Question: What do we do about Syria?

[brentspeak]

Bush may be a liar, and his appeal to the U.N. is disingenous. But Syria is a terrorist nation, and it's not inconceivable that it helped plan the assassination of Rafik Hariri. So how should we proceed?

[Beetwasher]

1. What Evidence Do You Have That Syria Is A "Terrorist Nation"?

And is it more of a terrorist nation than the US currently is?

Considering how the US is currently terrorizing the whole world, what makes you think we're in any position, morally or otherwise to 1. define any other nation as a terrorist nation and 2. do anything about it?

[brentspeak]

9. Has or has not Syria provided military and financial support to Hamas?

Has it or has it not occupied Lebanon for decades? If you consider us to be as bad as Syria, then at least we're on the same moral ground as each other.

[Beetwasher]

12. Being on the Same Moral Ground

What makes you think we have any moral imperative to do anything about them? Seems to me you're whole question and premise is flawed. If in fact Syria needs to be dealt with, it's a problem for the world community, even more specifically, the countries most directly affected in the region, not solely the US.

Motives matter.

[brentspeak]

13. I'm not saying just the U.S.

We should push for something to be done, and then let the international community handle it. I'm not advocating invasion or bombing.

[laugle]

87. Bush has a pattern of going it alone, what

makes you think he would want international support, and that he could even get it?

I already heard on talk radio last night, that the idiot does not need to consult the congress before invading Syria. Just what do you think that means.

Sounds like he is already gearing up the PNAC agenda, Phase II.

[Zhade]

21. ISRAEL also supported Hamas. Do you thus apply the same label to Israel?

NT!

[shance]

35. Great point Zhade.

n/t

[Zhade]

37. Thanks.

It seems pretty self-evident that, if support of Hamas is a deciding factor, then Israel could be fairly called a terrorist nation, just like Syria.

Plus, Israel illegally occupied the Golan Heights for quite some time...

[tahoedenver]

43. When and Where did Israel support Hamas????

Seriously, I'm not denying it, I've actually never heard of this. Please somebody tell me more.

[Zhade]

44. Two sources...

From The Guardian UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1175659,00.html

The answer is that everything is wrong with targeted assassinations if, as Peace Now says, the effect is to pour barrels of petrol on a fire that is already out of control. In the 1980s Israel supported Hamas, when it was the fledgling cultural movement countering Yasser Arafat's secular Palestine Liberation Organisation. Israel will one day have to negotiate with the enemy it helped create, but that day, after yesterday's killings, is further away than ever.

From Juan Cole (quite respected for his ME analysis around here):

http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/levine-on-arafat-guest-editorial-death.html

One of the first exponents of Palestinian non-violence the Palestinian-American doctor Mubarak Awad, founded the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence in 1985. His innovative ideas and training of Palestinians in the tactics of non-violent resistance to the occupation was considered dangerous enough by Israel that it expelled him from the land of his birth in 1988. During the same period, the government supported the rise to power of militant religious groups such as Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO (which that year recognized Israel’s right to exist).



Now, I would be remiss in not mentioning that the same "Israel supported Hamas" allegations appear all over the rightwing websphere. Yet the Guardian and Juan Cole are definitely not rightwing, so I do not know if it's a case of rightwingers imitating a broken clock or attempting to muddy the waters. For example, there is an extensive analysis by UPI available, but it was published after "Reverend" Moon bought the organization, prompting Helen Thomas to quit.

[tahoedenver]

52. You are correct

It seems the Israeli government created it's own nightmare.

Their problem. They have to sleep in the bed they made.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. The only problem...

Israel did not support when it was a terrorist organization, but one working to ease the burden to Palestinians and was considered a legitimate ally at off-setting the terrorist actions of the PLO. So, the comparison is false. Syria supports group that use terror now, not groups that morphed into terrorist organizations.

[Zhade]

47. There is some debate on that matter.

I will not pretend to have all of the facts on the issue. I have questions regarding alleged further support of Hamas even after it began using terrorism, but I wouldn't be comfortable discussing those questions, because to be frank I am uncertain as to their accuracy.

I did later realize (while on lunch break) that I should have noted that Israel did not in any way publicly support Hamas engaging in terrorism at the time of its founding. That is an important distinction, and I should have made it when I posted.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Much Respect!

Thank you! And, I think you know why I am thanking you, if not let me know. :)

[Zhade]

50. I know exactly why.

Likewise, I should thank you for not hammering me on the point. Your respectful tone was appreciated!

[Englander]

71. No, that's not correct.

The Israeli authorities supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which
became Hamas, because they were not the PLO, not because the MB were
'legitimate'.

