The case for war on Syria and Iran

[Tom Storer]

Might as well get started early.

Is the US likely to invade Syria or Iran, or is this just saber-rattling?

What justification would the US have for invading Syria or Iran? That they help terrorists? Is that justification enough?

Would war on those countries be as relatively fast and easy as war on Iraq has proven to be? Would the level of anger in the rest of the region rise above the point of demonstrating in the streets, which is as far as it got with Iraq? Would other Arab countries band together to defend Syria and Iran militarily?

[Uli]

As our leaders like to rule the world at their whims Rumsy's irritation may be good enough. You can always claim later that it was to free the Syrians:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld raised the possibility that Iraqi leaders are fleeing to Syria. "Senior regime people are moving out of Iraq into Syria, and Syria is continuing to send things into Iraq," he said. "We find it notably unhelpful."

Or pick from "the WMDs are now in Syria" "They support terrists".

Or maybe there will be good reason to further stabilize "the region" or just "let's kick some more Arab ass".

[Chris Castelle]

"Other Arab countries"?

Iran isn't an Arab country...

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by Chris Castelle
"Other Arab countries"?

Iran isn't an Arab country...

I think they've shot their wad on Iraq. Other than from the most priapic members of the Admin, I don't think you'll see much talk about this after a few weeks.

Of course I could be wrong.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by Chris Castelle
"Other Arab countries"?

Iran isn't an Arab country...

Sorry, slight inexactitude on my part. Iran isn't, but the other countries I was thinking of are...

[RBS]

If thems Iranians and Sirrians do bad stuff and start throwins out them weppins of Mass Distrucktion, we should just sic' Tom Storer on 'em! He's a good 'Merican and this is him!

[Jim Dye]

This is the photo that blows my mind. What's next? A Wal-Mart in Baghdad?! Krispy Kreme's in Kirkut? American culture, baby!

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030409/i/1049906279.3959758956.jpg

[Tanager]

I've said it countless times, but any military action towards Iran at this juncture will:

(1) Make a complete lie of the stated goal of propogating democracy in the region (or anywhere else, for that matter)

(2) Show this Administration's utter lack of understanding (willfully, I'd argue) of civic dynamics in the region (or anywhere else, for that matter)

(3) Make the world a lot more dangerous for Americans who aren't holed up in the Fatherland.

Iran has an elected administration, one very much enjoys the widespread support of the citizens. There is (and has been, despite the US's willful ignorance of it) a valid democratic movement, one which is homegrown and not installed by a foreign power. It's also one which has not (unlike that in, say, Algeria) been taken over by religious fundamentalists - if anything, the popular sentiment on Iranian streets is anti-religious authoritarianism. At one time, I thought we had a real chance to establish ties with Khatami's administration and perhaps give it the support it would need to challenge the Mullahs in Qom (the holy city in Iran from which religious authority eminates for the most part). This "war," has, if anything, driven those two sides closer together, and it's given them a unifying force (the well-grounded fear of US imperialism) that they didn't have before. Hell, most Iranians have no real memory of the Shah or the revolution which deposed him, and they don't (or, probably more correctly, didn't) have the pent-up rage towards the US that the average citizen of, say, Egypt and Saudi Arabia feels, since we aren't the foreign supporters of a corrupt and oppressive regime.

I have little confidence that the hawks care enough even to try and understand these dynamics. They're going to do what they're going to do, and long-term realities (outside of their fantasy world) don't matter.

[Chris A]

Originally posted by Tanager
I've said it countless times, but any military action towards Iran at this juncture will:

(1) Make a complete lie of the stated goal of propogating democracy in the region (or anywhere else, for that matter)

(2) Show this Administration's utter lack of understanding (willfully, I'd argue) of civic dynamics in the region (or anywhere else, for that matter)

(3) Make the world a lot more dangerous for Americans who aren't holed up in the Fatherland.



The Bush people have already accomplished all three, Tanager.

[Brian Olewnick]

I don't think there's any possibility at all of similar action toward Iran. As I've said before, its demographics lead people to think that it will, on its own, trend toward a more democratic government in coming years.

Syria, otoh, dunno.

[Troy D]

There's little doubt that if this administration sees fit to do so, it will come up with some dubious justification for invading whichever country it wants. That's the one thing that worries me about the relative ease of victory in Iraq--that it's just going to encourage them to keep doing this.

We'll see though, about the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" that have yet to turn up. If those don't materialize, I would think the resulting embarassment for the administration would provide an ounce or two of humility that might keep things in check. Maybe.

[Chris A]

The Bush posse may just have started a liberation spree!

Aim: replace those "towels" with baseball caps.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
I don't think there's any possibility at all of similar action toward Iran. As I've said before, its demographics lead people to think that it will, on its own, trend toward a more democratic government in coming years.

I am with Troy - I don't think the Bushites care about these realities. They are after an end, and I think they can and will concoct whatever justification they think will hold water in the eyes of Joe Sixpack. And they're willing to live with the opposition, b/c, as it's ideological, they don't care if people disagree.

Originally posted by Troy D
We'll see though, about the alleged "weapons of mass destruction" that have yet to turn up. If those don't materialize, I would think the resulting embarassment for the administration would provide an ounce or two of humility that might keep things in check. Maybe.

I don't think they care. Again, they'll talk about the liberation and all, as if that had been their real goal all along. They'll claim that finding WOMD was always a secondary goal. I don't think they'll be embarrassed in the least, b/c saying "Iraq has WOMD" was a ploy to begin with, regardless of realities on the ground. Maybe Iraq had WOMD, maybe it didn't - they didn't care, they were going to say whatever got them traction/bought them time.

All IMHO, of course.

[Al in NYC]

I agree with Tanager almost 100%. Going after Iran would be a terrible mistake on many levels. It would compound the mistakes we've already made in undermining the country's nascent democracy, and it would certainly be more difficult militarily than Iraq has been.

However, going into Iran, or at least trying to bring down the regime there by whatever means, has been a stated goal of the defense policy clique within the administration from the beginning. They see Iran as 1) a spreader of the Islamist "germ", and therefore 2) as a supporter of Islamist terrorism. Also, 3) they see Iran as a good venue for reestablishing "prestige" of (and the fear of) American power, by avenging our public humiliation at Iranian hands in the hostage crisis.

But I think it's a bit more likely that, if they go after anyone, they'll go after Syria next. First of all, the Syrians may have taken in Saddam and his people; secondly, Assad is provably pretty much as bad a dude as Hussein; thirdly, Syria is provably a supporter of terrorism against Israel. Defeat of Syria would remove support from the radical Palestinian movements, as well as doing in Israel's most intractable enemy. If stability in the Middle East, and security for Israel (which is what the term "stability in the Middle East" really means from this crowd) is what you want, then Assad is THE guy to take down.

While a war against Syria would be difficult militarily, it wouldn't be as bad as a war in Iran, especially if we could get Turkey to take the bribe this time and allow us to go in from there.

We'll see what will happen, and I sure hope that Clay is right, but I think this gang is just itching for another fight.

[RBS]

I think this bunch of clowns is starting to lay down the foundation for going into Syria. And yeah, they do seem like they're itching for another fight. I mean, this one only lasted what, 3 weeks?

We are one big bully, boy, one big mfin' bully.

[clinthopson]

Shrub's chicken hawk administration needs to keep the war thing going. As long as they can distract the yahoo public from how much they're are fucking up the environment, putting the country in a fiscal hole, destroying international relations and asaulting the Bill of Rights, they'll pick fights with Arabs.

