The hawkish neo-cons got their way with Iraq (and they were completely right), but I always side with Powellish diplomacy in the beginning.
These freaking PNAC neo-cons are freaking me out, it's so radically different from the way we're used to thinking about foreign affairs and so far their first real effort has been a stunning success.
Yikes! Change is scary!
Completely right? Yikes! Thats a hasty comment if there ever was one...and the war isn't even done yet. Have you been watching the way the Arab street is reacting to this military adventure? It's already ugly and none of this is being touched in the US media. There is so much anger out there in countries from Pakistan to Morocco... furious protests by tbousands happening regularly in cities thoughout the Arab world. This kind of reaction didn't happen at all after the 1991 Gulf War...and look what happened 10 years afterwards in New York and Washington from just *one* terrorist (and his subsequently organized group) pissed about US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, alone.
To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction...this isn't limited to the world of Newtonian physics. How long does it take for a terrorist cell to come together? Some of the most furious reaction is being demonstrated in Pakistan right now as we type (a nuclear state, with a potentially unstable regime)... There are probably characters all over the arab world with a previously marginal (but inactive) attitude towards the US, already starting to plot ghastly acts of revenge...in any one, or more of 20 different countries.
There is so much anger out there in countries from Pakistan to Morocco... furious protests by tbousands happening regularly in cities thoughout the Arab world. This kind of reaction didn't happen at all after the 1991 Gulf War...and look what happened 10 years afterwards in New York and Washington from just *one* terrorist (and his subsequently organized group) pissed about US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, alone.
There are probably characters all over the arab world with a previously marginal (but inactive) attitude towards the US, already starting to plot ghastly acts of revenge...in any one, or more of 20 different countries.
The post 1991 Gulf War world let things fester. The world didn't react fast enough to 'turn the tide' of popular opinion. Instead we ended up with other problems. In some sense it was excusable. After 50 years of cold war politics, I don't think the world was quite ready to move into the next phase. Europe was worrying about Eastern Europe, the US was worrying about the fall of the USSR/rise of China. I think we were all still trying to figure out what the next phase would be. This time around I think we have a shorter grace period to work with and a more difficult task.
Waiting on Syria is more dangerous than acting at this point. Syria has always been a far greater source of terrorism than Iraq or 'Palestine'. There is a much greater public anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world right now than after Gulf War I. Leaving that like we did the post Gulf War I world will most likely produce greater acts of terror than we've already seen.
What's needed is a fundamental shift in policy to these countries. With or without a war on Syria, there needs to be a massive PR movement that 'proves' to the third world that the US is actually acting to help the third world. It will be very difficult for the terrorists to hold the support they must certainly be gaining if we in fact can show that we offer more than the terrorists for the future of the third world. If we don't, we will suffer not only more but greater attacks.
If we can't get public opinion on our side we'll fail. Public opinion will be easily swayed by real acts of support. Killing the Taliban or Hussein's regime isn't real support. It's the equivalent of opening someone up and cutting out a tumor, but then leaving them on the operating table without putting them back together.
Syria is surrounded by Turkey and Jordan, two historically strong allies, Iraq a country that should become a very strong ally, and Palestine. If we can control public opinion in those regions the threat of Syria will dissolve. If we can't, the whole region will remain a major threat. That public opinion will be swayed by two factors, the rebuilding of Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian crisis.
With or without a war in Syria, a true rebuilding program in Iraq will bolster public support in Jordan & Turkey, and of course Iraq. Mitigating the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, not necessarily solving just not ignoring it, is essential. These two factores will leave Syria isolated. Without the public support though we'll be isolated from the Mid-East.
We're failing in Afghanistan. That's in part due to Europe's backtracking on AID, and in part due to Bush's backtracking. We don't have 10 years to fiddle around this time. A poor country like that could be moved out of complete abject poverty fairly easily without much money. We don't need to get broadband internet to everyone in the country, but delivering food wouldn't be that difficult.
By destroying them, we've also commited to rebuilding these countries. If we're as bad at rebuilding Iraq as we have been in Afghanistan, frankly we'll deserve to have our asses handed back to us on a platter. I'm sure there are plenty of people in Syria, Pakistan and beyond willing to try.
Ultimately public opinion in Pakistan will be swayed in part by how well we do or don't save Afghanistan and in part though to how well we mitigate the India/Pakistan crisis. Like with Israel and Palestine, we don't necessarily have to solve these crisises immediately, just limit their damage.