From "The Iron Wall - Israel and the Arab World", by Avi Shlaim.

Chapter 11, "Political Paralysis 1984 - 1988"

Page 459;

"Another consequence of the intifada was the birth of Hamas.The name is an Arabic word meaning zeal,and also an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas was founded in Gaza in 1988 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin,a paralyzed religious teacher,as a wing of the long-established Muslim Brothers in Palestine. To obtain a permit from the Israeli authorities,the movement was obliged to pledge that its fight for Palestinian rights would be conducted within the limits of the law and without the use of arms. Ironically,the Israeli authorities at first encouraged Hamas in the hope of weakening the secular nationalism of the PLO. But the Palestinian uprising had a radicalizing effect on Hamas,and its members began to step outside the bounds of the law. Although the Israelis repeatedly cracked down on the organization ,the roots it put down sprouted again,giving rise to more violence each time. In 1989 the Israelis arrested Yassin and kept him in prison until 1997.Hamas, however, continued to shift from the use of stones to the use of firearms. In 1994 it began, through its military wing, to launch suicide bombs inside Israel. The suicide attacks were undertaken out by individual members of Hamas who carried explosives on their body and detonated them in crowded places such as buses and markets. Israel's tactic of "divide and rule" had back-fired disastrously."

____________________________

About the Muslim Brotherhood, from Egyptian media;

' Politics in God's name

>snip

History
The Association of Muslim Brothers, described as the first wide-ranging, organised and international Islamic movement of modern times, was born in Ismailia at Hassan El-Banna's hands in March 1928. In the first few years of its existence, branches were set up in other Suez Canal cities such as Port Said, Suez and Abu-Sueir. An underground paramilitary wing was also established, primarily to fight British occupation forces but its targets also included Jewish interests and government figures.

One year after the group moved its headquarters to Cairo in 1932, it boasted 50 branches nationwide - all styled along the same Ismailia pattern. Each branch included an office, a mosque, a school, a small workshop and a small sporting club. El-Banna laid down three stages for the Brotherhood's further expansion; "indoctrination" - disseminating the group's message; "formation" - or recruiting and organising supporters; and "implementation" or putting the message into action.

Ideology and Structure
The Brotherhood's ideology is based on a fundamentalist approach to Islam - a return to its pure sources in the Holy Qur'an and the tradition and teachings of the Prophet Mohamed. The group views Islam not only as a religion but as a system which deals with all aspects of life.

The Brotherhood rejects the secularist approach of confining Islam to a relationship between man and his creator. It became a political movement because it demanded a reform of the government and a reconsideration of the relationship of the Umma (Muslim nation) with other nations.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/parties/muslimb/polgod.htm

[Behind the Aegis]

72. Which is what I said.

Support started off to offset the PLO but worked with parameters of law and when it stepped outside of that law, support was lost.

[AntiCoup2K4]

92. Hamas is to Israel as Al Qaeda is to the Bush Criminal Empire

A pet Frankenstein monster that went horribly wrong.

[Behind the Aegis]

96. Almost, but not quite.

Hamas began as a charity organization. Al-Qaeda was always an armed group. So, they are not quite the same.

[Englander]

101. No. They were non-violent, they were not 'a charity organisation'.

They were a social movement, that also didn't recognise the right
of Israel to exist, & were radical Islamic fundamentalists. The line
you're pushing, that the MB were a 'legitimate organisation', or a
'charity organisation', or that they were 'peaceful', ie that the
Israeli admin at the time were really only helping & supporting some
hippies, does not imo bear comparison with the actual history.
The link I provided from al-ahram gave the history of the MB.
Curiously, another poster at another web-site pushed this same line,
that the MB were 'a charity organsiation' & neglected to mention the
history or other aspects of the MB. Spooky, eh? ;-)

[Behind the Aegis]

113. self-delete

[Englander]

99. And that, is pretty much a correct analogy.

The whole 'enemy of my enemy' thing.

[KeepItReal]

57. Last time I checked Syria was high-tailing it *out* of Lebanon

You next point?

[tahoedenver]

17. We Should Keep Our Noses Where They Belong

Up our own asses and in our own business. Syria is controlled by a dictator - so is 70+% of the rest of the world's population. So what. We can't nationbuild. Clinton and Bush both have now tried it and proved it can't be done without blowing our own capital, manpower, lives, and resources in the process when in the end the people are just going to turn on us and follow their own path.