Why Arabs? Well, there's no politically correct way to say it, but the fact is that when the Arabs are faced with a fight their armies throw down their arms and run the other way. Witness the 6 Day War, Desert Storm and Operation Free Iraqi Oil if you will.

Sure, there are a few fanatics who will keep fighting, but, in the main, those guys want to strut not fight.

Now Korea, OTOH, is a different story. They held their own in the "Police Action" and will probably do the same.

Shrubcheneyrumsford know that they will enter into a quagmire like Viet Nam and their smoke and mirrors will fail them.

[jesus marion joseph]

Hey, Chris, with your rhetoric, you'd be a shoo-in for the recently vacated post of Minister of Information for the Hussein regime. Think of the face time!

[Chris A]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
Hey, Chris, with your rhetoric, you'd be a shoo-in for the recently vacated post of Minister of Information for the Hussein regime. Think of the face time!

Has it come to this, JMJ? Could you not have posted an original thought?

As for my "rhetoric," I'm afraid some of it is coming true today--check the news: more marines killed, a Shite leader assissinated, more resistance...Bush and his despicable gang have created a nightmare that may just have begun. Never mind what they have done to our economy and morale at home. These are incompetent, ruthless people, JMJ. You can label that "rhetoric," but I would rather see you disprove it.

[Gary Sisco]

I think it's time to make a case for war on warmongers and be done with them once and for all, safely in the grave (which would have to be a mass grave, by necessity).

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by clinthopson
Why Arabs? Well, there's no politically correct way to say it, but the fact is that when the Arabs are faced with a fight their armies throw down their arms and run the other way. Witness the 6 Day War, Desert Storm and Operation Free Iraqi Oil if you will.

Or the Iraq/Iran war. If there hadn't been a ceasefire after eight years and a couple of million dead, it's a sure thing Iraq would have chickened out any time. That's how scared they are of a fight!

[Angie]

It is becoming obvious that the US administration is implementing that 'American Century Doctrine' authored by Paul Wolfowitz and others. This policy has not been debated in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.

Britain and the US never got over the fact that Arabs nationalized their oil resources, way back in the day.

The rest of the world is seeing that this action is white vs non-white, Christianity vs Islam, a super-power vs a small, weak country. The US did invade Iraq. There are no weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix and his UN crew of inspectors reported that none could be found. The US 'diplomacy at the UN' was a charade and the time was used to move the military into position.

The US wants to control everything, from hand-picking a 'suitable' interim leader in Iraq, while a US version of 'democracy' (capitalism) is imposed, to distributing humanitarian aid, to deciding that contracts for reconstruction will only be let, primarily, to US companies and by-passing an interntional war crimes court, to dispose of POW's as Dubbya and his gang of thugs sees fit. All this, to control access to the oil fields in the Middle East.

These actions certainly will invite more terrorist activities, around the world!

All this is being done, in your name. Certainly, none of you had any input with the American Century Doctrine.

You are going to be picking up the tab for this war.

It is not necessary to wait for the next election to get rid of Dubbya. Republicans worked very hard to get rid of Clinton. They impeached the President for lying about having sex with a subordinate.

Why not impeach Dubbya?

Surely to goodness, starting a war, half-way across the world, is a much bigger deal!.

Yes, Saddam was a terrible Dictator. George Bush is starting to look like a dictator. Not only is he insensitive, he is also ignorant and so are the rest of these bandits. They may bankrupt the country!!!!

I worry for the ordinary American.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Chris A
Has it come to this, JMJ? Could you not have posted an original thought?

Did you already receive a solicitation for this post?


[/B][/QUOTE]As for my "rhetoric," I'm afraid some of it is coming true today--check the news: more marines killed, a Shite leader assissinated, more resistance...Bush and his despicable gang have created a nightmare that may just have begun. Never mind what they have done to our economy and morale at home. These are incompetent, ruthless people, JMJ. You can label that "rhetoric," but I would rather see you disprove it. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you care to leave your apartment you might find that morale at home is just fine, thank you. As for incompetence, I don't know which military campaign you were watching-oh-sorry, I didn't realize you were auditioning.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
[B]If you care to leave your apartment you might find that morale at home is just fine, thank you./B]

You obviously don't live in the same home I do.

[walto]

As Al said, Assad (another one of our former "allies") is just about as big a pig as Hussein--having killed pretty much everyone in a town of about 50,000 once, as I recall. And, he's definitely a "destabilizer" if that means "not an Israel supporter". He's got nasty weapons, no doubt, too.

But there's no huge supply of oil in Syria that we could get our hands on. That would seem to be a big downside.

We still haven't heard from Monte on this though, have we? I guess he's just out celebrating the freedom of his new favorites: the long-suffering Muslims of Iraq!

[patricia]

There is no doubt that the threat of being able to bomb another country into a parking lot is a powerful weapon.
What bothers me is, if Iraq has all these WOMD, which presumably was the reason for attacking them, where are they?
It seems to me that the only weapons used were conventional ones. Surely, given the speedy vanquishing of the Iraqis, there must be some suspician that they didn't have any WOMD and so, were never the threat that they were painted.
Given that, what was the reason for this? If it was humanitarian concern for the people, why is the administration, in their apparant compassion for the downtrodden, not concerned with similar human rights violations in other countries? For example, the Congo, where over three million people have been slaughtered in a civil war which has been going on for over four years could surely use some help. Of course, Africa has no oil. Just lots of terrorized and dead people.
Humanitarian concerns mean different things to different people, I guess.

[Chris A]

Good points, Patricia. There is also the curious fact that, for all the threat Iraq allegedly posed to the U.S. (our one-time raison d'etre for invading them), not only did the so-called "coalition ("team" is more apt) not find any WMDs--falsified "intelligence" notwithstanding--ther Iraqis seemed to have little more to fight with than one might find in a Colorado militia camp. This whole thing has been a cleverly orchestrated, insanely expensive scam perpetrated by a court-appointed regime on the tax-paying public. It is an utter disgrace the blame for which must also be borne by the politicians (on both sides) who betrayed their constituents and abetted Bush and his gang.

Impeachment? You bet, and this time it is not only valid, it is absolutely necessary if we are to survive what these thugs have done. If nothing else, I hope this whole sordid episode has taught my fellow American voters to do their homework before casting that ballot. Above all else, we must tear up existing election and campaign financing procedures, and start from scratch.

Yes, there was a small stain on that blue dress, and it was embarassing, but Bush and his fellow criminals (and that's really what they are) have stained our country indelibly, alienated our friends, and made us the global scourge we have become.

[Tom Storer]

Let us not assume that because no womdies (my cute new word to replace WOMDs) have been found yet, none will be found.

As I said somewhere around here recently, I won't take the US's word for anything they claim to find, not without independent verification. But it remains possible that a womdie or two will be found, and that there will be independent verification. In fact it would not be all that surprising, depending on your definition of womdie.

My personal feeling is that womdies in Iraq was not a sufficient reason to invade, so even if they find some, it won't change my mind. However, some of you are rather hastily piling your eggs in one basket, saying, in effect, "Because no womdies are found, the war was unjustified," which implies "If womdies are found, the war was justified." They have a lot of places left to look and all the time they need. They could find some yet, and then you'll have to backpedal! Don't paint yourself in a corner, my fellow peacenik nincompoops.

