use them without permission/orders. 2) Reliability of crews. The gunners/lower commanders could also refuse orders. 3) Proximity and attitude of Americans. The closer they are, the better surrender looks. 4) Psyops. There was a very concerted and directed psyops campaign initiated with the sole purpose of getting their commanders to refuse such orders. It looks like it worked. MacBeth, you seem to fail to understand that it could be any one of these factors or a combination of several of them. Your preferred explanation seems to be "He never had them/He destroyed them all", which no one really takes seriously for the reasons I have highlighted. We know that he had them at some point, so the only possible option would be that he destroyed them and just didn't record the act. As I have already pointed out, this would make no sense at all considering that the Iraqis recorded anything, and recording such an act would have gotten him and his regime out of the whole 12-year long mess. Well, I'm glad you've added "psychic" to your resume, MacBeth. How do you know what I expected? Since I did not say "I expect them to find the WMD as soon as they set foot in Baghdad", how do you know whether my expectations were met or missed? You don't. You're grasping at straws, and it's sounding sort of pathetic. Me? Are you serious? Jee-zus. This is getting stupid, MacBeth. You're making up my "expectations" after the fact in an attempt to make my views seem discredited. Show me a prediction I made regarding the war in Iraq that did not come true? Keeping in mind that I never predicted that we would find WMD the instant the war ended. Hell, the shooting hasn't even stopped yet. I am not saying that my record of prediction here has been perfect, but it has been pretty damn close. I don't think I'm wrong on the WMD either. Do I feel like I've been had? No. Alot of the antiwar folks apparently thought that the outcome would in some way be different than what we're seeing. Not that we''d lose the war necessarily, just a different kind of victory. I'm sure alot of them feel like they've been had right now. Do you? It might surprise you to learn that I don't automatically accept anything that anyone says. I didn't vote for Bush. I am not even a Republican. Before 9/11 I wanted Rumsfeld gone. I still dislike Ashcroft. Just exactly what do you think that you know about me, MacBeth? You seem to think that because the WMD haven't surfaced yet, I should accept your theory that they were never there to begin with. Does that jibe with what you just asked me? underoverup: Didn't upset me, it's just that reading your "analysis" was like what I imagine hearing Roseanne call a Rockets game to be. Painful. What does WMD have to do with it? Are you accusing the Syrians of having WMD? Not arguing with you on that one. I would say though that they're about as militarily significant against us as would be a group of Boy Scouts with spitballs. Syria's chemical weapons: http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/syria/chem.html http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syrscud.htm http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_syria_1.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm http://www.jinsa.org/articles/view.html?documentid=667 http://www.fas.org/news/syria/960808-il.htm http://www.meib.org/articles/0001_me2.htm http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/biochem.weapons/ http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp093-xs.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/pfs/pfs9exe.htm http://www.pais.org/hottopics/2002/January/resources/database.stm
This is all true, and these are good points to keep in mind. They should be balanced against what we know of Syria's support for terrorism (both anti-Israeli and anti-American), destruction of Lebanon, and duplicity when it comes to dealing with Iraq (and Iran). Does one outweigh the other? That is for everyone to decide personally. Personally, I think their behavior has been schizophrenic, if a nation's behavior can be. If it were up to me I'd just tell them "dismantle the Beka'a Valley and leave Lebanon", and call it a win if they complied. That would probably be sufficient to spell the death of Hizbollah, which is the main target when you're talking about Syrian support of terrorism. I actually think that the administration is going to work somewhere along those lines, too. I don't think a military operation against them is really planned at this point.
Tree... You pretty much said what I had expected, and yes, to a degree hoped you would say. So, based on your logic, I have but one question... If, in fact, Saddam Hussein had hidden all of his WMD so effectively from the UN inspectors, so out of reach that it would, in your estimation, take well more than the 5 day window afforded him by their departure, so well beyond his strategic capability to use them that it would take, in your words, 'weeks' to deploy...well, then, just that one question: How can we tell the UN that it's inspections were useless, and that war was the only solution, when Hussein himself apparently feared them so much that he made whatever WMD he does have so inaccessible that he would be unable to use them in the event of any conflict? Could we not have achieved our aims,( keeping him from being able to use WMD ) by simply continuing the inspections if, as you say, he did that himself because of them...and with the added bonuses of not accruing the incredible expense of the war, and avoiding even one death, let alone the thousands it cost? You can argue other reasons for the war now, but it would appear, by your own words, that SH had eliminated his own strategic capacity to use whatever WMD you sat he still possesses because of the very measure the UN was advocating, and we rejected...and, as such, that argument for the war evaporates...unless you think that semantics are worth fighting a war over.