We need to stay out of other countries' affairs so as long as it doesn't destablize a whole region, like say North Korea. Syria is a joke and they know it. Assad wants one thing, to stay in power. And he will. The only way to promote democracy in the world is by offering vocal and other such support. We can't do what the neoconservatives have attempted to do with Iraq. Look at where that's put us - 300 billion and counting in the hole and a country on the brink of civil war.

So it's best if we mind our own business and let the Syrians find democracy for themselves. That's what the framers wanted for others. You can't export democracy, you can only export the seeds for democracy.

[win_in_06]

32. Syria has been considered to be a terrorist state for a long time

along with North Korea, Iran and a few others. This is not news.


http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441&CFNoCache=TRUE&printfriendly=true

[shance]

36. What defines a terrorist state? Someone who refuses to accept US policy?

n/t

[win_in_06]

38. I guess it goes back to the definition of terrorism.

[tahoedenver]

40. old quote about terrorism

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

We can't dictate government to other people half way around the world and expect them to continue that government style after we leave - like in Iraq. The glue keeping that Shia-Kurd "democracy" together is Coalition Troops. Once we leave that government will probably collapse into anarchy and the Shia Imams will take over. Because they are the real power in Southern and Central Iraq.

[win_in_06]

42. I think most can agree that intentionally blowing up innocent civilians,

Targeting innocent civilians, to push a political agenda, is terrorism.

OK City bombing, World Trade Center, Hostage Incident at Russian school, Bombs in the market square in Israel and Bosnia all come to mind.

[tahoedenver]

53. What do you call the Napalming of Dresden?

The allies firebombed my relatives' city to the ground. Killed anywhere in the tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians - in one night during WW2. It's interesting how this is swept under the rug. Or the nuclear bombs that were dropped. I think a lot of this shit we're doing now in Iraq is intentionally targeted toward civilians. Because there is no opposing army. All "combatants" are just people who resist the authority of the Coalition.

[Zynx]

51. Syria being a nasty, outlaw country is nothing new.

The number of people on DU with an ignorance of basic history can be astonishing sometimes.

Bashir may be an idiot, but his father was one vicious SOB. Syria has pretty much openly supported terrorist groups - and been on the State Department list of terrorist sponsors - for decades. Their WMD arsenal is also quite real, and Assad (previous one) wasn't shy at all about it.

This is not a nice country. Doesn't mean we should invade it - total, utter mess is an understatement - but anyone who thinks they are some nice, peace loving nation is smoking serious dope.

[shance]

55. Oh please dazzle us with your brilliance.

Give us ignorant ones a history lesson will you? Since you are so obviously studied with all your volumes of proven fact and resources.

And please no fundamentalist, extremist, racist, white male supremecy propaganda. Its obvious you have a highly distorted bias toward hating Syria, but lets leave that out of it, shall we?

[Zynx]

75. Are you trying to say you don't know who Hafez al-Assad was?

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad

That's a (very brief summery) why we don't like this country and have never liked this country, Republican Administration or Democratic Administration.

Primer on their overt chemical weapons program:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm

[brentspeak]

103. You're the same individual who

thinks that Sherrod Brown is a "conservative". (From another thread).

That says a lot about your judgement capability.

[IndianaGreen]

95. Syrian women are free of Sharia law

What fucking America has done in Afghanistan and in Iraq is to fuck women and put them under the tyranny of religion!

[tahoedenver]

39. re:

I don't know if you responded to me or not but I have to ask why you're sending me that link from the Bush White House. I wouldn't trust those people with helping an old lady across the street much less telling me the truth about a national threat. The neoconservatives paint all the enemies of the Likud party in Israel as "terror-states."(Iran, Syria, etc.)

Everybody knows Syria has no beef with us. Assad is not as stupid as many take him for. He knows he has many psychos in his country and that his neighbor is on the brink of collapse.

The same with Iran. The young people there hate the Shia theocracy. But by having us bang the war drums we are violating *their* peace and land. They will turn on us and join the Shia elite wackos in resistance against us if we invade. The Iranians must bring democracy to themselves. Nobody else can bring it to them.

[win_in_06]

45. Yes I responded directly to you. That list from State has read like that

for years. Pre-Bush. Pre-Clinton.

Backing up my commnent that Syria has been considered to be a terrorist State for a long time.

[tahoedenver]

54. I'm well aware that Syria has such a reputation......

but that has more to do with it's opposition to Israel and not neccessarily to us. We've created too many enemies by too closely allying ourselves with the Israelis.

[BeyondThePale]

2. Syria is a sovereign country...

we don't need to do a damn thing about it. If they have violated international law, refer them to the UN. But do not let the *-gang-that-could-not-shoot-straight try to apply more frontier justice.