P.S.: Webster's gives a first known usage of 1676 for the word "nincompoop," but, alas, "Etymology: origin unknown."

[patricia]

Originally posted by Tom Storer

My personal feeling is that womdies in Iraq was not a sufficient reason to invade, so even if they find some, it won't change my mind. However, some of you are rather hastily piling your eggs in one basket, saying, in effect, "Because no womdies are found, the war was unjustified," which implies "If womdies are found, the war was justified." They have a lot of places left to look and all the time they need. They could find some yet, and then you'll have to backpedal! Don't paint yourself in a corner, my fellow peacenik nincompoops.

P.S.: Webster's gives a first known usage of 1676 for the word "nincompoop," but, alas, "Etymology: origin unknown." [/B]

Good point, Tom.
I think though that if you take away the fear of womdies and the humanitarianism we're left with imperialism and just plain bullyism. It may be that the impression will be that the invasion was taken on, simply because it could be, particularly after the Sept 11 attacks, when any opposition seems to have been interpreted as unpatriotic.
"Peacenik nincompoop". I like it. ;)

[Ron Thorne]

If Iraq possessed mass quantities of WOMD, and as pointed out nearly daily before the war began, would likely use them on coalition forces. What happened?

I was pretty certain that if they had the amount and types of weapons the Bush administration claimed, that Saddam would unleash a torrent when backed into a corner. I'm glad I was wrong. What happened?

It seemed reasonably clear that there was command & control for the Republican Guard forces until just a few days ago. It wouldn't have been totally preposterous to have thought that some Gung-Ho Iraqi troops might employ WOMD even without Saddam's order, though.

Here's the spin from Ari Fleischer and others when questioned as to why our forces haven't uncovered these huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons ... "they've moved them". "They're experts at moving and hiding things". He has a point, but, damn ... you'd think we would have stumbled onto some major cache by now. Next, we'll hear that all of the WOMD from Saddam's regime have been smuggled into Syria.

I'm not suggesting that no WOMD will be found. Hell, we could create some if necessary to validate this invasion. Let's bring the UN inspectors back under armed guard and see what they find.

In the meantime, with a complete power vacuum in effect, and looting and mayhem apparent, we damned well better put the humanitarian effort into high gear or face an even more protracted, ugly scene, and soon.

[clinthopson]

I reiterate: WHEN they do not find vast stockpiles of womdies (I like that), Shrub should be impeached and Shrub, Cheney and Rumsfield should be tried as war criminals.

[patricia]

Originally posted by clinthopson
I reiterate: WHEN they do not find vast stockpiles of womdies (I like that), Shrub should be impeached and Shrub, Cheney and Rumsfield should be tried as war criminals.

That probably won't happen, though God knows that being perceived by the world as international bullies is more of a threat to national security than having an overactive libido would ever be. But, lying about sex is more important than visiting death and destruction on another country is, apparantly. We're in an upside-down world.
Being the biggest dog in the neighbourhood has it's price.

[JamesH]

Clint, I agree, the impeachment of Bush, Rumsfied, Powell, etc should begin immediately.

Unfortunately unless the President's getting a blow job, or a black running back is accused of killing his blonde wife, the American news media has no need for critical details.

In a few weeks, more people will have remebered O.J.'s glove size than the original premise for the war.

We've all been lied to and the American "patriots" who believed the lie will continue to do so.

[Steve Reynolds]

I am sure that when and if they do find the WMD's that none of you lefties will ever admit you were wrong


especially you, Clint


have you read the papers yet today?


looks like it might be what all of you hope we DON'T find


maybe even more - a weapons facility that the inspectors had visited - but of course did NOT know about the underground facility - and would have NEVER known about it if the inspections continuing was the chosen option.

anyone hear what might be there?

or are all your heads still literally buried in the sand?


and that is the saddest aspect of this whole discussion

[Uli]

Originally posted by Steve Reynolds
I am sure that when and if they do find the WMD's that none of you lefties will ever admit you were wrong


especially you, Clint


have you read the papers yet today?


looks like it might be what all of you hope we DON'T find


maybe even more - a weapons facility that the inspectors had visited - but of course did NOT know about the underground facility - and would have NEVER known about it if the inspections continuing was the chosen option.

anyone hear what might be there?

or are all your heads still literally buried in the sand?


and that is the saddest aspect of this whole discussion

Did not read it, Steven. Did they find more fertilizer?

And for "some of us lefties" it was never an issue whether they have any or not, the issue was that they don't pose a threat to us. Didn't they prove that by not using them if they had them?

Will any of you rednecks ever admit to be wrong?

Now, to not let myself be painted in a corner. If they use em now in a terrist attack or something, it's exactly because we have attacked them preemptively..

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Steve Reynolds
I am sure that when and if they do find the WMD's that none of you lefties will ever admit you were wrong

I don't think the presence of WOMDs justified this invasion, and I don't think it was ever the real reason for it. And surely, Reynolds, you are intelligent and perceptive enough to find a better critique of antiwar positions than to label those who oppose this invasion lefties with their heads in the sand.

Do you *really* think that that presence of WOMDs in an amount small enough to escape detection for this long was a valid pretext?

And do you *really* think that was the real reason (since even the CIA was never that certain that Iraq still had WOMDs, a point they made abundantly clear to the administration, but a point not passed on to us common schmucks) for the invasion?

Don't blink, Steve, or the sand will get in your eyes.

[Steve Reynolds]

well if they do find them, then you can answer the question why they didn't use them

and I wasn't one of the gung ho war types if you might remember - the point is that NONE of the Bush haters here even admot they are wrong about anything - they predict qagmires, massive casualties, they are now denying that maybe some or maybe even most of the Iraqi people are actually glad that we are there - and that certainly seems like that might be the case - and I will say that I am a bit surprised - but it GALLS all of you to know that the despised people like Wolfowicz might actually be right about a thing or two.

certainly more right about things than dopes like RW Apple.




and to pick up on what someone else said, I'm sure Aaron Brown might be perked up about the suicide bombing of today - but he will be back depressed tomorrow when he realizes that it went much better for our side than he hoped for in his heart of hearts.

[Chris A]

Originally posted by Steve Reynolds
...but it GALLS all of you to know that the despised people like Wolfowicz might actually be right about a thing or two.

It does not "GALL" me, Steve, because I have never found reason to consider the possibility. I daresay that anyone with just a modicum of perception can see right through Wolfowicz's game.

So. it cannot gall one to "know" something one doesn't know--see what I mean? :)

[Uli]

Steven, how many pictures of unhappy Iraquis did Powell show in his UN presentation to justify the war?

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Steve Reynolds
well if they do find them, then you can answer the question why they didn't use them

It's still an "if." A BIG if. C'mon, Steve, do you really think this was ever a valid justification, given the uncertainty of the intelligence, for invading?

the point is that NONE of the Bush haters here even admot they are wrong about anything - they predict Quagmires, massive casualties, they are now denying that maybe some or maybe even most of the Iraqi people are actually glad that we are there - and that certainly seems that that might be the case - and I will say that I am a bit surprised - but it GALLS all of you to know that the despised people like Wolfowicz might actually be right about a thing or two.

1) "None?" Really?

2) Great, the Iraqis are happy. I'm honestly glad for them. But our success is yet to be judged - Iraq has a massive power vacuum, mammoth ethnic and tribal divisions, all of which were suppressed for years. I'll be a lot happier if there's a real internally-elected government with real authority and popular support in a few years.

