Syria could be next ...

treeman, I fail to understand how you can call anyone's arguments desperate when they simply stated that all of the original justifications for the war have proven false so far. Ya'll switched to the liberation of the iraqi people reason so quickly to cover up the fact that the original justifications for the war so far have not been proven in any form or fashion.

Getting Iraqi regime officials out of Syria is the job of the Syrian government, the C.I.A., and special operations forces. It's not the kind of job you use a couple of armored divisions to do, despite how much the neocons and our so called allies in Israel want it to happen.

 

What has been proven wrong so far?

1. Iraq supports and harbors terrorists - Check, pretty easy one there
2. Iraq possesses chemical & biological weapons outlawed by their Gulf War surrender - Circumstantial evidence has been found, and I'm fairly certain that given time, a large supply of these weapons will be found.

 

No backtracking.

 

The question should be what has been proven so far and to date not much has:
1) Iraq supports and harbors terrorist, ya probably but where is the proof beyond circumstantial evidence (same for #2).

btw- the hangout needs a new category "the urinal" for these absurd pi$$ing contests.

 

Whoa, we haven't finished Iraq yet, the Shiites hit the fan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34086-2003Apr15.html

A democracy in a country that is 2/3 Shiite. I see replays of Algeria for some reason...


Also, a few more folks have a reason to be a paramilitary:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5640621.htm

 

One of my favorite parts of this whole thing is the whole new Shi-ite love we got working here. Maybe I'm the only person here who watches VH1, but hey, remember the 80's? The Shi'ites were the "bad" crazy muslims, who did all of that nasty hijacking, car-bombing, embassy storming, etc., and our buddies were the Sunnis, who were the "good" muslims and not really extreme, like the Saudis. Then along come the hardcore Wahabbis and the Taliban, thanks in part to the blessing of our "allies" the house of Saud, and the polarity reverses. Now Shi-ites good, radical Sunnis bad.

 

All muslims want hugs.
It's just that a select few want to hug you with dynamite strapped to their chest.

 

You're probably the only one who gets his news from it.

 

I was actually thinking about starting a topic about the same thing. Have we actually uncovered any physical evidence of WMD yet. As prevalent as the Bush adminstration made them seem, it is very suprising that we have yet to recover any. I will not be satisfied untill i see actual pictures and not a rumor on FOX news.

 

It's fun to speculate if you have the time:

(only posted beginning of article, so if you're interested there's a free reg required to read the whole article)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...6apr16,1,5982532.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Syria Linked to Terrorist Network
Italy finds extremists and funds were moved routinely from Europe to Iraq.

By Robin Wright, Times Staff Writer


MILAN, Italy -- Syria has functioned as a hub for an Al Qaeda network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from Italy to northeastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group, according to an Italian investigation.

The investigation, which began last year, could intensify the growing debate about Syria's alleged ties to terrorism.

.
.
.



But then on the other hand our hands are full:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...6apr16,1,2894280.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Iraqis Come Home to Ravaged Capital



IRAQ

RETURN TO BAGHDAD




By John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writer


BAGHDAD -- Along a gritty highway on the outskirts of Baghdad, in an area of onion sellers and car-parts vendors, the families kept coming Tuesday.

Homeward bound, on the back of trucks packed with tires, diesel cans, blankets, pillows and plastic toys -- but most of all with humanity -- tens of thousands of people who had run away from the Iraqi capital when the fighting started were coming back.

They were seeing their city for the first time since the war: the burned-out shells of tanks and overturned buses lining the roads, the destroyed telephone exchanges, the portraits of Saddam Hussein painted over or raked with gunfire, the unbelievable sight of U.S. tanks rumbling through their streets, topped by grinning soldiers offering friendly waves.

For many, it had been a long, exhausting sojourn away from home. Some had been gone nearly a month, sleeping in half-completed houses in the desert, on sand or concrete, covered with blankets that could not keep out the night cold. They drank water from rivers or wells that were not very clean. They subsisted on rice, bread and sugared tea, dreaming of a bit of meat.

