Syria...Next In Line

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 03:06 PM

On last night's Charlie Rose, the commentator who used to live in and report from Syria, said that Bashar does not have a firm hold on his country's reins, that the military, for instance, has to be handled delicately.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 02:11 PM

Little Hawk-Israel has enough problems with the Palestinians as is. I don't think even Sharon is going to add that many more people he needs to pacify to his troubles, even assuming that the other Arab nations wouldn't immediately attack Israel if such an attack were launched. Israel doesn't want or need land access to Iran or Iraq; Israel's air force can do whatever Israel needs it to do, and direct land access make it that much easier for terrorists to infiltrate Israel.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:23 AM

And THAT will never happen. Israel does not even officially admit to having the nukes that everyone knows they have.

Here is a powerful reason why Israel/USA would like a war with Syria:

Occupation of Syria and Lebanon would be a likely result of such a war. This would be quite an opportunity for Israel to (from their point of view) eliminate bases for attacks by Hezbollah and others, and remove a long-time substantial enemy (Syria), AND....open a direct pathway for Israeli forces to move freely into Iraq and beyond in case of further wars in the region against people like...the Iranians.

Israel presently has no direct access to Iraq or Iran by land. They would after the fall of Syria. An alternate route would be through Jordan.

- LH

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:06 AM

However, they are quite pissed off with Israel's aggression and occupation of Golan.

A description of the Syrian governments current agenda and programs can be found at this site. Most of their goals appear positive and civilized. They would prefer to be neutral relative tot he United States. They want a region-wide non-proliferation treaty against all weapons of mass destruction, and they want Israel to sign up to it.

A

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:42 AM

Syria also appears to have a strong women's movement and constitutional provisions for equality between genders.

A

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:34 AM

I think the game should be named American Hopscotch. You never find the WMDs, just claim they've been moved to another country, then another and another.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:27 AM

(Sorry -- bad link.) You can find a general background at this site.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:25 AM

Syria has oil, yes. And its President was trained, originally, as an opthamologist before he took over from his father as President. His name is Bashar Hassad, and he was selected to be President by 'the nation' (which has a voting turnout of 4 to 6 per cent) in June of 2000 following the death of his father Hafez al-Assad. Historically the country has been opposed to Israel; they support Lebanon and the Hezbollah. Bashar seeks modernization and has a record of fighting against corruption during his father's regime.

The nation's propedr name is Al Jumhuriyah al Arabiyah as Suriyah, or the Syrian Arab Republic. You can find a general background on the country

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 09:29 AM

They don't need to demonize Syria's leader. All they have to do is charge him with having Saddam's WMDs and with harboring terrorists and colluding with Saddam. People in the US would back a war with Syria without even knowing the leader's name if the US government propagandizes the WMD, terrorist, and Saddam angles. It wouldn't take very long to pursuade more than 50% of people in the US using those tactics.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:47 AM

That's right, there will be no war against Syria until Dubya has had a chance to learn the name of the president. This may take some time. He is still exhausted from the effort of learning the name of "the General" in charge of Pakistan after it became a necessity after 9/11. And when Spain wanted to join the gang in the current war, it took a bit of work to get him to remember that their leader is called Aznar, not Anzar as he had been calling him up till then. And he certainly won't attack N Korea until he has ironed out the "nuclear/nucular" problem. So they are pretty safe...

I think there probably will be a war against Syria, if they don't start cowtowing to the US. But it will wait until after the election, so as it doesn't seem to have been done without indecent haste.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Hrothgar
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:26 AM

Syria might have a brutal dictator, an undemocratic political system, weapons of mass destruction, thousands of Iraqi military, and maybe even Sod 'em Hussain and Osama Bed Linen.

But let's get the priorities right. Do they have any OIL?

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 01:43 AM

Nah! Who the hell is the leader of Syria anyway? Would Joe American even recognize his picture? No. In order to get public support for a war, one thing you have to do is demonize the enemy leader. If he wasn't anything else, Saddam was one well-demonized sumbitch. The demonization process for Syria hasn't even begun. It would take at least a year of gradually equating Syria's leader with evil incarnate to make most American's want to kill him. (Yes, I could do some research and find his name, but the fact that I don't know jack-shit about him is part of my point. I'm sure we'll all know him quite well when Mr. Bush is ready for us to know him.)

So, a year to complete the demonization process plus four or five months to work everybody up to a fever pitch puts us where? Right in the middle of the election! (Good guess there, Little Hawk!) And the chances of there still being a substantial U.S. force right next door in Iraq at that time? Pretty good, I'd say.

One thing about it. We'll all probably be able to save a lot of typing time by just cutting and pasting our old Iraq threads and substituting "Syria" for "Iraq" and "Whatever-the-hell-his-name-is" for "Saddam".

Bruce

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:32 AM

More likely the next war will be underway during the campaign. No American public has ever voted a government out of office during a war, and it's the most devastating weapon the Republicans have against the Democrats. They play the "patriotism" card, and the Democrats look unpatriotic for opposing them.

But, hopefully, there will be no such war. We'll see.

What worries me is that great aggressors very commonly say the exact opposite of what they mean to actually do. It's called the Big Lie method (much beloved by the Nazis), and is meant to confuse the opposition.

Like I said, we'll see.