3) About what, precisely, has Wolfowitz been right or wrong? He and his colleagues haven't achieved their stated aim (inducing Middle-Eastern stablity through forceful intervention and promotion of "Western-style democracy") yet, so I think it's too early to judge the success or failure. If you think it'll work, great. I don't think it will, not even a little bit. Until we see where things stand in, oh, about five years, we're both arguing about opinions, not any real desired result, other than a military victory, and one that is clearly not complete yet (before you say, "where's the quagmire", let's see Tikrit fall and an end to suicide bombers at military checkpoints - Tikrit hasn't fallen, and Marines were killed just today at a checkpoint in Baghdad).

[Al in NYC]

I agree with Tom that WMD were not justification enough for starting this war. If they were, then we would have invaded Iraq years ago, before the UN weapons inspectors got to them the first time around, as we knew back then that Saddam had certain weapons we had sold/given him, and that he was trying to get even bigger and better ones. It would also be justification for us to fight wars with several other countries around the world that we seem to have no particular interest in fighting.

In fact, Saddam's quest for WMD was seemingly not a big problem until he invaded Kuwait. And after their defeat the weapons inspectors found and destroyed much of the capacity that Iraq had. Since Iraq has been embargoed from that time, and had no capital to speak of, it's hard to see how they could have built much more in terms of WMD since then. But, suddenly, WMD and Saddam were a big problem again under Bush II.

Why? Because it was part of the scenario to put the "plan" of the Defense Policy IR types into action. The real agenda being an American-dominated Middle East, and proof to the world that the US will indeed use its military power (and that Americans themselves won't object enough to make a difference).

In my view, the only conceivable justification for going into this war. a la Nat Hentoff, would have been to stop the horrors of Saddam's regime. However, if that were to be reason enough for this war then we should have done it long long ago (and we should also be going after any number of similar, or worse, regimes, some of whom remain our "allies"), which would've saved thousands of lives. But, of course, back then Saddam was our boy. And since our present administration has shown such complete contempt for freedom and democracy at home, I see no reason why anyone would think that they've gone to war abroad out of any pure democratic spirit.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Chris A
This whole thing has been a cleverly orchestrated, insanely expensive scam perpetrated by a court-appointed regime on the tax-paying public. It is an utter disgrace the blame for which must also be borne by the politicians (on both sides) who betrayed their constituents and abetted Bush and his gang.


That's good stuff, Chris! I knew you were a natural!

[jesus marion joseph]

BTW, Hans Blix is the guest speaker tomorrow night at my alma mater's Law Day dinner in Boston. Had I known sooner (notices went out late this year), I might actually have bought a ticket to hear what he has to say about Iraq. As it is, I'll probably have to wait until the alumni newsletter arrives.

[john williams]

Originally posted by Steve Reynolds
I am sure that when and if they do find the WMD's that none of you lefties will ever admit you were wrong


I thought we had evolved on this board to the point where we realised that taking the lefty vs. righty line was far too simplistic.

Oh and yeah the unmiliterized/weaponized fertiliser found so far represents the greatest threat to humanity in history - ha ha. I am just shaking in my boots at the the thought of of an Iraqi storming over the hill to kill some weeds or make my garden grow. Actually, I am more worried about being hit by American "friendly fire" and I am in Australia.


Isn't Evan Parker a lefty? Some sort of Anarcho-Syndicalist I believe.http://mheffley.web.wesleyan.edu/newints/evan.htm

[Steve Reynolds]

most of my best friends are liberals

doesn't mean they ain't liverals - doesn't mean I don't love them

I love my pal Sisco-:)


listening to that idiot Kofi Anan today proves again how clueless the UN is - why not label people what they are?

[Angie]

For the record, Syria is an Arab country. The official language is Arabic, but English and French are also used. Do a search for Syria on your browser. Iran is also an Arab country.

But, it seems that this thread is no longer about making a case for war in Syria and Iran. Check the American Century Doctrine, by Paul Wolfowitz and you will find that information there.

Everybody is still hung up on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or womdies, as Tom put it. There are no womdies. The Bushies knew that before they went to war, and Hans Blix confirmed it for them, but they will never admit to that. It would shoot some holes into the administration's justification for invading Iraq. The Iraqis were still using vintage Russian military equipment from what I saw.

Just in case you didn't hear, Middle Eastern countries plan to replace the US dollar completely, with the Euro! Much of their trade is with European countries. This action would de-stabilize the US dollar and the stock market.

[Dr Dave]

Credit where credit is due: The Iraqis were a walkover, if not the advertised walkover. Donald Rumsfeld, as much as I despise his smirking self, was right about what it would take to achieve military victory. Now let's see what it will take to achieve law and order, and then something that resembles democracy. I'm not dismayed by the early looting stories--that's what happens during an interregnum between governments. If these stories continue past about three weeks, there will be trouble. If U.S. troops stay in force much more than 3 months, that will be a problem, too. I can't believe that the Bush Administration will decide that as long as Our Boys are Over There they might as well depose Assad the younger as well. But then they've done many things I couldn't believe.

PS: It was Hafez Assad, the old man, who destroyed Hamas. Hamas was the scene of radical Muslim activity; Assad showed who was boss by literally flattening a town of 25-30,000 people and turning it into a parking lot, and then inviting his fellow citizens to visit and see what happened to people who dissed him. Tom Friedman has a story called "Hamas Rules" that describes the incident and its political repercussions.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Angie
But, it seems that this thread is no longer about making a case for war in Syria. Everybody is still hung up on weapons of mass destruction, or womdies, as Tom put it.

Angie, the two are not distinct subjects. WOMDs are part of the overall picture - they're not the entire picture, but given that they were claimed as one of the principal reasons for invading Iraq, it's germane to raise their discovery or lack thereof when discussing the credibility of any reasons the administration might yet cite for invading Syria, should they announce intentions to do so.

Again, I don't think that invading Iraq was ever truly about getting rid of a supply of WOMDs. I would imagine part of the reason for toppling Hussein first (I am less optimistic than Dave about our not moving forward with further actions, but I sure hope I'm wrong) is that he was seen as the least sympathetic figure among Middle Eastern leaders (let's just skip the whole Arab vs. non-Arab discussion, since the only place anything resembling pan-Arab unity exists is in wonky discussions, there damned sure isn't any such thing in the real world) and the least likely to invoke public sympathy among non-Iraqis.

I think Iraq was just the best and easiest target, the first step in something bigger. Others are, as always, free to disagree, and I admit this is my opinion, nothing more.

[Pete C]

Originally posted by Angie
Iran is also an Arab country.


Wrong. Iranians (Persians) are not Arabs, and they speak Farsi, not Arabic. It is a predominantly Muslim country. Most of the world's Muslims are not Arabs.

[Captain Hate]

Originally posted by Angie
Just in case you didn't hear, Middle Eastern countries plan to replace the US dollar completely, with the Euro! Much of their trade is with European countries. This action would de-stabilize the US dollar and the stock market.
Wrong here, too. This has nothing to do with the stability of the dollar; as I stated on another thread, stability of a currency is almost solely related to how volatile its value is. In other words how bad inflation is which, in the case of the US economy, is very low. Dollars are instantly converted into Euros and transactions occur. No big deal.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Pete C
Wrong. Iranians (Persians) are not Arabs, and they speak Farsi, not Arabic. It is a predominantly Muslim country. Most of the world's Muslims are not Arabs.

