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!

[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.

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.

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!

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.

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.