Syria makes things interesting.

I posted something on this before, and I think it's really interesting. The U.S. is already making noise about this resolution not passing.

Another interesting thing about the U.S. criticism of Syria that I heard on CNN's 'Capital Gang' was that the Israeli defense minister said that the Israel had several issues with Syria, and that they should deal with them through the U.S.

Since when did the U.S. become Israel's henchman and muscle(other than selling them arms)?

The region seems very perilous. The Palestian new Prime Minister is having a rough time with Arafat, and has threatened to resign. It would be really bad if the new direction toward reform was stopped so early, by Arafat.

 

Uh. Have you been living in a cave?

 

We can demand that Syria disarm without disarming Israel. Syria is one of the largest state sponsers of terrorism. If the US was trying to disarm France or something, it might be a big issue.

 

So...once again, We Decide! Right and Wrong, Good and Bad...no longer need the world trouble itself to try and tell one from the other, just leave it to the good ol' USA.

The rest of the world doesn't want us to invade Iraq? That's ok...they're irrelevent anyway. Besides, look who supplies most of their arms; there's conflict of interest with some companies from some of the countries which object, hence the majority of the world population can be discounted. We are talking freaking WMD here; if you aren't gonna use 'em, why would you have them? Er...except for us, of course. WE won't ever use them...except when we did, but that was different. We thought we had good reason, we wanted to save the lives of our troops, so it's ok for us to decide to use weapons no one else is allowed to use ( no other country would use them for that reason...just to be nasty); actually it's not ok if most of them even own them...and if we hear that they're trying to get then, well, brother, do you need any better definition of evil than trying to acquire NUCULER WEAPONS!?!?!?

The rest of the world wants the Middle East to disarm? No...no, that's not gonna work for us either.Why not? Because Israel is, by our standards. not the same animal as Syria, who currently stands in violation of several UN ( *aid whispers in ear*) uh..er...as I was saying, Syria is just much badder than Israel, so of course it's ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but not ok for Syria to have chemical weapons. WHo cares if we are the only ones to vote against it? We have been the only ones to vote against something involving Israel so many times than I can count, and it's never lead to anything bad before...It's not like some of our companies are the major suppliers of weapons to Israel, and therefore we are biased, not like we're France...

Oh? Really? We are the major supplier of arms to Israel? Ummm..yeah, but they're France, and therefore sneaky, we're the USA, therefore upright and noble. Also, we supply Israel with most of their weapons through our government, whereas France et al supplied them through some private companies which happened to be owned by Frenchmen, etc...so clearly the governemnts of those countries are more influenced, ie corrupted...than they would be if their governments were doing it directly. What do you mean, you don't understand?

Let me explain this again ( Deep breath): We went to war to support the resolutions of the United Nations, who we say are irrelevent, to take away his WMD, most of which we didn't give him, but we had clear intelligence he had them, most of which has proven false, but it was ok, cause it was obvious he had 'em, just not so obvious that we can find 'em after having been there for a month, and to support the freedom of the people there, unless that freedom rears it's head in a way we don't approve of, in which case we will not give it to 'em, but still we have to protect ourselves from the people responsible for 9-11, and that clearly includes Saddam Hussein, trust us, it just does, and besides, a lot of the people wanted us there, and we need to stand up for those people, unless they want us to leave, in which case they are clearly not ready to know what they're talking about yet.

So when it comes to Syria, we will surely be able to present as soldid a case; how could we do otherwise? We Decide! Don't you get it yet?

 

Iraq invaded another country, was forced to disarm because of it, but didn't, so we went to war.

And Syria has done what exactly? When Syria does something that the U.S. gets pissed off about. Then we go to war. You can't live in the past. That's why the middle East is in so much trouble already.

 

We can demand that Syria disarm without disarming Israel.

And Syria can respond that they have a nuclear-armed hostile neighbor and need these weapons to protect themselves. It would be a very legitimate response - the same argument we used to justify our own nuclear arsenal and buildup over the past 50 years.

 

Yes, this is the point. And Israel has a stated policy that they will use those Nuclear weapons in an effort to escalate things if the war is going bad for them. The Israeli policy is kind of like the doomsday plot in Dr. Strangelove.