Damascus dismisses claims it harbors Iraqi fugitives
April 15 ? U.S. forces have shut down a pipeline sending oil from Iraq to Syria, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday.
...
There are allegations that Syria has been receiving up to 200,000 barrels of oil per day through the pipeline ? in violation of U.N. sanctions against Iraq.
Oil traders and U.S. officials say that a complete cut-off of Iraqi oil to Syria, which is believed to meet about one-third of Syria?s oil needs, would send a strong message to Damascus. The country?s economy is in trouble, with gross domestic product growth barely keeping up with population growth.
...
In an article dated April 10, the newsletter reported that Syria?s state-owned oil marketing company had told clients that its export volumes for the rest of 2003 would be cut in half. ?The Iraq-Syria pipeline, passing through northwestern Iraq, was blown up late March 2003 by U.S. troops, as was a railway link connecting Iraq and Syria,? said the article, citing the Kuwaiti Al-Rai Al-Aam daily.
There is more in the article. Not sure if it is alarmist. But if there are sanctions, we'll see how this plays out. I said it before in the thread about the Frontline episode talking about the neocon hegemonic plans, any such plans inevitably leads us to a US against the world situation.
You can make the world a "safer" place if we conquer the world as Rome or Alexander did, but I don't think it would be a nice place to live.
Things do indeed seem to have worked out for the pro-invasion side of the coin thus far . . .
I think that we should just admit it, and also admit that what we need is a good old expansion into all the regions that hate or distrust America:
Syria is just the next logical step; they'll be easy too.
maybe it will result in the collapse of NK and the spontaneous errection of a dual state situation in Palastine/Israel
And, we know that the hardliners of Iran truly just want to Be Ruled . . .hey, they'll take any ruler, even the US . . . as long as we're strict and hard on em.
Let's go team!!!
we can win it
history will look back and see that our expansion will only have been the beginning of the long prosperous peace known as the Pax Americana
I don't see what good could come of invading Syria at this point; it might but I don't know. I don't think so, but I'm willing to be informed about the human rights situation there.
Iran definitely doesn't need any attacking, if anything that would harden the resolve of those who want to keep the mullahs in power and would polarize the people against the US. They have a very very real reform movement going and we need to give that reform movement some serious support, not bombs.
I am dead against any economic sanctions at this point. It will only hurt the people who are already suffering.
Have these freaking bastards learned nothing?
The sanctions never worked from the outset. Saddam Hussein and his elite lived the good life...their connections ensured they had ways of getting around the sanctions, while ordinary Iraqi folk of course got shafted brutally. Everyone knew this was the deal right from the start....but the sanctions continued. One wonders why it had to happen like that.
The sanctions never worked from the outset. Saddam Hussein and his elite lived the good life...their connections ensured they had ways of getting around the sanctions, while ordinary Iraqi folk of course got shafted brutally. Everyone knew this was the deal right from the start....but the sanctions continued. One wonders why it had to happen like that.
Because before Bush and the Neo-Cons no one had the balls to nip the problem in the bud and go straight after Hussein.
Because before Bush and the Neo-Cons no one had the balls to nip the problem in the bud and go straight after Hussein.
Is Syria the same situation? Remains to be seen.
It looks like the Bush Administration is looking at sanctions against Syria, if not an attack. Whether this idea originates in the Powell camp or with the NeoCons isn't too clear. So the Syrian people are going to get screwed over, while Assad and his thugs get it all cushy...that is the way of sanctions. Oh look... Sen. Bob Graham (D) is now advocating an attack on Syria...are the Democrats jumping on the hawk bandwagon?
Oddly, most of America's wars since 1941 have been fought under Democratic Admins. I'm too sleepy to search and verify this right now, it was just something I heard the other day during a speech.
Comments
The hawkish neo-cons got their way with Iraq (and they were completely right), but I always side with Powellish diplomacy in the beginning.
These freaking PNAC neo-cons are freaking me out, it's so radically different from the way we're used to thinking about foreign affairs and so far their first real effort has been a stunning success.
Yikes! Change is scary!
