Would a war with Syria be logical?

Re: Re: Would a war with Syria be logical?

You see this is where I get confused.

Personally, I was always more sure of Syria being a pain in the arse than a pathetically weakened Saddam was.
You say you're not convinced an invasion of Syria is necessary - given that, were you taken in by the supposed 'need' for the invasion of Iraq?

Wouldn't the 2 invasions be based on the same reasoning? If not, why not?

 

Why does a dog lick his balls?

Because he can......

-George Carlin

More and more, this explains the war against Iraq.
We're not going after Syria.

 

Re: Re: Re: Would a war with Syria be logical?

My friend you show promise.

In days past I would have expected nothing less than total support for his ramblings.

Now even portions of the 'right' consider that declaring war against anyone that looks oddly at you might not be the best option in the long run.

Richie - Do you really, and I do mean really, believe that attacking yet another portion of the Arab/muslim world is good for the future (and by 'future' I mean longer term than next weekend) of anyone? Other than US weapons manufacturers of course.

I'm just grateful that US Presidents can't have more then 2 terms in power (for the time being). Meaning we've got about 4 and a bit years of Dubya left - less if anyone had any sense, which it seems they don't. Oh well I can't do anything about it.

 

I'm not sure right now about a war against Syria, unless we have hardcore evidence that Saddam and his sons are hiding there.

I wouldn't mind, however, getting together with the Israelis and together letting the Syrians know that the very next time there's a suicide bombing in Israel that can be traced back to Assad's government, the IDF will be in Damascus before he knows what hit him, and we ain't gonna do a damn thing to restrain them.

 

Let's tease this out a little bit.

Alex, you're prepared to go to war to find 3 people. But I thought the Bushies said that this wasn't about an individual, but about regime change?

Stop being such a disloyal bastard and disagreeing with our Glorious Leader.

Seriously, it would be insane to go to war with a nation because the Husseins are living there. That's pretty much what Iran did to us when we took in the Shah. And that was insane, too.

 

The word "garbage" resounds in my mind, where did I hear that?...

ah yes, the UN inspectors giving an opinion to your intel about iraqi WMD.

 

The campaign in Iraq is about regime change. If Saddam simply disappears and we have no idea where he is, that doesn't mean the war is a failure. If, however, we know he is in Syria, being hosted by the Syrian government, and the Syrians refuse to give him up when we demand they do so (and Assad seems to be a lot more sane than either Saddam or Mullah Omar, so I think he most likely would give Saddam up when we demanded if he even knowingly hosted him in the first place), that's a different story.

Kim Jong Il?

Maybe, altho going to war with Syria ain't exactly the same thing as going to war with the US of A.

 

Not WMDs?

I expect it will be about the WMDs again, once we find some.

In diplomatic terms it's exactly the same - regardless of participants.

Going to war/invading somewhere (because I know the Bushies get confused about it all), will still get people all p!ssed off with each other.
That's the way it is, that's the way it will always be.

 

I say we go after Canada first, I mean, how could they let that SARS thing slip, and when we're at it, let's get those damn Mexicans as well, let's take California back!!!

Mmmh, those Polish kicked the US's arse in Korea/Japan...

 

Huh-huh, long...huh-huh, hard...

 

By what right do we demand Syria hand over Saddam, anyway? The war is over, so he's not a POW. Has he been indicted for war crimes? Not that I know of.

Of course, it would take about 5 minutes to pull that off. But my question is more serious when I'm talking about everyone in the deck of cards. Are ALL of them war criminals? I doubt it. So, by what right are we locking these guys up?

 

"Richie - Do you really, and I do mean really, believe that attacking yet another portion of the Arab/muslim world is good for the future (and by 'future' I mean longer term than next weekend) of anyone?"

Yes, they train and support terrorism there for sure. There is no doubt about that fact. We don;t needto be loved by them. Plus no one loves us except the israelies because we support them. There will never be peace in the middle east. No road map will work because the terrorists will never stop their bombings. Unless we go into syria/lebanon and clean these guys out. Will they love us after it? NO, but they will be afraid of us. That is good enough, fear is always more reliable then love any way.

Have no fear we are not going to do that.

"I'm just grateful that US Presidents can't have more then 2 terms in power (for the time being). Meaning we've got about 4 and a bit years of Dubya left -"

I am looking for word to these years a head.
------------------

"less if anyone had any sense, which it seems they don't."

I think he will get that second term that good ness. Then by that time maybe the other Bush will run and win and get the second terms.

All this adds up to over 12 yrs more.

"Oh well I can't do anything about it."

GOOD

 

Dear Lord above, it seems we have different opinions as to what 'the future' actually means.

Beating someone into liking you has NEVER worked in the long run.
Just look at Saddam; the French Empire (hell, any Empire for that matter) and so on and so on...

You say no-one loves us in that area of the world; well might I suggest stop doing what you're doing and moreover, don't do it further - which is exactly how the Bush administration seems to be handling it.
The trick to get people to stop hating you so readily is to figure out what it is that irritates these people - then try and cut back on doing whatever it is - not go and do it more. There's no logic.

 

I'm sure they'll find a direct link between Osama and the Syrian government next.

 

Naah, would be to obvious. They'll just work with three degrees of seperation or something. Saying that a cousin of some nobody in the Syrian government is an old College buddy of Osama or something...

 

You go to war when there is no other way.

There was no alternative solution to taking out the Baath Fascist Party than to go in. No amount of negotiating or economic pressure could have toppled them. The people would have suffered more maybe, but Uday's lifestyle was looking solid into the next couple decades.

Syria is a completely different case. We have just shut down their already fragile economy by shutting off the flow of cheap Iraqi oil. They are now more or less isolated geopolitically and nobody is going to bail them out.

Additionally, thier brutal occupation of Lebanon is beginning to embarass even their Arab brothers. The "things here are bad because Israel occupies the Golan" is also wearing thin with the populace. They may not be particularly well informed, but they are beginning to question what some Jews sitting on a couple hills has to do with not having jobs or enough to eat.

And the dictatorship is led by a dorky Opthomologist who was forced into the role by the ruling oligarchy, is not particularly comfortable with the role and is propped up by an increasingly expensive secret police apparatus.

And suddenly they understand that their freinds the French can do nothing to save them. Chirac is irrelevant to their problems, the Saudis have their own concerns and Saddam is sitting in a Motel 6 in Damascus demanding virgins and good booze.

We don't need to invade Syria; it's going down all by itself.

 

To those that are afraid it's exactly the same thing.
And again I'll repeat: In the long run IT DOESN'T WORK. Evidence supporting this is littered throughout history.

Ah.
I see the level we're working at.