While they were coming to terms Tuesday with the new reality, many were seething -- quick to blame the Americans for everything that had befallen them and all that awaited them when they reached their homes
.
.
.

 

Heretic:

They have?

Let's see:

1) Saddam was a brutal dictator who oppressed his people.; invasion would free them. Check.

2) The Saddam regime had links to terrorists; invasion would sever those ties and leave those terrorist groups either decimated or minus one avenue of support. Check. (Ansar al Islam is no more, Mohammed Abbas, etc)

3) Possibility that Saddam could obtain nuclear weapons and/or threaten his neighbors again. That'll never happen again... Check.

4) WMD neutralized. For the 100th time, just because we did not find them as soon as we entered Iraq does not mean that they are not there. They are almost certainly buried, and it will take time to find them. But we cvan now be certain that none will fall into the wrong hands, so Check.

Which one of these has turned out to be false? Keeping in mind that the absence of discovery of the whereabouts of the WMD as of yet does not mean that they are not there. Which ones are false?

Oh bulls*it. Their liberation was always *one* of the goals of the campaign. What was the operation called again? And please elaborate on how the "original justifications for the war so far have not been proven in any form or fashion"?

Oh, that's right, since the WMD weren't laying on the palace doorstep, they must never have existed... I forgot.

KingCheetah:

See capture of Abu Abbas, a.k.a. Mohammed Abbas. Support for Palestine Liberation Front. Also see Ansar al Islam. No longer exists...

I agree. This is getting stupid. The arguments in particular are getting really stupid. We haven't found them yet, so they don't exist. The war was unjustified!

We found traces of sarin around Najef, I think it was. Made some of our troops sick. And what appeared to be a chemical warfare factory that had recently been shut down at Najef. And chemical warfare suits at various spots. And what appears to be a nuclear weapons research facility at another location. We've found echoes of such activity all over the place, the problem is that it is too easy to hide such weapons.

A bunker here, a bunker there, buried and unmarked, in a country the size of the state of Texas, could be very hard to find. Everyone knows that they have them, it's just a matter of time before they are found. And it could take some time... But now people will be free to talk.

I really do not get why people expect us to find them right away. Just don't get it. I mean, the Iraqis hid them from the inspectors, which means that they will be at least moderately difficult to find. And did people just expect the Iraqis to jump up and say "Hey! Come with me! I'll show you this bunker where we stored some anthrax!"? It is not going to happen that way. Right now the people who were involved in those aspects of the regime want nothing more than to just disappear and fade away, not be the center of attention.

It may take some time. But I think it's safe to say that anyone who assumes that simply because they have not been found yet, that they never existed - anyone who assumes that is tying themselves a short noose.

 

Bush is out of control on this one. I guess Syria voted for the UN Resolution to invade Iraq as a clever ploy to hide some nepharious plot of spreading dastardly sinister adjectives of mass destruction.

 

Originally posted by treeman
We found traces of sarin around Najef, I think it was. Made some of our troops sick.

They were sick from the heat. Even if they did find traces (which turned out to be pesticides) it's a far cry from the tons we've said they have.

And what appeared to be a chemical warfare factory that had recently been shut down at Najef.

They called it a chemical factory, you're the one saying it was a chem warfare factory without having found any chem weapons to prove that of course.

I really do not get why people expect us to find them right away.

Right away? We've had troops in Iraq for almost a month and special forces for much longer than that with reports from our government that chem weapons were being distributed to the Republican guard. It's quite rational to expect to have found something by now.

Just don't get it. I mean, the Iraqis hid them from the inspectors, which means that they will be at least moderately difficult to find. And did people just expect the Iraqis to jump up and say "Hey! Come with me! I'll show you this bunker where we stored some anthrax!"?