Completely right? Yikes! Thats a hasty comment if there ever was one...and the war isn't even done yet. Have you been watching the way the Arab street is reacting to this military adventure? It's already ugly and none of this is being touched in the US media. There is so much anger out there in countries from Pakistan to Morocco... furious protests by tbousands happening regularly in cities thoughout the Arab world. This kind of reaction didn't happen at all after the 1991 Gulf War...and look what happened 10 years afterwards in New York and Washington from just *one* terrorist (and his subsequently organized group) pissed about US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, alone.
To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction...this isn't limited to the world of Newtonian physics. How long does it take for a terrorist cell to come together? Some of the most furious reaction is being demonstrated in Pakistan right now as we type (a nuclear state, with a potentially unstable regime)... There are probably characters all over the arab world with a previously marginal (but inactive) attitude towards the US, already starting to plot ghastly acts of revenge...in any one, or more of 20 different countries.
I hope I am 100% wrong.
Originally posted by groverat
War is a last resort, we have definitely not done as much political wrestling with Syria as we had with Hussein.
There is allways sanctions...
And when they are in place, there is nothing like a good ol' war to get rid of them again.
Originally posted by sammi jo
There is so much anger out there in countries from Pakistan to Morocco... furious protests by tbousands happening regularly in cities thoughout the Arab world. This kind of reaction didn't happen at all after the 1991 Gulf War...and look what happened 10 years afterwards in New York and Washington from just *one* terrorist (and his subsequently organized group) pissed about US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, alone.
There are probably characters all over the arab world with a previously marginal (but inactive) attitude towards the US, already starting to plot ghastly acts of revenge...in any one, or more of 20 different countries.
I hope I am 100% wrong.
No such luck. You're right.
Waiting on Syria is more dangerous than acting at this point. Syria has always been a far greater source of terrorism than Iraq or 'Palestine'. There is a much greater public anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world right now than after Gulf War I. Leaving that like we did the post Gulf War I world will most likely produce greater acts of terror than we've already seen.
What's needed is a fundamental shift in policy to these countries. With or without a war on Syria, there needs to be a massive PR movement that 'proves' to the third world that the US is actually acting to help the third world. It will be very difficult for the terrorists to hold the support they must certainly be gaining if we in fact can show that we offer more than the terrorists for the future of the third world. If we don't, we will suffer not only more but greater attacks.
If we can't get public opinion on our side we'll fail. Public opinion will be easily swayed by real acts of support. Killing the Taliban or Hussein's regime isn't real support. It's the equivalent of opening someone up and cutting out a tumor, but then leaving them on the operating table without putting them back together.
Syria is surrounded by Turkey and Jordan, two historically strong allies, Iraq a country that should become a very strong ally, and Palestine. If we can control public opinion in those regions the threat of Syria will dissolve. If we can't, the whole region will remain a major threat. That public opinion will be swayed by two factors, the rebuilding of Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian crisis.
With or without a war in Syria, a true rebuilding program in Iraq will bolster public support in Jordan & Turkey, and of course Iraq. Mitigating the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, not necessarily solving just not ignoring it, is essential. These two factores will leave Syria isolated. Without the public support though we'll be isolated from the Mid-East.
We're failing in Afghanistan. That's in part due to Europe's backtracking on AID, and in part due to Bush's backtracking. We don't have 10 years to fiddle around this time. A poor country like that could be moved out of complete abject poverty fairly easily without much money. We don't need to get broadband internet to everyone in the country, but delivering food wouldn't be that difficult.
By destroying them, we've also commited to rebuilding these countries. If we're as bad at rebuilding Iraq as we have been in Afghanistan, frankly we'll deserve to have our asses handed back to us on a platter. I'm sure there are plenty of people in Syria, Pakistan and beyond willing to try.
Ultimately public opinion in Pakistan will be swayed in part by how well we do or don't save Afghanistan and in part though to how well we mitigate the India/Pakistan crisis. Like with Israel and Palestine, we don't necessarily have to solve these crisises immediately, just limit their damage.
Wow. That was long. Sorry.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Completely right? Yikes! Thats a hasty comment if there ever was one...and the war isn't even done yet...
Were the hawks right?
(1) A high-profile Iranian conservative calls for a reexamination of Iran's relationship with the U.S.
(2) North Korea may enter multilateral talks -- the kind that the Bush administration has demanded -- about its nuclear program.
(3) Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has picked a reformist cabinet. (Arafat, the power-hungry jerk, has rejected it.)
(4) Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, ally and champion of settlement builders, may uproot his West Bank base "faster than people think ."
click on link for links to the original
Yes, I have seen the extreme ambivalence of the Arab Street. Anti-US sentiment is nothing new.
