[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Askan Nightbringer]

Disclaimer - Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Not up their with Hitler and Stalin but maybe the equal of Suharto, and more brutal than Pinochet and co.

Now that I've got that out of the way I can get to my point.

Why did a "supposedly" 400,00 strong military capitulate so quicky? If Saddam wasn't willing or capable to use WMDs to defend his own capital, then how could he have possibly been a threat to the US, or even my country? Maybe the threat Iraq posed was overstated?

Its not about oil, not about liberation, not about security threats, not about UN resolutions, its all about POWER.

And I have a little secret that I'm willing to share with everyone - "People cheat, lie and spread half-truths in order to maintain and gain power."

There was an agenda to invade Iraq long before UN resolution 1441. America never intended to let the UN dictate the actions to take against Saddam. The UN was irrelevant if it didn't support the US's plan (and irrelevant if it did, a sort of a lose-lose situation). It was all done for show. Someone or some group in the US administration decided invading Iraq was a way to gain power and all that was needed was to build the case. A string of evidence was produced, most of it turned out to be a load of crap. Evidence turned out to me plagiarised, forged and just plain wrong but that didn't stop it coming. Saddam was linked to S11, Al-queda, Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion. It didn't matter about counter-evidence, if we made up enough excuses then everyone will ended up believing at least one.
Iraq was just a "Target of opportunity"

So does everybody believe everything their leaders are saying to them? I seriously doubt it, so why would you believe anything they say without evidence? Do you believe the media? The "alleged" champions of truth and democracy than survive based on what type of products their targeted audiences consume, with owners who are always looking to get some media ownership law overturned so they can buy something else. Hardly a recipe for impartiality if you ask me. Do you believe the so called "think tanks"? How are they funded? What agendas do they run?
The only words worth reading are by people who having nothing to gain by telling them. Thats what makes the forum a bit more interesting than my local newspaper.

Askan
(Who can't spell)

[ April 11, 2003, 04:46: Message edited by: Askan Nightbringer ]

[rextorres]

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:

If you want to be frank and say it was "them or us" I don't have a problem with that.

When I say "them or us" I mean Islam and the West - that is what it's coming down to. We're just lucky that the Arabs are so fragmented - and that their leaders are for the most part weak.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion.

Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?

[ April 11, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Primitive:

Fyron
You really crack me up sometimes.

So my valid points are nothing more than minor amusements to you? That sure makes me feel appreciated. Thanks.

Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.

This is precisely what I was talking about, and completely validates my point.

Rex:

Enemy of my enemy - give me a break. Talk about stereotyping.

Talk about, that is a basic human thought pattern, that influences the thinking of nearly every person in the world.

[ April 11, 2003, 05:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion.

Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?

---

Without a doubt.
If they mentioned the obvious link between Saddam and the French Rugby Union side of the Last World Cup then I have no doubt that New Zealand would have sent troops too

Askan

[primitive]

Sorry Geo:
It was very late yesterday and I edited that post about a 1000 times to make it right. Then of course I screwed up.

That first sentence should have been: Your Posts is by far NOT the worst.
Makes more sense grammatically as well as logically with people like …… around.

[Unknown_Enemy]

After Iraq, who's next ?

The United States and Syria: Mounting Tensions and Multiple Agendas

Summary

Tensions between Syria and the United States will heighten dangerously in the coming days. Washington has several goals in mind, but it is unclear what the fallout will be in Damascus.

Analysis

During the past two weeks, U.S. officials have made several seemingly threatening statements about Syria, publicly warning the state to stop harboring militant Groups and suggesting it is aiding Iraq's war effort.

Among the most recent events, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said during an April 9 press briefing that the Pentagon has "scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been cooperative in facilitating the move of the people out of Iraq and into Syria." He later clarified that those people were not senior Iraqi regime leaders, but the statement -- designed to put Damascus on the defensive -- struck home. Then, on April 10, New York's Newsday quoted an unnamed intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld had ordered contingency plans drawn up for a possible invasion of Syria.

Washington's bellicose rhetoric -- and it is merely rhetoric at this point -- is driven by several goals, all of which are now melding to create a layered justification for heightening tensions with Syria. Those tensions likely will ratchet up quickly in the coming days and weeks.

Among Washington's many objectives, the most immediate might be to secure its own western flank in the postwar phase from the potentially hostile Syrian military and any anti-U.S. partisan elements from Iraq that might emerge in Syria. The country's military force is large -- with 316,000 active-duty personnel -- and well-trained, but crippled by obsolete equipment and a shortage of spare parts.