Similarly, you don't have to be Muslim to be an Arab.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Steve Reynolds
- why not label people what they are?

This is one of the rare moments where I agree with Steven:

Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi, Moron, Bushi Moron, Bushi, Moron!

[Tanager]

[edit] self-deleted

[walto]

In response to my buddy Stevie Rey (and in spite of not thinking of myself as a "Bush hater") I want to mention a couple of things I seem to have been wrong about with respect to this invasion (which I continue to oppose).

1. I thought we'd find significantly more WMD than we have so far.

2. I thought Hussein would order the use of chemical weapons in defense of Baghdad.

3. I thought Iraq might try to lob a couple more scuds at Israel in an attempt to fire up other Arab countries in support of Palestinians.

So, while I never figured the "vaunted, elite" Republican Guard would be much more of a foe than a highschool marching band, and I wasn't ever expecting a long war, I did think this would be a bit messier than it was. I guess I was more taken in by US propaganda than I thought. Fooled me again.

Oh, I forgot 4. I never thought I'd live to see the day when Monte Smith admitted that his true concern all along was for the future welfare (and smiling faces) of an Arabic Muslim people. I had thought his concern was solely about the prudence of letting this allegedly extremely dangerous and completely uncultured people live and by their very existence threaten our superior Western ways.

I was wrong. Live and learn.

OK, now it's your turn, Steve.

[GoodSpeak]

Bomb 'em all...America is the leader, PAL. And if you don't LIKE it, we'll come flatten your nose!

[GoodSpeak]

Good Ol' BOYZ...UNITE!!!

[Tanager]

Uli, I was going to disagree with you, but then Goody showed up.

[Chris A]

Originally posted by walto 1. I thought we'd find significantly more WMD than we have so far.

If we have found any WMDs, this is the first I hear about it. You are not talking about that fertilizer, are you?

Uli, well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said well said,,, and so it goes

[Monte Smith]

Walto, in regard to your important fourth point:

I said all along that Iraq was a target of opportunity, a beachhead in the larger battle which is against Islamic fundamentalist terror. After Afghanistan, Iraq was the best target to hit because of the possibility of existing WMD, the certainty that Saddam was pursuing WMD, and because Saddam was an utterly inhuman tyrant and a supporter of terrorism. My number one concern in regard to my opinions on this board has always been the security of the USA. The fact that this first priority dovetails with a subsequent one--liberating the people of Iraq--is absolutely swell, but it is not a condition of my support for the President's actions. Having said that, I have not been so encouraged by world events since 1989--that last great period of walls falling down.

[Tom Storer]

Personally, I don't see Islamic fundamentalist terror as a threat to the United States that comes anywhere near the magnitude I would consider reasonable to justify invading and conquering other countries. It is not, in fact, a very large threat to the United States at all. 9/11 was a lucky shot (lucky from the point of view of Al Qaeda, of course). It's not like American citizens, at home or abroad, run a great risk of perishing in terrorist operations. It is extremely rare. Americans are among the very safest people in the world (if you discount domestic handgun violence).

And since terrorism is, the vast majority of the time, a question of small attacks killing a few people at a time, carried out with minimum resources, I really don't think invading the Middle East and enraging billions of people is going to put any kind of a stop to it. Au contraire, Pierre.

[walto]

Tom, I think Pierre's...oops, I mean Monte's... thinking on this is that once these current "Islamo-fascist" types get a real taste of how America is a city on hill and bettern them in every way and everything, we won't have to attack anybody AND they won't terrorize us. First, they'll try to immigrate here. But after INS turns them away because they're, you know, foreign, they'll turn their own places into McIrans--complete with democracy, Limbaugh, jails as full as our own, low oil prices, and more comfortable beds.

BTW, I hear there are now a lot of X-tian missionaries running around Iraq with bottles of water in one hand and Bibles in the other. Now that's progress. In the end, the Iraqis' main problem was they went with the wrong God. Now they're charitably given a golden opportunity to make amends, so that they might win their next war ferkrisakes. Heaven knows they need some help from SOMEWHERE!

[Steve Reynolds]

I thought:

1) There would be much louder and longer and stronger anger from the Arab street

2) There would be casualties on the American/British side of possibly 1000 or more

3) There would be tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casulaties

4) Iraq would use WMD's when we tightened the noose

more later

[Chris A]

Originally posted by Steve Reynolds
I thought:

1) There would be much louder and longer and stronger anger from the Arab street

2) There would be casualties on the American/British side of possibly 1000 or more

3) There would be tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casulaties

4) Iraq would use WMD's when we tightened the noose

more later

I think:

1) It will be so

2) Current count may rise beyond current expectations, hopefully not.

3) Perhaps not ten of thousands, but a very high number--in terms of lives wrecked, possibly tens of thousands.

4) One cannot use what one does not have--so far, we see only why Powell and Blair had to falsify in order to justify.

[patricia]

IF this is as "successful" a war, in terms of a relatively easy victory, I can't help thinking that it could be compared to shooting a mouse with an elephant gun.
If this regime was so well-armed, with terrible weapons of mass destruction, where were they, or where are they?
Iraq knew that it was going to be attacked by the U.S. Surely if there was ever a time to use their most terrible weapons, they were accused of having, this would have been it.
So, why were they defending with old, Russian conventional weapons?
Of course Saddam Hussein and his thugs needed to be gone, but this was way too easy, with resistance being almost non-existant.
The question remains. Why was the U.S. so afraid of this country? A proven imminent threat is one thing, but this is not looking like a country which was in possession of weaponry which was a threat to our peace and security.

[Tom Storer]

Not having been in the Arab street recently myself, I have no idea how angry it is about all this. Perhaps its anger is strong and will be long but is simply not "loud." Remember that anti-war demonstrations in the region were violently repressed, with even some loss of life.

[Slurpy]

My personal feeling is that womdies in Iraq was not a sufficient reason to invade, so even if they find some, it won't change my mind. However, some of you are rather hastily piling your eggs in one basket, saying, in effect, "Because no womdies are found, the war was unjustified," which implies "If womdies are found, the war was justified." They have a lot of places left to look and all the time they need. They could find some yet, and then you'll have to backpedal! Don't paint yourself in a corner, my fellow peacenik nincompoops.

Again, WOMD *will* be found whether they are there or not. Shrub and his henchmen aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, but when they finally hear the ground-swell re: this issue, a few CIA operatives will be plant..er, finding some WOMD soon after. We now have almost total control over most of Iraq. The WOMD's will arrive soon. Mark my words.

[RBS]

I heard they found some bug repellent buried in a schoolyard.
Does that count?

[Chris A]

Originally posted by RBS
I heard they found some bug repellent buried in a schoolyard.
Does that count?

That and the weed whackers ought to do it--just the thought of them eye-rackies coming at us en masse with them things is enough to give me the shakes.

Damn, its a good thing we saved the world from this threat!

[patricia]

The bug-repellent thing got a lot of air-time, as did the stomping by soldiers of cannisters of we don't know what.
This prompted comments here that if the contents were indeed WOMD, in the form of chemical, or biological material, that wasn't the smartest way to examine them.
The weed-whacker, or worse a Garden Weazil attack could be shocking and awesome.