Maybe AP should retitle this article: U.S. Now Wants to Kill Innocent Syrians Via Sanctions ----- U.S. Threatens Sanctions Against Syria http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030415/D7QDSSS80.html?PG=home&SEC=news Apr 15, 5:18 AM (ET) By BARRY SCHWEID WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is sharpening its rhetoric against Syria, demanding it stop sponsoring terrorism and harboring remnants of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime or face diplomatic or economic sanctions. "It is time to sign on to a different kind of Middle East," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Monday as Syria took another public pasting from the administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Iraqis who have knowledge of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi political leaders "are the kinds of individuals who should not be allowed to find safe haven in Syria." "And this is a point we have made to the Syrians directly and will continue to make to the Syrians," he said at a news conference. "They should review their actions and their behavior, not only with respect to who gets haven in Syria and weapons of mass destruction, but especially the support of terrorist activity," Powell declared. Raising the threat of punishment, he said, "We will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward. ... We'll see how things unfold." In New York, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was "concerned that recent statements directed at Syria should not contribute to a wider destabilization in a region already affected heavily by the war in Iraq." Syrian officials denied having chemical weapons and said the United States has yet to prove similar charges against Iraq. They also accused Israel of spreading misinformation about Syria. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected those denials, calling Syria a rogue nation and saying it is "well corroborated" that Iraq's neighbor has a chemical weapons program. "Syria needs to cooperate," he said. Rice, in a parallel thrust at Damascus, said Syria's support for terrorism and "harboring the remnants of the Iraqi regime" were unacceptable. But she indicated the administration was not contemplating military action. Using the same formula the administration has applied to North Korea and its aggressive nuclear weapons program, Rice said at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "The president has made clear every problem in the Middle East cannot be dealt with the same way." And Powell signaled President Bashar Assad that the administration still would like to include Syria in the Mideast peacemaking it intends to accelerate between Israel and the Palestinians. "As we go down the road to peace, we want it to be a comprehensive peace, and ultimately, of course, that would have to include finding a way to settle the outstanding issues with Syria, as well," Powell said at a State Department news conference. ...
Treeman: They have WMD and acknowledge that they have them and would use them, causing a great deal more casulties than the war in Iraq which did not use any WMD against us. This surprised our top military brass who assumed Iraq would use gas or nerve agents against us. Nitpicking bits and pieces of others posts to prove yourself correct has failed again. I wish you would take the time to actually read and understand posts before blasting in with long winded diatribes.
You mean like those oh so effective Iraqi sanctions worked on ordinary Iraqis and not the ruling elite?
Fleischer is such a damn dope. We can't even corroborate Iraq's WMD but here we are on to the next corroboration. I think one of the English newspapers had the opinion that the sudden shift of focus to Syria has to do with the "roadmap to peace" thing in Israel. They said Sharon refuses to accept anything until Syria is dealt with. Syria poses no threat to the US and they're not in violation of a single UN resolution but here we are putting them on the clock.
MacBeth: Oh my, we are getting desperate here. Now the mission of the UNMOVIC was to get Saddam to hide them well enough so that they would not be quickly accessible in wartime? Well, I guess "mission accomplished"... Just to play along, though: I would erase the word "any" from before the word "conflict" and replace it with the word "this". Most armies - in fact no other army in the world - can move as fast as we did. In any other conflict he would have had much more time. And for terrorism operations? Time is on the side of the terrorist, and it would not be an issue. So in answer to the flimsy insinuation you're trying to make, yes, they were still a threat. So in other words, you would rather have A) let the inspections go on indefinitely, B) kept the sanctions in place indefinitely, C) kept our military forces there indefinitely, and D) kept Saddam and his line in power and the Iraqi people enslaved indefinitely? Yeah, great solution there, sporto. I'll pass. I would agree that *it is possible* that the inspections forced him to hide his weapons and rendered them useless *against our military forces involved in the quick campaign*. Possible, in that we still do not know if they were not used because of their inacessibility, ie, it might be that commanders refused orders, they were in Syria, etc. There are a myriad of very plausible possibilities that I have presented; whether or not you consider them worthy of consideration is your problem. Their logic is consistent. Your persistent attempts to argue that the war was unnecessary for this reason (WMD were too inaccessible and therefore useless) or that are irrelevant as they fail to take into account the realities of the situation - or even basic logic - mainly that a Saddam with any WMD and a terrorist connection (whether with Al Qaeda or someone else) is still an unacceptable combination. I am simply baffled as to how you can continue to try to deligetimize the war after the fact, when even the people inhabiting the country we've invaded have acknowledged it as legitemate - and even welcome. This is the die-hard attitude within the antiwar crowd that I find so ridiculous and despicable. Not to mention just flat immoral and stupid. No Worries: Yea! More sanctions! Wahoooo!!!! underoversidewaysupdownrightleft: Really? All I've heard is denials... You mean Assad got on TV and said "Leave me alone or I'll put sarin on you, Bad Americans!"??? Dude, we know they have them. They're not admitting it. Unless you're watching that top secret US spy channel that sees all and knows all... You know, the one hooked up to those supersecret spysats that watch everything going on everywhere all the time in every plane of existence and every dimension simultaneously? There you go with the pulp military analyses again. JFYI, the Syrians are far less competent than the Iraqis were in that regard. And have you ever heard of MOPP gear? It works. Boy Scouts with spitballs. If you know your enemy has it, then you assume the worst. You protect yourself. I think this was a pleasant surprise, not the kind where you say "Oh sh*t!" before doing anything else. More along the lines of "Awesome". Look, I understand that exposing errors, falsehoods, and illogical assumptions just bounces right off. But I'll do it anyway, thank you very much. So now we're to "Waah! You don't read my posts! Waaah!"? Please. How could I pick apart every single sentence in one of your posts if I didn't read it? Try again.