I do not want one American killed in Syria, nor any Syrians dying at the hands of Americans.

[tahoedenver]

18. I concur

"we don't need to do a damn thing about it. If they have violated international law, refer them to the UN. But do not let the *-gang-that-could-not-shoot-straight try to apply more frontier justice.

I do not want one American killed in Syria, nor any Syrians dying at the hands of Americans."

Damn straight.

[Zhade]

22. It's the height of "White Man's Burden" self-reverent American arrogance..

...to think that we have a right to do ANYTHING about Syria if the country is not threatening us in any way.

Syrian troops attacking U.S. troops who violate Syria's borders does NOT count, btw (not that you argued that - I just know it'll come up).

[brentspeak]

30. It's called "The Middle East Peace Process"

(Specifically referring to Israel/Egypt/Syria/Jordan/Lebanon.) We've been committed to it for decades now. As long as the U.S. deals with Syria through diplomacy rather than with military force, we have the responsibility to continue with what we helped initiate. "White man's burden self-reverent American arrogance" sounds like something from Symbionese Liberation Army handbook.

[Zhade]

33. What makes you think our diplomacy is any more honest?

Thanks for the SLA smear, but no, it came out of my own mind.

That's technically a personal attack, btw.

I noticed you ignored my question about Israel, too.

[the_spectator]

73. Are you saying you were in the SLA?!?

Did you meet Patty Hearst? What was she like?

[Zhade]

82. Nope. I wasn't even alive back then.

NT!

[tahoedenver]

41. I'll disagree with one point

<[Syrian troops attacking U.S. troops who violate Syria's borders does NOT count, btw (not that you argued that - I just know it'll come up).>]

While I don't want something like where Hitler enticed war with Poland, if those SOBs kill our troops on purpose for whatever reason, too bad so sad. We get them back and they learn their place.

But..............................

That won't happen unless some wacked out middle-aged perverted alcoholic neoconservative bureaucrat in Washington doesn't order the deranged incursion in the 1st place.

[Zhade]

48. Respectfully, that's unreasonable.

"We get them back and they learn their place."

"Their place" is in their own country, and we shouldn't violate their borders and attack them. If we do, Syria has every right to fight back, just as we would have every right if Syria invaded our borders and killed Americans.

Are you unaware that we have already illegally penetrated their borders and attacked Syrian troops? It's been in the news the past few days, but there's so much going on it's easy to miss.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051015/wl_mideast_afp/ussyriairaq_051015100944

US troops clashed with Syrian soldiers along border

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war.

Citing unnamed current and former military and government officials, the New York Times newspaper said the firefight between Army Rangers and Syrian troops was the most serious of the clashes with President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

<SNIP>

But other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say the operations have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design, the paper pointed out.

Some current and former officials add that the United States military is considering plans to conduct special operations inside Syria, using small covert teams for cross-border intelligence gathering, The Times reported.

My dad spent 24 years in the USAF, the bulk of it in Special Operations Command. These things are happening as we speak, and it is a violation of Syria's sovereignty. This is wrong and dangerous, and must stop (but won't).

[tahoedenver]

56. Not so sure buddy

<[Their place" is in their own country, and we shouldn't violate their borders and attack them. If we do, Syria has every right to fight back, just as we would have every right if Syria invaded our borders and killed Americans.>]

I agree. But I don't understand why our troops would invade in the 1st place unless some whacked out neocon in Washington is mindlessly pushing buttons. So it's a non-existent hypothetical.

<[Are you unaware that we have already illegally penetrated their borders and attacked Syrian troops? It's been in the news the past few days, but there's so much going on it's easy to miss.>]

I wasn't aware of this but I know we have accidently crossed the border in the past. That whole Qaim region is a snakehole. We move in and clean them out then leave and put the Iraqis back in charge and then all of a sudden the assholes move back in and we go back and play the game and dance all over again. I don't understand why they would kill our troops unless Dubya is crazy enough to launch another groundless war.

And I respect the respect. :)

Cheers friend.

tahoe

[Zhade]

83. "So it's a non-existent hypothetical."

Um, I pretty much offered you evidence that it's NOT a hypothetical. We HAVE invaded their borders, and not entirely by accident. That's technically, I guess, a mini-invasion. Certainly, it's illegal and provocative.

"We move in and clean them out then leave and put the Iraqis back in charge and then all of a sudden the assholes move back in and we go back and play the game and dance all over again."

Do you think this might be because the average Iraqi, who could not be fairly classified as 'snakes', support those who fight against the foreign invaders that are our troops?

