| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | ||
| Bush warns Syria and Iran over terror | ||
| 2005-02-03 | ||
The state of the union address to Congress had been billed as reconciliatory, but, along with a series of references to alliances and international initiatives, there were some blunt words. After recounting the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the president said: "There are still governments that sponsor and harbour terrorists, but their numbers have declined. "There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction, but they are no longer without attention and without consequence." The president then singled out Syria, which he said "still allows its territory and parts of Lebanon to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region." "We expect Syria to end all support for terrorists and open the door to freedom," he said, to heavy applause from members of Congress. He turned to Iran, which he said "remains the world's primary sponsor of terror" and he issued a direct message to Iranians to stand up to the clerical regime in Tehran. He said the US was working with European states to make clear to Tehran it must give up its uranium enrichment programme, but he also signalled a much broader agenda, aimed at the ultimate removal of the clerical regime itself. He declared "to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
| ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #15 Syria and Iran are unstable, but possess enough weaponry to make a big mess if they have the initiative. They've been doing enough damage in Iraq as it is. If you take out Syria, that gets rid of a big terrorist staging area. It also strengthens Israel, which can concentrate its defenses on the east and south. Toppling the Iran regime (provided the opposition can do it with only indirect help from us), blows out the most powerful terrorist-supporting regime. The Soddies spend lots of money, but cannot do anything directly. It's safe to turn our backs on them to clean out Syria and Iran. It is notsafe to go after Saudi with Syria and Iran free to act as they want. Good assessment, Jackal. The Saudis are among the few Mideast Arab "allies" we can turn our backs on. Better that we first clean out the other hornets' nests in Syria and Iran before addressing such momentous power-shifts as with Saudi Arabia. Yes, they are a major terror lever, but they are also more stable per se. Better to denude the region of its favorite safe havens before closing down the biggest whorehouse of all. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-02-03 11:40:08 PM |
| #14 Spot, I'm sure they've got one, but which of them knows how to maintain or detonate it? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-03 7:45:13 PM |
| #13 So Iran is between Iraq and a hard place? (sorry...) |
| Posted by: Anonymous6035 2005-02-03 7:26:32 PM |
| #12 Order of precedence, feasibility of success, and economic reality all dictate Syria and Iran before Saudi Arabia. Syria is non-oil-producing with a decrepit military, a weak no-chin Baathist {facist} dictator, and an open sore militarily in Lebanon. Iran is cracking up due to demographic and ideological divisions, has a more capable military than Syria, and is actively supporting Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. The big problem with Saudi Arabia is the muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, and the oil shock that a disruption of their pumping would cause. We would need the backing of the Hasemite royals to re-establsh their control of those holy sites along with agreements of the local Sufi/Shiaa populations - eg, Republic of Eastern Arabia. Saudi Arabia becomes much easier if Syria and Iran are out of the way. |
| Posted by: Spemble Whains2886 2005-02-03 2:50:50 PM |
| #11 Jackal- You may be right about the order, but I can't help but wonder that the Soddies have a nuke or two hidden away (gotten from the Paks whose bomb development they helped finance). The Mad Mullahs are a wild card because they're, well, mad (in the crazy sense) and bent on nukes. But if you look at whose money and influence feed radical islam look no further than the Magic Kingdum. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-02-03 1:09:43 PM |
| #10 At the end of âHigh Noonâ Gary Cooper drops his badge in the dust and drives out of town. Guess what Syrians and Iranians? OUR âGary Cooperâ still has his badge (for FOUR more years!) So it isnât that thereâs a NEW Sheriff in townâ¦itâs the SAME Sheriff!! And he just flat out doesnât like bad guys!! |
| Posted by: Justrand 2005-02-03 11:09:06 AM |
| #9 I can't really disagree with you, Spot, but I can see reasons for going after them last. Syria and Iran are unstable, but possess enough weaponry to make a big mess if they have the initiative. They've been doing enough damage in Iraq as it is. If you take out Syria, that gets rid of a big terrorist staging area. It also strengthens Israel, which can concentrate its defenses on the east and south. Toppling the Iran regime (provided the opposition can do it with only indirect help from us), blows out the most powerful terrorist-supporting regime. The Soddies spend lots of money, but cannot do anything directly. It's safe to turn our backs on them to clean out Syria and Iran. It is notsafe to go after Saudi with Syria and Iran free to act as they want. Of course, that's just My opinion. I only know what I read in Rantburg. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-02-03 11:00:15 AM |
| #8 Putting the hurt on Syria and Iran is good, but IMHO the world's primary sponsor of terror is Saudi Arabia. They have the money and desire to spread their poison around the world. Those jerks need a whoopin' too. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-02-03 8:53:16 AM |
| #7 Well I know the MMs talk alot of crap. But 20 years of "Death to American" and "Death to Isreal" lends it's self to thinking you are right .com. I just think unlike most Arabs, they don't talk trash. I actually expect the MMs to try and deliver on their promises. I just wonder if your typical run of the mill Iranian is more like and Arab than not. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-03 3:48:35 AM |
| #6 A bare majority of Iranians are Persians. The other half are Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmens, etc. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-03 3:09:07 AM |
| #5 Absolutely - the Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, but their "leaders" exhibit the same penchant for hyperbole. Who started it (lol!) I dunno, heh. I'll readily admit that the Iranians I know personally are "Americanized" and do not follow this - and a friend who toured Iran (backpacker style) for a month last year didn't comment on whether this is common among them in Iran. I'll ask him and get back to you when he deigns to reply, heh. But the Mad Mullahs certainly have the trait, no? Here's the link to the last May Day style parade where they showed off their Shahab-3 missiles with all sorts of anti-Israeli and anti-US epithets and declarations as an example... |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-03 2:53:09 AM |
| #4 I thought Iranians were Persians? Do they act the same as Arabs? I want to know becaue I don't know. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-03 2:19:33 AM |
| #3 Why? You do know that Arabs live by colorful and very visual speech - empty speech - recall Saddam in Gulf I - "mountains of bodies and rivers of blood", etc., right? One of the things you'd learn living in an Arab country is how totally amazed and shocked they are when you do precisely what you say you'll do. Even people who've worked with Westerners a long time, such as at Aramco, still never quite grasp that we are not full of bullshit - and talking just to hear ourselves, as they commonly do. So I'd say they've had more than enough notice and they wouldn't "get it" anyway. When the time is right, just do it. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-03 1:17:52 AM |
| #2 I wonder if "W" will give the clerical regime 48 hours to |
| Posted by: smn 2005-02-03 1:08:37 AM |
| #1 Clear. Just like the Mullah declaration that they will not give up their desire for nukes. Rock, meet Hard Place. Tick... Tock... Mothermullahs. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-03 12:36:09 AM |