That's how we found our POW's. Did we just expect them to jump up and say "Hey! Come with me! I'll show you where we have your POW's?" You're telling me there isn't one man in Iraq who will lead us to the tons and tons of chem weapons they allegedly have? Not one disgruntled former scientist? Not one janitor, electrician, or engineer? Not one? Nobody? That's incredible.

Right now the people who were involved in those aspects of the regime want nothing more than to just disappear and fade away, not be the center of attention.

That's why the lead scientist called a German news crew and gave himself up to US troops?

It may take some time. But I think it's safe to say that anyone who assumes that simply because they have not been found yet, that they never existed - anyone who assumes that is tying themselves a short noose.

A lot of us trusted this administration when it said Iraq had it and now we want to be shown what our government knew, which is apparently very little. So perhaps it's safer to assume that when your government declares that they know someone has WMD, produces photos of decontamination trucks cleaning areas, photos of chem drones, and satellite images of WMD facilities that we should be able to track that down pretty easily.

 

Anyone read the most recent issue of Atlantic Monthly?

There is a very illuminating article (or, maybe, it just muddles things up) by a former U.S. govt operative who spells out the situation in Saudi Arabia.

Basically, the nominal leader is nearly a vegetable; the extended family is all siphoning dry the treasury; the country has invested about one trillion dollars in the U.S. market, not to mention how dependent we are on Saudi oil.

And yet the same country has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Al Qaeda. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. (None were Iraqi, and no Iraqi $$$ connection to 9/11 has ever been made, but who cares about details, I guess. No one will weep over Saddam's demise, even if he was basically removed to serve as an example.)

Saudi Arabia also publicly executes criminals (due process? right.) The criminals---guilty or not---are beheaded.

But when we invaded and conquered Iraq, Colin Powell was on the phone right away to suck up to the Saudis, saying we had no hostile intentions against Saudi Arabia. GWB even invited Prince Bandar (sp?) to his Crawford ranch.

So, Saudi Arabia funds terrorists more than anybody; plays both sides off against each other; but gets a free pass because without them the U.S. economy would collapse.

If some small fry U.S. govt worker has access to this info, you can bet GWB and Rumblesfeld do.

But we go after Iraq. Why? "To free the oppressed Iraqi people." That one still makes me sick. We have soaring unemployment, we have seniors who have to go to Mexico to buy medicine. GWB never had to pay for anything in his life. He has failed at every venture he has undertaken but has had others to point him this way and that or bail him out. He can't even relate to everyday Americans. Why would he give a s**t about the Iraqis?

And now President Rumblesfeld; no wait, Wolfewitz---er, Cheney---er, damn, sorry!, Bush---is threatening Syria and maybe Iran.

Gawd, I'm not answering any knocks at the door. I hope when they're running short on itchy trigger fingers that Bush doesn't declare war on Canada for harboring my sorry ass.

 

This pretty much sums up my opinion of the situation with Syria:

Syria's leadership has the political guile to keep the dogs of war at bay
Amir Taheri
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-646827,00.html

Min yali? (Who’s next?) This is the question asked in teahouses in the Middle East. As men puff on hookahs and play backgammon they speculate about the next regime to be targeted by the United States. With Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship gone, its sister Baathist regime in Syria moves to the top of the Richter scale of roguishness, ahead of Iran, Libya and the Sudan.

The hawks around President Bush are right to focus on Syria for three reasons. First, Syria, in tandem with the mullahs of Tehran, supports a variety of terrorist groups that have targeted American interests (for example they murdered more than 300 Americans, including 241 Marines, in Beirut in 1982-83) and Israel. Today, 22 terrorist groups have offices in Damascus.

The second reason is Syria’s efforts to form a front with Iran to oppose what President Assad calls “imperialist domination” of Iraq. The President visited Tehran days before the war started to encourage the mullahs to use their Iraqi Shia clients to make life difficult for the US-led coalition. The mullahs moved the so-called Badr Brigade, a force of 10,000 Iraqi Shias armed by Iran, to the border with Iraq in a show of force.