[tahoedenver]

88. re:

<[Um, I pretty much offered you evidence that it's NOT a hypothetical. We HAVE invaded their borders, and not entirely by accident. That's technically, I guess, a mini-invasion. Certainly, it's illegal and provocative.>]

Well I didn't see it as intentional. If it was then it's just more neocon sabre rattling.

<[me:"We move in and clean them out then leave and put the Iraqis back in charge and then all of a sudden the assholes move back in and we go back and play the game and dance all over again."[br />
you:Do you think this might be because the average Iraqi, who could not be fairly classified as 'snakes', support those who fight against the foreign invaders that are our troops?]]

Well the Sunni Iraqis in the Qaim area obviously do not like us. From what I've read they don't really like the foreigners too much either. Some do support the foreigners but many also militantly oppose their presence. I read in Qaim where 2 tribes had been fighting over support for the U.S. One tribe supported the U.S. and the other didn't and there were several deaths over the issue on both sides.

I call it a snakepit because the foreign fighters move in and take over. I think it's misconstrued that they are helping the Iraqis "resist." Actually they are taking over the place and most Iraqis are leaving and we are fighting the foreigners.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I guess I just don't believe anything my government tells me any more.

How do I know it wasn't the CIA or OSP or some other unknown, unregulated covert US operation that didn't kill Hariri so Bush could start another war?

Edited: correction of wording

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. Nice try. (nt)

[brentspeak]

6. Nice response.

Well thought out, well put together.

[Zhade]

23. It was a response reflective of the worthiness of the question.

NT!

[brentspeak]

102. Welcome to my Ignore list

n/t

[still_one]

5. wait until the indictments are announced then

declare war on Syria, Iran, and the rest of the world

In all seriousness, going throught the UN is fine, but no way should we be involved in any armed conflict with any country that did NOT or has NOT attackd us

[Behind the Aegis]

8. I agree with this.

First, they have to be found responsible. So far, it is just an implication. Second, it should stop with the UN. If Syria fails to do what is supposed to do, then let the UN handle it. The US needs to stay the hell out...while we're at, time to leave Iraq and Afghanistan too!

[brentspeak]

10. I agree

Although, I don't think the UN will really be able to apply any real muscle to Syria. Economic boycott of some sort should be put in place.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Yup.

The current regime is very weak and not well-liked there or in the Arab world, but a military response would not go over well and its not really needed. However, economic sanctions will do the job and will be something the Arab world may vote against, but secretly support.

[Zhade]

24. So we repeat the mistake (charitable description) of the Iraq sanctions?

Why do innocent Syrians have to bear the punishment for their government's actions?

[Behind the Aegis]

25. So your suggested course of action is...? n/t

[Zhade]

26. Prove their wrongdoing, first off.

After that, I must admit I'm unsure how to proceed without harming innocents.

But that must be discussed in depth, and with the right motivations. I don't see our country doing either of those.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Of course!

What we are dealing with now are "implications." I still think it is appropriate to believe that one is innocent until proven not. As for the rest of it, it should be up to the UN. I agree with you, the US should not have a single voice in this. It should be a collective sanction from the UN body.

[Zhade]

31. The larger question is, how do we punish the guilty and not the innocent?

The idea of sanctions doesn't always work, as seen by the horrific number of civilian deaths under the US/UK-backed sanctions on Iraq (sanctions that GHW bush stated he NEVER wanted to be lifted).

Any sane person wants to stop wrongdoing. But how can we avoid the horrors of what happened to Iraq?

[0007]

7. N0 problemo! Sneak in the country in the middle of night and

drop off Ann Coulter. *****

[NNadir]

11. How about dropping bombs on its citizens, plunging it into civil war,

stealing it's resources, destroying it's infrastructure, etc?

These great ideas just had spectacular success.

[Bloodblister Bob]

14. We should keep our nose out of other peoples' business. n/t

[DuaneBidoux]

15. Loss of credibility makes it impossible for us to do anything.

I don't know the details of the alledged assassination but the US is in such a strategically weak position after the "WMD debacle."

[shance]

19. How in the world do you know Syria is a "terrorist" nation?

Need I remind you this Administration has made the United States a "terrorist" nation to most individuals outside (and inside) our borders?

Care to prove your assumption because it wreaks of ignorance and careless accusatory blame.