[Angie]

The Administration was not afraid of Iraq, Patricia. They wanted to control it. Why? Oil. Money. The whole womdies thing was the smokescreen that the adminstration used to justify the invasion. Now they will occupy the country, to set things up the way the US wants things to be.

Slamming Saddam in the media was to shift the focus away from US plans to take over the whole area. There are corrupt dictators in many countries, but the US is not going after them to 'liberate' the people and do a makeover regime change. Why not? They have no oil!

As I see it, the US is alienating friends and as time goes by, they will have isolated themselves from the rest of the world so badly, that they will have no friends. It seems that this administration does not care about having friends. They want to be feared.

[Chris A]

Originally posted by Angie

It seems that this administration does not care about having friends. They want to be feared.

Keep this up and the only thing they have to fear is the voters,

[patricia]

Despite all the "photo-ops" of politicians, constantly shaking hands and having dinner together, visiting "the ranch" etc., none of these people are ever friends. They are business associates at best, even in good times. They all have their eyes on the power prize.
Even though Putin scored a nickname,[Pootie Poot], he seems to have fallen out of favour. Our own Prime Minister, after an embarrassing silence, was described as a "brother", after our guys were bombed in Afghanistan and killed and injured, in an almost ignored, friendly fire incident. Due to criticism from here, there was a court-marshal hearing, which placed no blame. Now, because Chretien didn't support this war, without U.N. approval, we seem to be in the doghouse.
In the House of Commons, the Opposition is very pissed about our not having sent some of our guys into this war, but I think for economic reasons, rather than because they believed the reasons for invasion. Our guys are already in Afghanistan and various other places and we're spread pretty thin, even if we were going to send troops to Iraq. It would have been hypocritical to send troops to simply be at the bargaining table at spoil-dividing time.
I don't think we'll be thought of as a spoke in the "axis", but if you invade us, it'll be a couple of days duration and only small crowd control needed. Don't bomb or tank us. We give up.
I don't think that the other "axis" countries will be quite as easy [hundreds of dead citizens and destroyed property notwithstanding], to invade as we would be, but even an "easy" war is expensive. All those billions could have been spent to allay the problems in the American economy, I would think.
If the administration hopes that the wealth from the Iraqi oil fields will pay for the war, Iraq is already over their eyebrows in debt.

By the way, the photos the U.S. is seeing on their networks are wonderful still-lifes of people happy, happy. The world press is showing the opposite, although they are glad Saddam Hussein is gone. Rumsfeld said that they are showing the same pictures, over and over. Well, not really. Chaos reigns and the looting continues. After Rumsfeld said that, I paid closer attention. These chaos reports are different and ongoing, live.

Very disturbing news of the museums, in the "cradle of civilization' being looted.
Those who were shocked by the Taliban destroying the giant Buddas in Afghanistan seem oddly unconcerned about this equally shocking desecration of priceless artifacts, indeed, history.
Oh well, "the same vase, over and over". I guess Mr Rumsfeld is not a student of antiquities.
Who's right? Judge for yourselves.

[Monte Smith]

Hmm. The Iranian clerical regime is looking to buddy up to us. Who woulda thought that would happen?




IRAN PROPOSED REFERENDUM TO NORMALISE TIES WITH WASHINGTON
Iran Press Service ^ | 4.12.2003 | Safa Haeri
(http://www.iran-press-service.com)



PARIS 12 Apr. (IPS) Iranian ruling ayatollahs, seriously concerned at the perspective of being the next on the America’s list of rogue regimes to be removed from power, paved Saturday the way for normalising relations with the United States, suggesting to organise a national referendum on the subject.

The proposal was made by Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in an interview with "Rahbord" (Strategy) periodical, saying the problem of Iran's thorny relations with both the US and Egypt could be resolved through a referendum or by referring it to the Assembly for Discerning the Interests of the State (ADIS, or Expediency Council).

As some political analysts interpreted the suggestion as a "turning point" in the 24 years-old life of the Islamic Republic or describing it "a great leap forward", other cautioned against "over simplification" and said it is a "new cup of poison" the clerical leaders are drinking in order to save the regime, referring to the dramatic decision taken by the leader of the Islamic Revolution in 1989, accepting a United Nations resolution proclaiming cease-fire in the war with Iraq.

"Now that the ruling ayatollahs have realised the danger that looms over their head, that this American Administration is serious in its menaces, they try to get out of the pit in which they had plunged themselves", commented Mr. Ahmad Ahrar, a seasoned political analyst.

"Even if they are sincere, the big question is whether Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i, the flag bearer of the policy of no dialogue with the Great Satan has the backing of the hard liners who control the Iranian theocratic system from behind the scene or it is just a political game aimed at fooling the hawks in Washington?" he said.

But other observers noted that coming from Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, the regime’s second most influential voice after that of the leader, the proposal must have been already decided by the Khameneh'i, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Khatami Troika.

"Unites States biggest mistake would be to shake the hands of the Islamic Republic, a regime that has no legitimacy with the Iranian people, a regime that is in a vegetal state. If the Americans fall fool of these statements and buy such lies, they would also loose the sympathy they enjoy with the Iranians", said one students leader speaking on cndition of anonymity.

"If the American want establish real democracy in the region, they must help Iranians to change their regime", he added.

"Of course the leader should approve the final decision", Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who chairs the Expediency Council, pointed out, adding: "When an issue turns into a problem, it is referred to the Expediency Council to make a decision on that and when we approve an issue we send it to the leader who usually accepts it", he told the weekly, as reported by the official news agency IRNA.

A consultative body to the leader of the Islamic Republic, the 32-members ADIS also arbitrates in disputes between the Majles and the conservatives-controlled Council of Guardians (CG), which must approve all laws adopted by the parliament to make sure they are in strict conformity with Islamic canons, and also vets all candidates to all elections.

"In both cases of, the proposal would be approved, as, in the one hand, members of the EC are appointed by the leader and on the other, opinion polls shows that more than 74 per cent of the nation approve normalisation of ties with Washington", one analyst told Iran Press Service.

Under the present Constitution, the supreme leader decides on the government’s major policies, both domestic and foreign.

But Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani said the issue of Iran's resumption of ties with the US and Egypt is not included among Iran's general policies. "It is clear that the problems with the US and Egypt do exist, and we have had these problems from the era of the late founder of the Islamic Revolution Imam Khomeini", he said, without explaining.

Reminding remarks by Grand Ayatollah Roohollah Khomeini placing the interests of the State above those of the faith, Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani observed that

"Therefore, whenever it comes to our interests, we can solve whatever foreign problem which is threatening us from the viewpoint of Islam".

"Our ideology is flexible. We can choose our interests on the basis of Islam. Still, to put the country in jeopardy on the ground that we are acting on an Islamic basis is not at all Islamic", he said, noting that Iran's stance of distancing itself from the US is "political rather than religious".

Elsewhere in the interview, Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani criticised the Foreign Affairs Ministry for its "weaknesses" and accepted that the problem come from a lack of experienced staff.

"It is true that in the early years after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, the experienced experts of the Ministry fled the country or were dismissed, replaced by a group of youth who took over the affairs of a Ministry which like the Foreign Affairs requires knowledge, expertise and prudence", he said.

"We should not be biased. We have lost many opportunities in the past, we have made inappropriate measures or never made any measure, and we have also delayed in making decisions", he acknowledged.

Washington cut all relations with the newly established Islamic Republic of Iran after revolutionary students – now most of them turned reformists and defending dialogue with the United States -- stormed the American embassy in Tehran and held 55 diplomats and staff as hostage for 444 days.