I've always loved the "we're only going to make more terrorists" argument.
Originally posted by groverat
Yes, I have seen the extreme ambivalence of the Arab Street. Anti-US sentiment is nothing new.
Actually, I don't think you understand the anti-US sentiment if you believe the current feelings are nothing new.
U.S. shuts off Iraq-Syria oil pipeline
Damascus dismisses claims it harbors Iraqi fugitives
April 15 ? U.S. forces have shut down a pipeline sending oil from Iraq to Syria, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday.
...
There are allegations that Syria has been receiving up to 200,000 barrels of oil per day through the pipeline ? in violation of U.N. sanctions against Iraq.
Oil traders and U.S. officials say that a complete cut-off of Iraqi oil to Syria, which is believed to meet about one-third of Syria?s oil needs, would send a strong message to Damascus. The country?s economy is in trouble, with gross domestic product growth barely keeping up with population growth.
...
In an article dated April 10, the newsletter reported that Syria?s state-owned oil marketing company had told clients that its export volumes for the rest of 2003 would be cut in half. ?The Iraq-Syria pipeline, passing through northwestern Iraq, was blown up late March 2003 by U.S. troops, as was a railway link connecting Iraq and Syria,? said the article, citing the Kuwaiti Al-Rai Al-Aam daily.
There is more in the article. Not sure if it is alarmist. But if there are sanctions, we'll see how this plays out. I said it before in the thread about the Frontline episode talking about the neocon hegemonic plans, any such plans inevitably leads us to a US against the world situation.
You can make the world a "safer" place if we conquer the world as Rome or Alexander did, but I don't think it would be a nice place to live.
Have these freaking bastards learned nothing?
Originally posted by groverat
I am dead against any economic sanctions at this point. It will only hurt the people who are already suffering.
Have these freaking bastards learned nothing?
No kidding. Hmmm...
I think that we should just admit it, and also admit that what we need is a good old expansion into all the regions that hate or distrust America:
Syria is just the next logical step; they'll be easy too.
maybe it will result in the collapse of NK and the spontaneous errection of a dual state situation in Palastine/Israel
And, we know that the hardliners of Iran truly just want to Be Ruled . . .hey, they'll take any ruler, even the US . . . as long as we're strict and hard on em.
Let's go team!!!
we can win it
history will look back and see that our expansion will only have been the beginning of the long prosperous peace known as the Pax Americana
Originally posted by groverat
I'm sorry, pfflam, I can't hear you over your signature.
How's that?
Iran definitely doesn't need any attacking, if anything that would harden the resolve of those who want to keep the mullahs in power and would polarize the people against the US. They have a very very real reform movement going and we need to give that reform movement some serious support, not bombs.
Originally posted by groverat
I am dead against any economic sanctions at this point. It will only hurt the people who are already suffering.
Have these freaking bastards learned nothing?
The sanctions never worked from the outset. Saddam Hussein and his elite lived the good life...their connections ensured they had ways of getting around the sanctions, while ordinary Iraqi folk of course got shafted brutally. Everyone knew this was the deal right from the start....but the sanctions continued. One wonders why it had to happen like that.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The sanctions never worked from the outset. Saddam Hussein and his elite lived the good life...their connections ensured they had ways of getting around the sanctions, while ordinary Iraqi folk of course got shafted brutally. Everyone knew this was the deal right from the start....but the sanctions continued. One wonders why it had to happen like that.
Because before Bush and the Neo-Cons no one had the balls to nip the problem in the bud and go straight after Hussein.
Is Syria the same situation? Remains to be seen.
Originally posted by groverat
Because before Bush and the Neo-Cons no one had the balls to nip the problem in the bud and go straight after Hussein.
Is Syria the same situation? Remains to be seen.
It looks like the Bush Administration is looking at sanctions against Syria, if not an attack. Whether this idea originates in the Powell camp or with the NeoCons isn't too clear. So the Syrian people are going to get screwed over, while Assad and his thugs get it all cushy...that is the way of sanctions. Oh look... Sen. Bob Graham (D) is now advocating an attack on Syria...are the Democrats jumping on the hawk bandwagon?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...4/15/SYRIA.TMP
Oddly, most of America's wars since 1941 have been fought under Democratic Admins. I'm too sleepy to search and verify this right now, it was just something I heard the other day during a speech.