[Zynx]

78. Look up the State Department's list. It's the same as under Clinton.

[allemand]

20. I did like this plan:

"An Agenda for Peaceful Change in Syria" by Hind Kabawat
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2005/10/agenda-for-peaceful-change-in-syria-by.htm

[PaulaFarrell]

27. Leave it alone and see if it gets worse

Really - why does Syria suddenly need urgent attention? First attend yourself to Sudan, Uzbekistan and Burma. ANd when those are sorted out, have a look at Syria.

[IndianaGreen]

28. We should take care of our own terrorists and criminals first!

The terrorist Luis Posada Carriles who entered the US illegally and is a fugitive from justice for blowing up a jetlinee is being protected by the US government.

Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4289136.stm

America is also protecting the fugitive war criminals Sgt Shawn Gibson, Capt Philip Wolford and Lt Col Philip de Camp, of the US 3rd Infantry Division, murderers of Spanish cameraman Jose Couso.

Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm

The day America begins abiding by the rule of law, is the day that America will get any credence when it complains about law breaking elsewhere.

[shance]

34. Better question: What do we do about the United States?

n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. You sure of that?

this is coming from the same folks who TOLD YOU there were WMDs in Iraq

[Behind the Aegis]

59. Actually...

Amnesty International and several other groups in the same vein, as well as other governments say pretty much the same thing. Honestly, Syria doesn't really pretend it's not true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. So Syria has WMDs? WOW

look I know the history of the area very well, they are not saints, but if the present government of the US says the sky is blue, I will have to check it

This is distraction (insofar as the people in power are concerned) from their problems

This is also phase two of the PNAC plan... go read it, rebuilding American Defenses, then come back

[Behind the Aegis]

63. WMD?

Where was that in the original post?! The OP was talking about Syria being a nation that supports terrorists, so I thought that was what you were commenting on.

This "distraction" about the assassination has come from the UN. Personally, the US should STFU and let the UN handle it.

As for PNAC, I have read it many times as it is a "buzzword" for something else to some, so I felt it important to at least to know what it was actually about. I am sorry, I don't think the US had ANYTHING to do with assassination, Syria misstepped and it is playing into the hands of PNAC. It is like Shrub taking credit for "bring democracy" to Lebanon. I mean, seriously :wtf:?

I also know quite a bit about the region, it serves me well to know the information.

On edit: Spell checker is great, but grammar checker would be the bomb!

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Ah grammar attack

look this is PNAC part two... and our boys have something on Koffi Annan, personally if they say the sky is blue, check it

And by the way, if you have read PNAC, then you would know what this means... but oh well, whatever trips your trigger... so wanna join?

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Misunderstanding

The edit comment was for me. I used "taken" instead of "taking." I wasn't commenting on your grammar, but mine and my failure to proofread.

I still don't think this is part of the "master" PNAC plan. I think they "lucked" into it. A more 'realistic' example of them in action would have been....our troops were attacked from behind the Syrian border and we had to cross it. So, far the attacks on our troops there have been on the Iraq side of the border and are "insurgents" not Syrian guard. If the UN doesn't act the way the US wants, then, the aforementioned scenario will become more likely. However, I feel the assassination of Rafik Hariri was nothing more than dumb political luck...more of a "see, we told you they were bad."

So before you start implying I am a right-wing Likudnik Republican sympathizer, you might just want to ask me for clarification. :)

On edit...if you have Sundance...turn it on now and watch Al Franken!

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. No I don't have sundance

and there are plenty of rumors that our troops have been working both inside Syria and Iran for months now... what is more, our war with Iraq started 18 months before the shooting started.

[Behind the Aegis]

68. Shame...

...I think you would have liked the Sundance piece.

Rumors are not facts. They may be true, they may not. However, I feel we have strayed too far from the original topic. So, to wrap it up, I feel the assassination was just "dumb luck" and not part of the PNAC plan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. And I don't take it at face value that the syrians were

invovled, why? Our government is involved

At this stage they say the sky is blue, I look out.

And the rumors for Iraq where confirmed after Operational Numbers were checked... so we might want to check on Operational numbers for Special Operations Command (good luck getting that by the way)

[Behind the Aegis]

70. Opinions

As much as you feel that the US was involved, I feel Syria was involved. I don't trust either government, but I still feel this is nothing more than "dumb luck" for them. Lebanon may also be involved, but if so, I am guessing they are still closely tied to Syria. The hope is another Lebanese civil war.

Despite the government's hate of both nations, we just don't have the resources or capital to launch a multiple theater response. We have no allies. The coalition is all but dead and Israel has no interest in an unstable Syria or Lebanon. If the PNAC crew were to try something, I really think we could see a military coup...HERE! If the mis-Administration still had world and US support, I think we'd be agreeing. However, they have neither and they know it, so it is all talk and no walk...UNLESS, G-d forbid, we have another terrorist attack here...then, it could be the beginning of the end.

