Who's next: Syria or Iran ?

  • News
  • Thread starter spender
  • Start date
  • #1
22
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

now looks like USA will attack Syria instead of Iran or both of them.Maybe USA will just attack Iran's nuclear facillities and Israel gonna go for Syria.
Today I have read that there was an explosion in Busherhr where reactor is being build, here we go again spreading democracy with bombs .
Lets see what develops .
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
1,085
6
A minute ago I read that Iran and Syria have just teamed up, but it is, I guess, not an anti-american alliance. So, if we attack one or the other, guess we will be attacking both.

Also, what about NK?

It is good to see that the media is really giving the president some options.
 
  • #3
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Well, heck, if we're just going to engage in unfounded speculation, I say that the new Iraqi army, once it is fully trained and equipped, has rid itself of insurgents, and been sold nuclear weapons by the US, will then invade Iran. Why should the US do it and what's the hurry?
 
  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
loseyourname said:
Well, heck, if we're just going to engage in unfounded speculation...
Lichtenstein. Mark my words.
 
  • #5
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
russ_watters said:
Lichtenstein. Mark my words.
Why?

At least on the surface, it would seem like diplomacy has been fairly effective at improving US-Lichtenstein relations.

Sure, they call their administrative divisions 'communes' instead of states or provinces, but I think that's just a difference in terminology. And they are suspected of some pretty serious money laundering.

On the other hand, they have bent to external pressure and have passed some anti-money-laundering legislation. While I'm not sure how extensive it is, it's at least a start at resolving our main beef with them. And even though we don't have an embassy in Lichtenstein, we did recently sign a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with them.

I thought we were making progress with them.

Is the anti-money-laundering legislation being interpreted as just a weak ploy to buy time?
 
  • #6
loseyourname said:
Well, heck, if we're just going to engage in unfounded speculation, I say that the new Iraqi army, once it is fully trained and equipped, has rid itself of insurgents, and been sold nuclear weapons by the US, will then invade Iran. Why should the US do it and what's the hurry?
Might be true, but then again Hussein and Bin Laden were both supported by the US, and in the long run didn't turn out to be the puppets they were expected to be.
 
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
the number 42 said:
Might be true, but then again Hussein and Bin Laden were both supported by the US, and in the long run didn't turn out to be the puppets they were expected to be.
That is such a bad mischaracterization: I'm not going to explan it - just pointing it out.
 
  • #8
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
russ_waters said:
]
the number 42 Might be true said:
That is such a bad mischaracterization: I'm not going to explan it - just pointing it out.
Well the US supported the muhadjin against the soviets in Afghanistan, and that is where bin Laden trained and recruited. And US support for the Hussain regime during the Iran-Iraq war is well documented. So what's so bad about the characterisation?
 
  • #9
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
selfAdjoint said:
Well the US supported the muhadjin against the soviets in Afghanistan, and that is where bin Laden trained and recruited. And US support for the Hussain regime during the Iran-Iraq war is well documented. So what's so bad about the characterisation?
The idea that anything was expected beyond aggravation for someone we didn't like.

Might be true, but then again Hussein and Bin Laden were both supported by the US....
Accurate statement.

.... and in the long run didn't turn out to be the puppets they were expected to be.
Inaccurate statement.

They caused one of our foes trouble and that was enough. I don't think there was a long range goal for either association.

How great of an idea this was is debatable. Sometimes it meets your immediate goal, but it certainly looks embarrassing years later when some unsavory character you've supported in the past turns out to cause you as much trouble as they caused your foe. Then again, not helping that group cause your foe aggravation probably wouldn't have prevented the trouble that group caused you later on.

In other words, it's irrelevant unless you can show how that past support helped that group to be better able to cause us trouble later on.
 
  • #10
BobG said:
I don't think there was a long range goal for either association. ... Sometimes it meets your immediate goal, but it certainly looks embarrassing years later when some unsavory character you've supported in the past turns out to cause you as much trouble as they caused your foe.
Fine Bob, I'll settle for the 'short-term policy' interpretation. Either way it wasn't too clever, as no doubt was pointed out at the time.
 
  • #11
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
spender said:
now looks like USA will attack Syria instead of Iran or both of them. Maybe USA will just attack Iran's nuclear facillities and Israel gonna go for Syria. Today I have read that there was an explosion in Busherhr where reactor is being build, here we go again spreading democracy with bombs. Lets see what develops.
The ongoing thread: Will Bush start any more wars? He'd probably like to, but probably won't be allowed. Air strikes in Iran would cause anti-American sentiment there (and re-ignite global questioning), and could escalate into something more than desired. Another shock and awe in Syria, whether direct or via Israeli forces, would not help current attempts to mend the fence with Europe, and possibly complicate efforts with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. As for NK, this is being left to China, et al to resolve, though a food for nuke program might be a thought.
 
  • #12
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
SOS2008 said:
The ongoing thread: Will Bush start any more wars? He'd probably like to, but probably won't be allowed. Air strikes in Iran would cause anti-American sentiment there (and re-ignite global questioning), and could escalate into something more than desired. Another shock and awe in Syria, whether direct or via Israeli forces, would not help current attempts to mend the fence with Europe, and possibly complicate efforts with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. As for NK, this is being left to China, et al to resolve, though a food for nuke program might be a thought.
Yeah, even if he liked to he needs to "reset" things, other aspects aside being the aggressor again would cause commotion beyond we've seen as of late. Give political smooth talking a few years and then can try again :yuck: .
 
  • #13
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Wow, it just keeps getting more interesting. Will Syria leave Lebanon...completely...by May? And if not, will Bush escalate from demand to military force? Or will the pro-Syria segment of the population (500,000 demonstrators today) have any say in the "new democracy?"
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
SOS2008 said:
Wow, it just keeps getting more interesting. Will Syria leave Lebanon...completely...by May? And if not, will Bush escalate from demand to military force? Or will the pro-Syria segment of the population (500,000 demonstrators today) have any say in the "new democracy?"
It does indeed keep getting more interesting. The recent events quite obviously complicate the Syria issue. Ironically, the prospect of Syria leaving Lebanon gives Bush an opening which he is exploiting (verbally, anyway). With Bush's rhetoric and the UN's resolution, the groundwork is being laid for military intervention. Right now, the ball's in Syria's court: they can guarantee that there will be no military action by leaving Lebanon. Will pride goeth before the fall?
 
  • #15
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
russ_watters said:
Will pride goeth before the fall?
Who is most prideful?

From MSNBC/BBC:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan called for the "complete and immediate withdrawal of all military and intelligence forces from Lebanon".

The comments came hours after the presidents of Syria and Lebanon said Syrian troops would be pulled back - but not out - by the end of March.

But President Bush's spokesman dismissed it as "a half-measure that does not go far enough".

Syrian officials have worded their statements to leave room for their troops to remain just across the border in Lebanese territory...


I couldn't help but think Bashar al-Assad has learned well from the Bush administration how to be vague about an exit strategy. And Syria has claimed to be in Lebanon to keep the peace. Maybe also a little 'pot calling the kettle black'...?

But if 1/2 million people show support for Syria, and more importantantly were holding signs saying they want NO U.S. intervention, and there is no clear and present danger (as when invading Iraq), it would seem unwise for Bush to resort to military measures against Syria, even if they do not leave Lebanon quickly or completely (if at all?).
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Who's next: Syria or Iran ?

Replies
63
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • Last Post
12
Replies
298
Views
63K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
11K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
19K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Top