Is Syria Next?

[whocares]

Funny question ! When this region of the world is the initial target of this war, there is no point in asking. It will cover from Syria to Egypt.

As for world war three, I've got an even more interesting scenario. With the additional 120,000 troops currently sent to the war, the US now has minimum presence in Taiwan and South Korea, do you think both China and North Korea would let go of such a golden opportunity to contain what they have always considered part of their countries ?

WW3 has already began, and that's what all those war supporters were trapped in. Actually, this gives me a very interesting idea for a new poll.

 

[rs7]

Quote from alfonso:




Important questions, no? I assure you that if I, armchair international affairs expert (hehe), can think of them, you bet your bottom dollar the people closest to this invasion (ie, the Arabs) can too!

Yes, these are certainly "important questions" and that is my concern. While perhaps you do not see the moral obligation I feel to release the Iraqi people from the tyrannical rule they suffer, I agree with you about the obvious.

It can clearly be seen that to much of the world (arab and non-arab), we can be seen as "meddling" in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

But we have done this before in the name of "human rights". We did it in Somalia. We did it in Kosovo. We even invaded Granada because we didn't want another "Cuba" in our hemisphere. Yes, we meddle. But to most Americans, we "meddle" for the greater good. Arrogant? Yes. Justifiable? We like to think so. Imperialist? Here is where we seem to disagree with not much wiggle room. I say no. You say yes.

To go on:

This is different in that in addition to the oppression and genocide, while you may think Saddam does not pose an immediate threat to America, apparently our (somewhat incompetent) intelligence agencies do. And right now, that is what we are living and dying by.

Personally, I would have given the inspectors more time. I would have perhaps tried more subtle ways to undermine Saddam's regime. But the die is cast.

As for Saddam wanting to acquire WMDs and his willingness to use them...c'mon. It is clearly his dream and his way. Look what he does to his own people. And absolutely he has been trying to develop WMD for at least as long as 20 years minimum. Israel, which actually has good intelligence attacked and destroyed his nuclear facility that long ago.

I believe (I have said this before) we should have perhaps taken a page from the Israeli playbook for this effort. Why did we have to take months and months to prepare for what was supposed to be a "cakewalk" and at the same time give Saddam the same amount of time to prepare for us?

BTW, have you listened to the eyewitness accounts of his torture chambers? This is his "dinner entertainment". The public executions are boring for his tastes I suppose.

If you could go back in time and stop Hitler, would you?


Rs7

 

[rs7]

Quote from whocares:

I've got an even more interesting scenario. With the additional 120,000 troops currently sent to the war, the US now has minimum presence in Taiwan and South Korea, do you think both China and North Korea would let go of such a golden opportunity to contain what they have always considered part of their countries ?

This is a valid point. We now will have half our armed forces actively involved in this campaign. Which indeed may seem to our other perceived threats as window of opportunity. Let's pray this scenario does not come to be.

Rs7

 

[skeptic123]

Quote from whocares:

As for world war three, I've got an even more interesting scenario. With the additional 120,000 troops currently sent to the war, the US now has minimum presence in Taiwan and South Korea, do you think both China and North Korea would let go of such a golden opportunity to contain what they have always considered part of their countries ?

whocares what happens to Taiwan and S. Korea. Let UN handle it. Why is it our problem. They are anti-american when we protect them. They are anti-american when we do what we believe is right for the world security. Let UN and other countries handle other hotspots. Russia and France can issue a few UN resolutions and world peace will prevail.

It is amazing that the same people who are against our intervention and activities in the world still expect the USA to protect other countries. Do they seriously expect that Germany, Siria and Kameron on the UNSC will decide where american soldiers will be sent.

 

[trader556]

Quote from goldenarm:

I'm worried that this war, originally perceived as a relatively quick and painless campaign, will degenerate into a Vietnam-like quagmire with large coalition casualties.
God save our souls.

"we are seeing Sodomy's Possum Strategy
let USA occupy and extend lines
then pick us off, overextended
use civilians as human shields
dont bother with uniforms
many parallels with VietNam, and a few similarities
at least we dont need Agent Orange to clear the desert brush

replace SLOPEHEADS with RAGHEADS
replace HoChiMinh with Saddam
replace Neighbor China with Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf Emirates
replace Communism Halt with Oil Supply
replace Monsoons with SandStorms
replace Tet New Year with Ramaddan
replace Buddhist monks with Muslim Mullahs
replace Bonzai with Jihad
replace DeMilitarizedZone (DMZ) with Saudi restrictions
replace the Delta with the Gulf
replace Russian/Chinese Suppliers with Russian/Chinese Suppliers
replace Collateral Peasants with Collateral Muslims
replace Combodian Triangle CIA cocaine with Afghan CIA heroin
replace sirhans with togas and headdress
replace oxen with camels

same confusion with enemy in uniforms and in civilian clothes
same bullshit managed news reporting on the war
same nonsensical moral high ground claimed
same pushbutton killing with technology
same monstrous 100:1 death counts
same 500,000 soldiers
same crippling costs to federal budgets

instead of using chemical weapons (napalm), we receive chemical weapons (nerve gas)

much bigger stakes !!!
we dont repeat history
we dont learn from history either
history rhymes
same price inflation in a couple years"

WAKE UP AMERICA

 

[resinate]

Quote from rs7:



.....If you could go back in time and stop Hitler, would you?
Rs7

How could anyone answer no to this question?