[Zynx]

76. Syria has a very large and rather ferocious chemical weapons arsenal

They don't make any two bones about it. Hafez al-Assad wanted it *specifically* for a MAD threat against Israel.

[IndianaGreen]

85. I don't want to hear about WMDs, unless we are talking about disarming

America's obscenely large stockpiles of WMD. Considering the Hitlerian ambitions of global conquest that many Americans seem to be suffering from, it is time to defang Uncle Sam so that it harms no one else.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

109. Chemical weapons are *not* WMD's like bio and nukes

This was one of the many BS conflations the Bushies used to push into Iraq (and Iraq didn't even have chemical weapons, either). Chem weapons aren't even on the same scale as nukes and bioweapons. Nukes and germ weapons can easily kill millions of people in a single use-- chemical weapons, while repugnant, are pretty similar to conventional weapons in their destructive potential. (The bombs being dropped from US warplanes in Iraq are much more devastating in their damage than chemical weapons.)

Chemical weapons should not be lumped with nukes and bioweapons in the same category. They're different animals altogether.

[bluedawg12]

60. Syria is a problem- many former Iraqi bathists have fled there

and they are heavy handed occupiers of Lebanon, now.

There is belief that they fund insurgents who cross from Syria into I-rack.

But, now that the bathists are out one has to wonder what payoff Bashir get's out of backing the losers?

So why not dipolmatic measures. Get them in line with diplomacy, find out what they want, negotiate, give a little- get something in return.

There is an underlying premise by the neohawks that some of these coutnries can not be turned around, they want nothing, and make no demands, so we can't negotiate.

I believe every one wants something and everyone has a price. We have to try to find out, and we have to approach them with diplomacy and not threats. Threats are self fullfilling prophecy. It can and should be done with peace and high level talks,establish a relationship with them

<<<use SOFTPower>>>>

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Read about Cambodia during the Nam comlfict

also the Syrians have LEFT lebanon, their forces pulled out over six months ago, you can bet to reinforce their border with Iraq.

Read about the PNAC plan...

[IndianaGreen]

64. so you prefer radical Islamic rule to that of the secular Baathists?

You prefer women to be oppressed by religion than to enjoy the freedom they had under secular rule?

BTW, which Gawd of yours appointed the United States as his agent on Earth?

[hiabrill]

74. We do nothing about Syria

Because it's none of our bloody business


We keep out of their internal business.... The skirmishes at the Syrian-Iraq border are all our doing...

Why is the US always sucked into Israels agenda for more violence and a greater conflict in the region?

Enough is enough....


The US should only work towards a lasting peace in the ME.

[bluedawg12]

79. Huh?

How did you get that from what I said about dipolomacy?

[Zynx]

77. The problem in Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood is the alternative

Goggle "Hama Massacre" on the tensions between Muslim Brotherhood and the Baathist regime in Syria.

[bluedawg12]

80. Meddling in the middle east has been a problem for us

we never seem to think of what is really happening on the ground and always think that our actions will follow western models of response.

But, as many are pointing out- it's about unintended consequences: we manipulate the fall of a secularist like Saddam or Bshir and we get Islamic fundy wing nuts.

Gettng rid if the Shah of Iran worked out nciley- we got the Ayatollah's. :sarcasm:

[hiabrill]

84. very true

We know absolutely nothing of the true nature of ME countries, except what Israel feeds us.......


During the early days of the Iraq war, the US Admin refused diplomacy of any shape or form. And that's mainly because we do not have the ability to understand them or appreciate their nature, being religion etc etc....... Hence all negotiations will fail.

It's our model alone that matters.

I call it the "You're either with us or against us" ......... syndrome

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Why do "we" have to do ANYTHING?

Whatever Syria has done or not done, it's strictly a regional issue, and let the nations of the region take care of it.

brentspeak, you need to look at the history of American interventions and make a list of the ones that didn't cause more trouble than they were meant to "fix." It will be a very short list.

[MrSlayer]

86. We don't have to do anything to Syria.

Unless there is irrefutable proof that they have done something to us.

[frogmarch]

89. Fundamentalist arrested

in Hariri killing

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/lebanon

I wonder if the guy is a scapegoat, who's being used to calm things down.

[ToolTex]

91. I agree. We are not Lebanon. Get the US out of the Middle East Now.

n/t

[Don1]

90. Support the Troops!

:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

93. Our local Clear Channel radio station sponsored Support the Troops

rallies to whip war fever. Anyone that criticized the upcoming war in Iraq was accused of not supporting the troops. What a sham!