Thanks for the links, Amos.

- LH

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:29 AM

Amos, thanks for that link. I do believe there will be no attack on Syria. And I can't wait to visit New York City so I can see this great bridge I just bought.

By the way, I was flabbergasted to see that the wise-ass kid I used to play bridge with in high school, Doug Feith, was one of the White House's main architects of the war against Iraq. But, thinking back, I'm not surprised.   

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 11:21 PM

I guess they'll be saving Syria for after the elections.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 10:50 PM

However let it be clearly noted that the White House has disavowed any plans to take military action against Syria. And likewise Mister Blair.

See this Guardian UK article which makes it unambiguous.

Let us hope it is also true!


A

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:33 PM

Little Hawk:

The Consittution is already going down. Here's one case of due process being thrown out the window on apparently groundless invasive grabs by the Great Feds...


A

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:27 PM

Do you think they might suddenly discover that Cuba still has a   Russian missile hidden in a tobacco shed from back in the sixties?

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:19 PM

Yep. Just like Germany in '39. Keep a close eye on your Constitution. You may need to defend it with your own hands. Does anyone remember Valley Forge?

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: GUEST,Sad Willy
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:41 PM

Amos and TIA,
You said "If you take out 'Middle Eastern' you have a good description of the US there, as well."

I figure the Bush Administration declared war on the American People quite a while ago. It's a sad state of affairs, these times we be livin in.

Sad Willy

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:33 PM

The difficulty sometimes is sorting out the heavy irony merchants from the total nutcases...

As the saying goes, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:32 PM

"bitch slap" these fanatical bastards (love that term)

Now there's an exquisite irony.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:29 PM

"War had become literally continuous- though, strictly speaking, it had not always been the same war. The war at the moment always represented pure evil." George Orwell 1984

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: GUEST,Kaleb
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:26 PM

"Bitch-Slapping"   What a brilliant foreign policy strategy you've come up with.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:17 PM

hotdog-That's a brilliant idea. Let's invade a bunch of sovereign nations, wasting decades of attempts at achieving peace treaties, and making sure that every last person in them hates us as much as bin Laden does. Then we'll install the country that most of them hate already to run things, because they would never dream of resisting such a government's control. What other countries gather in large groups and yell a lot? Well, WE do.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: GUEST,hotdog
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:34 PM

I propose going from one Middle Eastern country to the next 'til we have whupped them all into line and then installing Israel as overseer to make sure that democracy is enforced. These governments seem to have a real problem with self control so the USA will have to "bitch slap" these fanatical bastards (love that term) and do it for them. Ever notice how these people tend to gather into a large group and jump up and down and yell? What other group of countries does this practice remind you of... Unfortunately, predominant muslim/moslim/islamic countries need to rise a long way to come up to the standards of the free world.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:33 PM

In this morning's news: Bush says Syria has weapons of mass distruction.

When I hear someone tuning up, I naturally think he intends to play.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: TIA
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:30 PM

You're right Amos. Guess the whiff is more of a stench.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:16 PM

TIA:

If you take out "Middle Eastern" you have a good description of the US there, as well.

A

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:09 PM

I'd have thought the right term in this case wopld be "sectarian", rather than "religious" - the diffeence being that "religious" implies having religious beliefs as its guiding principle (for good or ill), whereas "sectarian" means favouring members of one religion over members of other religions.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: TIA
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:04 PM

Excessively cryptic again.
If we are to believe the justifications we've been given for Iraq, Israel leaps into the crosshairs as well.
Of course, I'm not advocating this, just whiffing possible hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:00 PM

TIA -- which country are you talking about?

And what is your point exactly?

A

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: TIA
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 11:56 AM

Next in line?

How about a Middle Eastern country with a repressive and hard-line religious government, a secret service that has performed numerous assasinations worldwide, a known arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and a long history of defying UN resolutions?

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 11:33 AM

From this story in today's Guardina - Bush tells Syria to give up Iraqis:

...on BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend George Bush Sr's secretary of state, Lawrence Eagleburger, said if the president were to order an attack on Syria or Iran, "even I would feel he ought to be impeached".

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 10:59 AM

First Afghanistan, then Iraq, next Syria, then Iran. Then... the rest of the world:

Project for a New American Century

Beyond Regime Change (Sandy Tolan and Jason Felch LA Times December 1, 2002)

The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies

Subject: RE: Syria...Next In Line
From: GUEST,hotdog
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 10:45 AM

Bitch slapping! What a great expression. Syria denies having ANY Iraqis or WMDs in their lands but why are their people slipping into Iraq and becomming combatants if they are being truthful. Do these people think the USA is not serious about what they are doing? My thoughts are that the "coalition" (USA, Brits, Angola, Cameroons, Spain, etc) will not stop at the Syria/Iraq border if they feel justified. God Bless America.

Subject: Syria...Next In Line
From: vietvet'67
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 08:28 AM

While we are at and in the area...Dubya must be thinking, "We orta whup up on Syria and bitch-slap a few of them goat ropers 'cause they are giving the Iraqi baddies a hiding place and just maybe them WMDs have slipped over the border..." Is Syria next? The little Korean toad seems to be having 2nd thoughts about jumping ugly with the USA after the little freak watched CNN and the other news networks. This situation bears watching. Thoughts?