Washington needs to bring significant pressure to bear on the government in Damascus and the Syrian military so that both will concede to working out some security arrangements with the United States -- probably similar to the agreement between Islamabad and Washington that allows U.S. forces to conduct "cooperative cross-border" operations originating in Afghanistan.

Another agenda is the U.S. need to repay allies such as Britain, Spain and Saudi Arabia by pushing forward with the Middle East peace process and plans for the creation of a Palestinian state. To achieve this goal, U.S. State Department officials will seek to reassure Israel of Washington's continued support for Israeli security. The Bush administration might be working toward this end by putting the screws to Syria -- isolating Damascus from potential patrons France and Russia and possibly launching strikes against suspected Syrian chemical weapons plants.

The heightened focus on Syria also could serve U.S. policy goals farther abroad. For instance, Washington sees an opportunity to limit North Korea's access to advanced missile guidance systems by shutting down Syria's ability to act as a conduit: The country reportedly has imported the SS-X-26 Stone (Iskandar-E) short-range ballistic missile from Russia and resold the guidance technology to North Korea, allegedly without Moscow's knowledge. For Washington, raising the proliferation issue with Syria would create tension between Moscow and Damascus -- while further isolating the regime in Pyongyang.

Coming down rhetorically on Syria does nothing directly to aid Washington's battle against al Qaeda: Damascus is even less tied to the group than was Saddam Hussein's regime. Syria has struggled with Islamist radicals itself in the past and would find it difficult to work with Osama bin Laden's Wahhabi network. Moreover, the government has taken specific steps in attempts to pre-empt al Qaeda recruitment and training activities in Lebanon, where they threaten Damascus' own influence.

However, Syria does support the Shia militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and traditionally has backed Palestinian opposition Groups such as the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The State Department lists all of these Groups as foreign terrorist organizations and has labeled Syria a state sponsor of terrorism.

Finally, of the next potential U.S. targets in the Middle East -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria -- Syria is the weakest. By focusing attention there now, Washington could undermine any possibilities that it could serve as an ally for either Riyadh or Tehran, flanking U.S. forces based in Iraq.

Do any of these goals, taken together or singly, necessitate U.S. military action against Syria? Or could Washington achieve its objectives by putting the leadership in Damascus under intense pressure and either triggering a military coup or getting political and military leaders to acquiesce to its demands? Unlike Pakistan, Syria has no military leadership structure, and it is not clear how much control President Bashar al-Assad wields over the armed forces.

At this point, Washington is only barking; it remains to be seen whether it will bite. But even the pressure generated by the recent rhetoric could be sufficient to destabilize the current regime. And if Assad can withstand the pressure, it is far from certain that his regime would survive if U.S. forces were to conduct search-and-destroy missions within Syrian territory or launch strikes against suspected chemical weapons plants.

Then there was this point in a previous article :

Stratfor has argued that the United States had two fundamental reasons for invading Iraq:

1. To transform the psychology of the Islamic world, which had perceived the United States as in essence weak and unwilling to take risks to achieve its ends.

2. To use Iraq as a strategic base of operations from which to confront Islamic regimes that are either incapable of or unwilling to deny al Qaeda and other Islamist Groups access to enabling resources.

Like it or not.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
After Iraq, who's next ?

Great analysis. I agree is very likely that the ChickenHawk brigade will go after Syria next.
But I think Saudi Arabia is more likely to be the real people funding Al Qaeda, and thus a greater danger to the US. I can't help to wonder if the Saudis have been spared because of Bush and Cheney's oil deals with them.......

[Hunkpapa]

Great analysis. I agree is very likely that the ChickenHawk brigade will go after Syria next.
But I think Saudi Arabia is more likely to be the real people funding Al Qaeda, and thus a greater danger to the US. I can't help to wonder if the Saudis have been spared because of Bush and Cheney's oil deals with them.......

I agree that Saudi Arabia is a big player funding terrorists in general, not just Al Quaeda. But more than likely we will keep plugging away at the smaller easier targets before taking them on.

Set up some democracies in these newly liberated countries and watch freedom spread, teh people will see their neighbors enjoying life instead of subjegation and will be more supportive of US involvement.

Get ready Syria you are next.

[ April 11, 2003, 14:40: Message edited by: Hunkpapa ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

Set up some democracies in these newly liberated countries and watch freedom spread, teh people will see their neighbors enjoying life instead of subjegation and will be more supportive of US involvement.

Who said real goal was setting up democracies ???? Do you really believe that ????
Do you really think the current US administration would like to see Egyptians, Saudi Arabia, Jordanians or United Arab Emirates electing a government made of USA hating religious ?
I may strongly dislike the current US administration, but I have to admit they are not stupid, and their current moves make sense. I do not agree to their move, but in their own logic, it makes sense.