Tehran cut ties with Egypt after former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David peace treaty with Israel and sheltered the deposed Shah of Iran.

[Monte Smith]

By jingo, the Associated Press is reporting that even North Korea is making conciliatory noises at the US--hinting that they might agree to multilateral talks on their nuclear program. Before, it was direct talks or nuclear war. Again, whoda thought?

It's almost like the Axis of Evil is learning a different lesson from Iraq than the majority of posters on the Alley are. How could that be?

[clinthopson]

Stevie

Just to prove you wrong, this "Bush hater" admits he's been wrong.

I once liked Mark Murphy

Now it's time for you neoradicals to do the same. Admit that you actually can't stand Ornette.

[walto]

"it was direct talks or nuclear war"

Little bit of hyperbole there, no? N. Korea wanted direct talks alright....but when did they threaten nuclear war if they couldn't get them?

[Chris A]

Some of us received an e-mail notification from them.

You got one, didn't you, Uli?

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by walto
"it was direct talks or nuclear war"

Little bit of hyperbole there, no? N. Korea wanted direct talks alright....but when did they threaten nuclear war if they couldn't get them?

Walto: North Korea has been profligate with threats of nuclear war in recent months (I mean before the war in Iraq). They threatened nuclear war if the US did not enter into direct talks, they threatened nuclear war if the UN Security Council put sanctions on them, they threatened nuclear war if the US destroyed the nuclear facility that was recently reactivated.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Walto: North Korea has been profligate with threats of nuclear war in recent months (I mean before the war in Iraq). They threatened nuclear war if the US did not enter into direct talks, they threatened nuclear war if the UN Security Council put sanctions on them, they threatened nuclear war if the US destroyed the nuclear facility that was recently reactivated.

and North Korea threatened nuclear war as a pre-emptive strike. Fully within the present administrations understanding of the right thing to do.

[Chris A]

Suppose they threatened nuclear war if Bush didn't give up his appointed position? Then he could show us how patriotic he really is :)

[Monte Smith]

They can threaten nuclear war all they want--I'll believe a North Korean-made nuclear missile can reach the coast of the United States when I see Pyongyang go up in a fireball because one almost did.

Having said that. Pyongyang has been quiet recently and their statements now leave out nuclear threats in favor of more diplomatic language.

[Chris A]

Dear me, diplomatic language--that's something none of these White House squatters understand.

Be very afraid!

[Monte Smith]

You are hot today, Chris A. One has to admire your essential unseriousness.

[walto]

"They threatened nuclear war if the US did not enter into direct talks..."

I'm sorry, Monte, but that assertion is really hard to believe. You got any actual quotes you can reproduce?

[Monte Smith]

Walto:

I'm looking for some quotes, but find myself fatigued. "North Korea, threatens nuclear" returns results in the thousands. So no quote ready-at-hand. You win. Still, the flow of conversation with North Korea has been "We want direct talks and a signed non-agression pact, not multilateral talks" and, as well, "We will torch New York City."

it's all moot now. Recently, N. Korea has been quiet. I don't expect that to always be the case--but now they appear daunted.

[walto]

"We want direct talks and a signed non-agression pact, not multilateral talks" and, as well, "We will torch New York City."



I don't doubt either of those in isolation: the guy is, after all, a complete wingnut. It's just their connection that seems absurd to me.

"If I can't sit one-on-one with Powell, I'm dropping the big one on Detroit!" "Multilateral only" is really more the kind of thing you get into a snit about--maybe even a big one--but generally no threats of atomic fission involved. The latter are kind of unlikely to produce the desired result. Again, however, I'm not trying to deny the complete lunacy of N. Korea's emperor/god.

[Uli]

Yesterday I heard news that a part of the admin actually is all for invading Syria as long as the troups are alredy in the theatre.

Yesterday Rumsy scorned them about their womsies and Powell about thier terrist ties.

[Monte Smith]

Oh boy. It does look like a thought has penetrated the North Korean dictator's poofy hair and is resting in his bean. That thought? "Better not go to war with the USA."

Reuters is reporting that multilateral talks are scheduled in Beijing shortly.

[Chris A]

I just heard that Richard Perl (major conservative sleazebag whose name I am probably misspelling) is calling for a "Syrian Liberation Act." Don't yet know what that entails, but, considering the source, it clearly is bad news.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

For me, the WOMD question was legalistic, rather than having any real bearing on the outcome of the conflict. Now it continues to be legalistic - if none are found critics can say "There was no basis for the war at all" and the hawks can say "look at all these happy people", either way the conflict has happened, and I`d hate to see international pressure dissipate if some barrels 10 years past their use-by-date are found.

Blair gave an interesting response as to why Saddam didn`t use them:

"We made it very clear to Saddam that if he used them, there would be serious consequences" the gist of this was that he could be tried as a war criminal if he used WOMD, but not if he didn`t he`d be the responsibility of the Iraqi people as their former head of state. The logic of this is chilling - after two assassination attempts, Saddam wouldn`t use WOMDs because he was scared of going to the Hague. Bollocks.

[Al in NYC]

Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et. al. have already begun the move on Assad and his thugs in Syria. Whether they can get by with this or not is another question, but in the current patriotic fervor all kinds of nuttiness may be possible.

This would also make it absolutely clear that we were really going to war to protect Sharon and his own gang of thugs in Israel.

[Uli]

According to reports today, the League of Arab Countries wants the UN to issue a resolution that the Middle East be declared a zone free of WOMDs. If that's comming to pass it will be interesting to see if the US sticks with "the UN is obsolete" or if they are gonna use the veto cause I don't think Israel is gonna voluntarily go along.

[frankpop1]

tom wrote
"Or the Iraq/Iran war. If there hadn't been a ceasefire after eight years and a couple of million dead, it's a sure thing Iraq would have chickened out any time. That's how scared they are of a fight!"

tom, whatever it is worth, the iraq citizens by and large did not like iraq/iran war by better accounts. iraq fought this war with 2 front lines. the 2nd iraqi front line would shoot the first iraqi front line if the 1st line retreated. that's hardly a nation of soldiers with a lot of fite.

[Tanager]

Hrm, so much for N. Korean conciliatory gestures - "let's process some spent fuel rods." There's more than one wingnut loose in the N. Korean gov't, I fear. Maybe they borrowed a few from ours.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Tanager
Hrm, so much for N. Korean conciliatory gestures - "let's process some spent fuel rods." There's more than one wingnut loose in the N. Korean gov't, I fear. Maybe they borrowed a few from ours.

Tan:

I think we can call this "pre-negotiation positioning." Plainly the North Koreans want to put as much nuclear material on the table at the outset as possible to win greater concessions from us. If they don't maximize their potential for danger now, then they fritter those bargaining chips away. Damn, the N. Koreans are acting rational!

[Uli]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Tan:

Damn, the N. Koreans are acting rational!

What'sthe surprise here, Monte? Everything is relative and compared to your leaders everybody looks rational.

[Tanager]

I think it could be more likely that the North Koreans realize that we're a hell of a lot more likely to invade Syria than we are to invade them, so why not push the envelope for a while longer.

[Monte Smith]

Maybe Tan. But whether they are first or second in the imaginary list of countries where we have to go break shit, the negotiating strategy is the same.