Now Syria is willing to make the ENTIRE mid-east a region without WMD, and has put action to those words. The U.S. can show they mean business about getting rid of WMD and go along with the resolution, or they can show that govts. we consider friends can have all the WMD they want, and others can't, no matter how oppressive those govts. are that we consider friends.

 

And Syria and Israel are so obviously in the exact same position. What's that? Israel is surrounded by nations that would like nothing better than for her to cease to exist? They have twice fought against a large coalition of Arab nations? When did this happen? You mean from the day Israel was founded she was under attack? But Syria has faced the exact same thing right? Right?

Hey, edit is back!

 

So it is OK for Israel to do whatever it wants?

 

He didn't say they were in the exact same position, he said they had a nuclear-armed hostile neighbor. Therefor your post was a bunch of useless babble.

 

And Syria and Israel are so obviously in the exact same position. What's that? Israel is surrounded by nations that would like nothing better than for her to cease to exist? They have twice fought against a large coalition of Arab nations? When did this happen? You mean from the day Israel was founded she was under attack? But Syria has faced the exact same thing right? Right?

What exactly is your point? That since Israel is in a sucky position, Syria should have to give up its own defenses?

 

Israelis knew what they were getting into when they chose to move back to the place they got kicked out over 2000 years ago. The arabs never wanted them back. And it could be noted that the creation of a western backed Jewish state was considered an act of war by the predominantly Islamic populations of the middle east.


It's not okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. It destabilizes the region and makes us look like even bigger jackasses to the rest of the world when we continually support them.

 

No, but it must be prepared to defend itself when it is grossly outnumbered.

 

I believe the point is that Syria's right to exist is not challenged by anyone, yet Israel's is.

 

Hostile neighbor? In what way did Israel initiate hostilities w/ Syria?

BTW, how many years has Israel had nukes?

What terrorist organizations does Israel support?

 

I believe the point is that Syria's right to exist is not challenged by anyone, yet Israel's is.

Again, how is this relevant to whether they should have the right to have WMD? Can only countries who's right to exist is challenged by someone have WMD?

Hostile neighbor? In what way did Israel initiate hostilities w/ Syria?

I think it's pretty clear that Israel and Syria are not friends. Just because they aren't at war doesn't mean that the two countries are not hostile towards each other. Syria has every right to maintain weapons to defend itself, as does Israel. Unless we're willing to unilaterally defend them against aggressors, I don't see how we have any right to tell them otherwise. The perceived difference in how we deal with Iraq and North Korea only re-emphasizes the deterrent value of actually having nuclear weapons.

BTW, how many years has Israel had nukes?

What terrorist organizations does Israel support?

I have no idea how long Israel has been nuclear-armed. I don't know what terrorist organizations Israel may support. Again, none of that is really relevant to Syria's right to defend itself.

 

I'm not a fan of the middle east and I don't like Syria. However, they've been there as a self sustaining nation a hell of a lot longer than Israel has. Israel lost a long long time ago and they didn't regain their nation without a ton of help from big brother.

Syria has their right to not like having Israel as a neighbor. Hell, we wouldn't want a country like Israel as a neighbor either.

 

I cant believe people are actually defending Israel having WMD while saying that Syria shouldnt have them.

 

Me, too.

The goal should be a WMD-Free Middle East. It's not that we won't protect Israel to the best of our ability, but we should work to deproliferate (you know what I mean) as much as we can, and that does include our allies... and ourselves when its feasible.

I don't think it's too much to seek an Israel (and the rest of the Middle East) without nuclear weapons. Of course, I think we would need solid monitoring of nuclear programs (more solid than the UN apparently had in North Korea) to make sure none of the countries got nuclear weapons eventually. I suppose that's one fear. Israel will rid itself of nuclear weapons and some rogue, anti-Israel Middle Eastern state will continue to develop nukes and the UN won't step in to stop it.

And, once again, the devil is in the details. We'll see what Syria really means by a WMD-free Middle East, and who would also be signing on. But I don't think the idea of Israel being non-nuclear should be dismissed out of hand.