[Telly Savalas]

94. We implement a single payer universal healthcare system for U.S. residents

[leesa]

97. What do you mean...how do WE proceed? We proceed by not

making any more terrorists by not bombing countries and stealing their stuff. It's EASY to stop terrorism, if you want to.

You, however, sound like you want to bomb someone...anyone?

[brentspeak]

104. Read my comments up the thread

before you decide to type knee-jerk responses.

[electron_blue]

98. How is all this sudden talk about Syria in the news related to the fact

that we invaded them on the sly earlier this year?

To me, all this talk about how horrible Syria is (I'm not saying they're not bad, just why is it all of a suddent front page news?) is just butt-covering a day late & dollar short by Bush.

1) invade Syria
2) oh yeah, publicize reasons why Syria is bad
3) build up public support for invasion

All backwards order, of course

[otohara]

100. Invade and Occupy

while Bush is still in office - cuz he's so good at it.

Our own government and CIA is responsible for assinations, coups, etc....what do we do about the USA is on my mind.

[nickshepDEM]

105. Send a 'message' to Damascus.

[rhett o rick]

106. Who says "we" have to do anything. We are not the world police. nt

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

107. Saudi Arabia probably more "terrorist" than Syria

For all its flaws (and there are many), Syria is for example much more open to Christians and other religious minorities than Saudi Arabia, where Christians are hounded and often killed. Also, Syria has a much better record on women's rights than Saudi Arabia. Yet the Saudis are our allies.

What this tells me, is that antipathy toward Syria has about squat to do with its status as a "terrorist nation" and has everything to do with the fact that Syria has thumbed its nose at the Bush Administration (though Syria did "helpfully" torture many al-Qaeda suspects for us). Absolutely no justification for an invasion.

As for the Hariri case-- I remain unconvinced. Detlev Mehlis did a decent job but even he is calling the Syrian government leaders "suspects" at best. And there are many holes in his investigations-- too many damn hearsay comments used as evidence, too many angles left uninvestigated. Frankly, I also have a hard time believing that the Syrian government would just go in and blow up Hariri's van-- too obvious, and it reeks of a set-up.

So as far as what to do about Syria, I would hope that implicated officials would be willing to appear before the court in the Hague if implicated in the assassination. But definitely no invasion. No way. We don't have the troops for it, and Syria wasn't bludgeoned by sanctions for a decade like Iraq. It would make the already spiraling disaster in Iraq appear almost tame by comparison.

[newspeak]

111. yes, Saudi Arabia's

human rights record is a sham!!!! One of our glorious allies---women can't drive, women can't vote, and Sharia law in full force!!!! In Iran, women can drive and vote, but they're the bad guys! It seems this administration casts a blind eye to their allies, as long if their capitalists and go along with their corporate plans.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

108. Addendum: Syria, for the region, much better on women's rights

I often use women's rights as a sort of proxy for the general human-rights penchant of a country, imperfect but one important indication. And here we have an irony-- both Iraq and Syria, the two nations highest on Bush's hit list, actually have had much better policies on women's rights than our "allies."

Both Iraq and Syria have been governed by secular Baathist governments, which-- in opposition to Taliban-like fundamentalists-- have granted women the right to an education, participation in higher office and business, and the ability to pursue advanced careers. In Iraq before the invasion, the vast majority of doctors and scientists were women! Syria isn't quite the same, but still shows that respect for women's rights-- far more than e.g. Saudi Arabia, Libya, Morocco, Jordan and Yemen, which are our nominal allies.

Thus if anything, Syria seems to be a comparatively "benign" dictatorship-- certainly with its own human rights violations and outrages, but probably better overall than its neighbors. This all points to hypocritical reasons for Bush's targeting of Syria. It has little to do with Syria being a "terrorist state" and everything to do with Assad's refusal to kowtow to US policy.

[newspeak]

110. don't you think it is the pot calling the kettle black?

the US government has intervened historically, undermining democratically elected leaders. Take a look at Allende. We helped install Noreiga, then took him down. How many people were killed in Panama, Guatamala? We supported Pinochet, a butcher. We've trained death squads. So, now the US government is worried about Syria. I mean they were so worried about Syria that they sent (rendition) people to be tortured in Syria. PNAC agenda is going according to plan, come hell or highwater!

[newspeak]

112. also, you cannot win a war on terrorism implementing terrorism

terrorists should be tried in a court of law. attacking and killing civilians, torturing people only creates more terrorism.