Hopefully we can get the N. Koreans to bargain away their nukes. But that isn't exactly a long-term solution (witness the "accomplishments" of the Clinton administration in regard to this same issue). I fear no statues of Kim Jong Il will be falling north of the DMZ any time very soon. Sad.

Anyone have a good strategy to crack this nut? People who argue that the inevitable seeds of self-destruction are inherent in a closed, controlled economy have to come up with something else to tear down Kim Jong Il. His people starve and he suffers no qualm.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Monte Smith

Anyone have a good strategy to crack this nut? People who argue that the inevitable seeds of self-destruction are inherent in a closed, controlled economy have to come up with something else to tear down Kim Jong Il. His people starve and he suffers no qualm.

Howz about let them keep the nukes and fully support them with economic help. Best guarantee to get them off the enemy list.

[Monte Smith]

Not a bad plan at all, Uli. Except for the character of the regime.

[Uli]

Well, Monte, for all the chartecterization of the North Korean regime as nut cases it kinda goes against my psychology 101 that you deal with such from a power basis.

[Monte Smith]

Let's be clinical, Uli. "Nuts" isn't helpful. North Korea is the most closed nation in the world, an old guard communist regime with one party, one radio station, a pretty nasty secret police, rationed rice, a popular political prison system, a million-man "red" army and a full-bore cult of personality going on for the Kim monarchy.

It isn't an isolated psychopath like you might have dealt with in Psych 101. You do deal with a nation on a power basis. Giving them economic support and the right to bear nukes guarantees that South Korea will join Kim Jong Il's Worker's Paradise--or be destroyed. Bad idea.

[willy]

"Howz about let them keep the nukes and fully support them with economic help. Best guarantee to get them off the enemy list."


Nothing is guaranteed when dealing with communist leaders, other than the fact that they will fuck you over. Just ask Carter and Clinton about Il's promise to scrap the nukes program if the US appeased them with free food (this didn't quite turn out as planned, did it?). Food they could probably pay for themselves if they didn't waste 100% of their money on the military and King Jong Il's high priced vanity.

[Tanager]

A few thoughts:

1) As low as the US's credibility is abroad, we cannot risk damaging it further by letting NK keep the nukes (or whatever exists of their production capacity). We've used "can't let dictators have WMDs" as the pretext for an invasion of a sovereign nation, so I don't think we can afford any inconsistency on this issue. We don't have to bring the hammer, but we can't willingly let them keep the nukes, IMHO. I know we've been pretty inconsistent in our application of foreign policy in the past, but I just don't see this as a juncture at which we can afford to continue that trend.

2) I think that whatever happens in NK will depend largely on the Chinese and how far they're willing to go to reign in Kim and his cronies. We have no real direct pressure we can apply - sanctions? Suspending oil shipments? Gimme a break. They've had no effect thus far, and I don't think they'll have any effect in the future if they're taken unilaterally. We really need China to cooperate in this, or we have about a zero percent chance of prying the nukes away from NK, IMHO.

3) So the real question is, what do we have to offer China to convince them to pressure NK. IMHO, this one comes down to economics and our being willing to turn a blind eye to whatever they want to do with the various "insurgencies" they think they need to fight.

I, for one, am not real hopeful, b/c I think corporate America isn't going to give up the Chinese marketplace on any moral grounds, and I don't think the Chinese are real eager to reign in NK outright - I think they like seeing us frustrated. I'm guessing we'll need to gnash our teeth and all, but I am not convinced we have any real power to affect NK either directly or indirectly.

[Chris A]

From The Guardian

Bush vetoes Syria war plan

Julian Borger in Washington, Michael White, Ewen MacAskill in Kuwait City and Nicholas Watt

Tuesday April 15, 2003

The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday. In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq.

Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could "shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria".

However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria.

"The talk about Syria didn't go anywhere. Basically, the White House shut down the discussion," an intelligence source in Washington told the Guardian.

Faced with rising apprehension over the prospect of a new conflict, Tony Blair also offered categorical assurances to anx ious MPs yesterday that Britain and the US had "no plans whatsoever" to invade Iraq's neighbour.

Dismissing fears of an Anglo-American invasion as another "conspiracy theory", the prime minister said that Mr Bush had never mentioned an attack on Syria during their regular talks.

"I have the advantage of talking to the American president on a regular basis and I can assure you there are no plans to invade Syria," he said. "Neither has anyone on the other side of the water, as far as I am aware, said there are plans."

The Bush administration is nevertheless determined to use its military ascendancy in the region to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on Damascus and resolve what Washington sees as longstanding problems, including the threat to Israel posed by Damascus-backed Islamic extremists, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Syria's chemical weapons.

Mr Rumsfeld repeated accusations yesterday that Syria had tested chemical weapons in the last 12 to 15 months. However, Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention and would not be breaking international law if it did possess, nor is it suspected of selling chemical weapons to others.

One US administration official conceded: "They've not taken any actions that we can see so far that would justify military action."

Mr Blair made clear to Syria yesterday that it must not accept high-level political fugitives or weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.

"It is important Syria does not harbour people from Saddam's regime or allow any transfer of material from Iraq to Syria. I have spoken to President Assad and he has assured me that is not happening and I have said it is important that assurance is valid," Mr Blair told MPs.

A diplomat in Washington with close ties to the administration agreed there was no sign of military action on the horizon.

"There's no question of this at the White House," the diplomat said, pointing out that the Syrian army would be a far more potent adversary than Iraq's bedraggled forces. "Anyone who lives in the real world would never see this as more than noise."

Instead, the administration expects that the loss of income from smuggling arms and oil to and from Iraq will make Damascus vulnerable to economic pressure. Congress is examin-ing the Syrian accountability act, which would impose tough sanctions on Damascus.

British officials confirm they share US alarm about Syria's recent conduct and its sponsorship role in Palestinian terrorism. But Mr Blair has cultivated Bashar al-Assad, its British-educated president, and adopts a more conciliatory tone towards Damascus.

"It's a bit of a good cop, bad cop routine," one Whitehall official said of the tougher line coming from the US.

The prime minister's upbeat report to MPs on what, for the first time, he called victory was marred by sceptical challenges from both sides based on reports from Washington that Bush hawks want to move on the Ba'athist regime next door. Evidently exasperated, Mr Blair denounced "conspiracy theories" and insisted that he could not be clearer about his determination to tackle Syria by diplomacy.

His remarks came hours after the foreign secre tary, Jack Straw, warned Mr Assad that he would have to face up to "the new reality" of the post-Saddam world. Speaking in Kuwait on the second leg of a four-country tour of the Gulf, Mr Straw said: "There are a number of questions it is very important that Syria should answer and in a cooperative way."

His tough remarks were echoed by the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, who warned that Britain had had concerns for some time about Syria's desire to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Hoon referred to a gov ernment paper, presented to parliament in February last year, which raised questions about Syria's weapons programme. The document said that Syria was one of five countries attempting to "obtain inventories of longer-range ballistic missiles". The other countries included North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya.

The Syrian ambassador to London angrily rejected suggestions that Damascus had any weapons of mass destruction or was harbouring members of Saddam's regime. Mouafak Nassar told Radio 4's The World at One: "I will say I am wondering why they are targeting one Arab country after the other. They are ignoring totally the country that has mass destruction weapons - Israel."

Britain underlined its commitment to diplomacy when the junior Foreign Office minister, Mike O'Brien, met Mr Assad in Damascus yesterday.