Syria and Iran also asked their political client, Muhammad-Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, to issue a “fatwa” calling for “jihad” against the US-led coalition. Fadlallah was the only Shia theologian to join the Egyptian muftis in declaring “jihad” in support of Saddam Hussein. Syria later began putting together a force of dissident Iraqi Baathists to oppose any “American puppet regime in Baghdad”. The formation of an Iraqi Baathist government-in-exile could be part of the plan. The alliance between pro-Iranian Shias and pro-Syrian Baathists showed its force in the Najaf last week when a mob murdered Abdel-Majid al-Khoei, one of Iraq’s leading moderate clerics.

The third reason is Syria’s failure to make a strategic decision for peace. A saying in the Middle East is that the Arabs cannot make war without Egypt but cannot make peace without Syria. Afraid it might find itself alone facing Israel, Syria has systematically sabotaged Palestinian-Israeli peace moves.

Having said all that, the hawks are wrong to urge war against Syria. The chief weakness of Saddam’s regime was its suicidal inflexibility. The man known as “Al Saffah” (The Vampire) could play in only two registers: defiance or surrender. The Syrian regime, however, has always understood the reality of power and the need to back down when in a position of weakness.

The late President Hafez al-Assad met all the American presidents, from Nixon to Clinton. Throughout the Cold War Syria maintained close ties with Moscow but, unlike Iraq and Egypt, refused to sign a military pact with it. Assad’s is the only radical Arab regime never to have broken ties with Washington.

Although Syria’s Golan has been under occupation since 1967, not a shot has been fired against Israel from the Syrian side. Syria also organised its occupation of Lebanon as if it were doing a favour to the Lebanese. Unlike Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, Hafez al-Assad ensured that his troops entered Lebanon as “saviours” with the support of the Arab League, the United Nations and the European powers.

The British Government is right to insist that Syria’s leaders can be persuaded to play ball. But what ballgame should be on offer?

The Assad regime will try to give the minimum to ensure its survival, as it has always done. But, unlike Saddam’s, it also knows when not to believe its own slogans. Using diplomatic, political and economic pressure while keeping the military option open, the US-led coalition should ask for the maximum. That includes support for the growing reform movement in Syria itself, a movement that many say is secretly endorsed by President Assad against the old guard.

The liberation of political prisoners, the lifting of the ban on political parties and trade unions and, in time, the holding of free elections are among the demands of Syrian reformists. Other demands should include an end to Syrian support for terrorist groups, a termination of its alliance with hard-line Khomeinists in Tehran, the denial of safe haven to fleeing Iraqi Baathist criminals, and public support for the “roadmap for peace” as proposed by President Bush and backed by the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Last but not least, Syria must end its occupation of Lebanon, and the Mafia-style milking of that country that has enriched Baathist big shots. The momentum for change created by the victory in Iraq should not be wasted.

 

Buck, but Bush doesn't need to bad-mouth Syria to achieve agreement with them on your concerns. They are very much our allies already. None of this has to be done on Fox News with "harboring terrorist" talk and "WMD." That is just stupid geopolitics, imso. Syria deserves to be treated with a lot more respect than what they are getting. It is unnecessary to bad mouth them, as if we are beyond reproach ourselves.

 

I know, HeyP. It's one of my biggest problems with this Administration's foreign policy: things seem to be played out in the media, and in the open in general, when this seems like a time for some serious backroom/backchannel negotiation.

 

Perhaps the recent show of force in Iraq is satisfying secondary objectives as well, and perhaps this was part of the US's plan all along.

First, North Korea soften its stance towards unilateral discussions, now Syria may be expelling Iraqi officials from Damascus

U.S. says Syria telling Iraqis to leave capital

 

Hey, Bush started the next Islamic revolution! Good for him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937652,00.html