The trick however is that this question just does not apply. Germany was one of the top industrial/military powers in the 1930's. Iraq doesn't even register. Being a repressive totalitarian regime is different than the active organized genocide the Nazis were engaged in from the late 30's on. 2/3 of Iraq has been bombed weekly for the last 12 years and under military embargo in contrast to Germany who actively invaded and conquered other countries in the lead up to WW2 while being allowed to build the worlds most powerful military. In case anyone forgot, in the one case that Iraq stepped out of line and invaded the 51st US state of Kuwait the US and free world were able to instantly put him back in his box. He did not roll on into Poland as Hitler did.

I would argue that the appeasement the pro-war folks argue should be avoided with Iraq actually applies more accurately to the US. History will talk about how the great powers of the world appeased George Bush and Tony Blair hoping that if they could just seize Iraq that they would refrain from engulfing the world in war. History will view this similar to the mistake the world made by allowing Germany to have Czechoslovakia and will wonder why the obviously illegal and disastrous plan for US middle east occupation was not identified and quashed earlier...

 

[msfe]

Quote from resinate:



How could anyone answer no to this question?

The trick however is that this question just does not apply. Germany was one of the top industrial/military powers in the 1930's. Iraq doesn't even register. Being a repressive totalitarian regime is different than the active organized genocide the Nazis were engaged in from the late 30's on. 2/3 of Iraq has been bombed weekly for the last 12 years and under military embargo in contrast to Germany who actively invaded and conquered other countries in the lead up to WW2 while being allowed to build the worlds most powerful military. In case anyone forgot, in the one case that Iraq stepped out of line and invaded the 51st US state of Kuwait the US and free world were able to instantly put him back in his box. He did not roll on into Poland as Hitler did.

I would argue that the appeasement the pro-war folks argue should be avoided with Iraq actually applies more accurately to the US. History will talk about how the great powers of the world appeased George Bush and Tony Blair hoping that if they could just seize Iraq that they would refrain from engulfing the world in war. History will view this similar to the mistake the world made by allowing Germany to have Czechoslovakia and will wonder why the obviously illegal and disastrous plan for US middle east occupation was not identified and quashed earlier...

exactly !

 

[resinate]

Great post trader 556!

 

[stockoptionist]

Quote from resinate:



How could anyone answer no to this question?

The trick however is that this question just does not apply. Germany was one of the top industrial/military powers in the 1930's. Iraq doesn't even register. Being a repressive totalitarian regime is different than the active organized genocide the Nazis were engaged in from the late 30's on. 2/3 of Iraq has been bombed weekly for the last 12 years and under military embargo in contrast to Germany who actively invaded and conquered other countries in the lead up to WW2 while being allowed to build the worlds most powerful military. In case anyone forgot, in the one case that Iraq stepped out of line and invaded the 51st US state of Kuwait the US and free world were able to instantly put him back in his box. He did not roll on into Poland as Hitler did.

I would argue that the appeasement the pro-war folks argue should be avoided with Iraq actually applies more accurately to the US. History will talk about how the great powers of the world appeased George Bush and Tony Blair hoping that if they could just seize Iraq that they would refrain from engulfing the world in war. History will view this similar to the mistake the world made by allowing Germany to have Czechoslovakia and will wonder why the obviously illegal and disastrous plan for US middle east occupation was not identified and quashed earlier...

Agreed. I want to add to that. However painful 9/11 is, the U. S. needs to get beyond that tragedy. It's acting like a wounded tiger that's ready to pounce on anyone perceived as a threat, even when there is no clear and present danger. In psychology, we have the so-called "victim or persecution complex." And I think the U. S. has fallen prey to that mentality and has been overreacting with global paranoia.

Patriotism is worthless if we lose the capacity to think about the consequences before we act. Bush and his cohorts have been blinded by this paranoia.

I want the troops back. No more pointless bloodshed in this costly war. Even if we win, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

stock.

 

[hapaboy]

Syria, alarmed by the impending collapse of its neighbor and ally, has called for suicide missions against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Syrian President Bashar Assad also called on Arab regimes to oppose the U.S.-led war against Iraq. He warned that Syria could be the next target of Washington.

Assad said in an interview with the Beirut-based A-Safir daily that Damascus would not wait until the United States attacks Syria, Middle East Newsline reported. He did not elaborate.

Assad said he expected an Israeli attack. He said Syria would remain under threat as long as Israel exists.

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_syria_03_28.html