Article

2004-05-31 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Hundreds of Iranians Sign Up for Suicide Attacks in Iraq and Israel

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-31 1:47:43 AM|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Iranian government has established a center called The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening. Shahid means martyr.

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-31 2:44:33 AM|| 2004-05-31 2:44:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 One way or another its one less bullet per loon we have to fire ourselves.....Darwinism at work..

Posted by Anonymous5065 2004-05-31 3:15:43 AM|| 2004-05-31 3:15:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The Iranians are talking a LOT of smack these days. Do they REALLY want a fight?

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-05-31 3:16:02 AM|| 2004-05-31 3:16:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 There's got to be some way we can help this new student body to all "graduate" at once.

... Samadi said they would renounce suicide operations if asked by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The sun will explode first.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 3:38:32 AM|| 2004-05-31 3:38:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I wouldn't worry much about publicized events like this.It is mainly an attempt to revive the long gone "revolutionary fire" among iranian populace.And probably all the signees were given some gift or other.

The hidden agena and actions of the mullhas need closer attention, be it nuclear developpement or meddlings in Irak.

Posted by frenchfregoli 2004-05-31 5:22:54 AM|| 2004-05-31 5:22:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Have the Iranians ever heard of battlefield interdiction?

That would be nice little dent in their population-reduction/imperialistic plan, wouldn't it?

Posted by badanov 2004-05-31 9:16:00 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-31 9:16:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "The Iranians are talking a LOT of smack these days. Do they REALLY want a fight?"

Yes. Yes, they do. You had failed to understand that they *do* want a fight before 9/11, and you seemingly keep on failing to understand it after it.

But hey, there's no reason to actually try to figure out the enemy's plans because they're stoopid moooooslims after all, and so they can't *possibly* have been clever enough to manipulate you into destroying all strong secular opposition in the region at the same time as you lost the ability to intervene into the *actual* state-supporters of Islamofascism. They can't possibly have outwitted the CIA so much that you don't even know whether Chalabi is a double (or triple or quadruple) agent or a genuine ally.

But everything you people cared about was "determination" rather than actual intelligence. So anyone who seemed "determined" to wage war was by definition better than those who wondered whether it was a good idea (or a good target) after all.

"Have the Iranians ever heard of battlefield interdiction?"

They probably have also heard of troops availability as well, enough to know that America doesn't have it as long as it's busy in Iraq. Part of the reason that they probably manipulated you into attacking it in the first place.

One of these decades you'll have to concede that I was completely correct, not "anti-American", when I called invading Iraq a moronic decision. One of these decades you'll have to concede that not all all those who thought Bush an idiot were actually the enemies of America.

But hey, you're in the "geographical hub" of the area now. It's only anti-Americans who think it would have been lots better had you been in Damascus or Tehran instead.

Back to being depressed over the ongoing catastrophe for Western Civilisation that the moronic decision to invade Iraq was.

And you people go back to roaring ineffectually that you'll be invading Iran any day now, you're just waiting until the mood strikes you right -- similar to how Hamas is roaring that it'll be destroying the state of Israel any day now. Bull both of these.

You simply won't. Not under the moronic non-strategy of the Bush administration anyway. But keep on roaring anyway. Makes you look amusing in a very *very* bitter sort of way that only serves to feed my melancholy.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-31 10:02:15 AM|| 2004-05-31 10:02:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Have a good Memorial Day, aris.

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-31 10:09:08 AM|| 2004-05-31 10:09:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Yes, Iran has manipulated the situation.

But some threats bear responding to. Iraq was one of them. And I am not convinced that the mullahs will win this one -- not, at least, if the clearheaded people understand what is at stake.

The Bush administration's tactics might not always have been effective. The strategy, I think, has already begun to bear fruit.

Iran is in great danger of overreach. Whether or not it tumbles will in part be the result of Europe's willingness to set aside it's self-involved myopia and act with longer-range and longer-term interests in mind.

I'm not hopeful that will happen, but I haven't ruled it out yet.

Posted by rkb 2004-05-31 10:11:55 AM|| 2004-05-31 10:11:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Argh, typo cleanup on aisle 9. "Its", not "it's".

Posted by rkb 2004-05-31 10:13:13 AM|| 2004-05-31 10:13:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Katsaris, as you've been told many times, invading and liberating Iraq and preparing it to be a Saddam-free democracy and using it as a base (an "Al Queda," if you will) for the democritization of all of the Middle East was a very wise decision.
(Your deciding to post here again after you swore you wouldn't was not.
It's one thing to lie about the facts when you're "discussing" the WOT, but to lie personally is far worse.
Seems you are not the only lying Greek--your countrymen weren't able to face the truth about the cost of the Olympics:
Greek official says costs of Games outweigh gains)
Iran ain't all that...Saddam's Army beat them back in 1988 and they're far worse now.
And they're now "bookended" by Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let 'em threaten.
We're right next door with lots of troops and our ICBMs and Israel's have their number, I'm sure.
Most Iranians are begging to be rid of the mullahocracy and free to enjoy life again and I imagine the reason the USA doesn't move militarily is in the great hope that the Iranian people will overthrow the mullahs the same way the moo-lahs overthrew the Shah.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-31 12:20:38 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-31 12:20:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 And you people go back to roaring ineffectually that you'll be invading Iran any day now, you're just waiting until the mood strikes you right -- similar to how Hamas is roaring that it'll be destroying the state of Israel any day now.

Invading Iran might not be an option at present, but disabling their nuclear ~~power~~ weapons program sure is. I'd like to see some way of doing it without scattering radiological contaminants all over the countryside, but if that is the price of eliminating this massive threat to world stability, then so be it.

Iran has been playing havoc with the entire Middle East (and world) for so long that it is time for them to realize the price of such deleterious meddling.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 1:10:59 PM|| 2004-05-31 1:10:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Underestimating ones enemy is as much a misstake as overestimating him, sorry Aris I think you over-estimate the abillities of the mullahs.

(nothing personal)

Posted by Evert V. in NL 2004-05-31 1:40:36 PM|| [http://srv.fotopages.com/?o=935389&t=2] 2004-05-31 1:40:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 At the risk of being flamed, there are some things that #7 says that I agree with...BUT not 100% agreement...

I do believe Iran posed a greater threat to the West than Saddam did. But I don't think the US should invade Iran for the same reason that I don't think we should have invaded Iraq.

The US - politicians and public - do not yet have the stomach to allow our military do the things that need to be done to win a war. We have better technology but we have far fewer soldiers than Muslim countries. We can win wars where we destroy things but the odds of winning wars of "hearts and minds" are stacked against us. Jihadists can win Muslim "hearts and minds" far faster than we can convince Muslims the subtle values of democracy because jihadists can appeal to a familiar ages old religion for unity and which is, unfortunately, antagonistic to individual liberties. Also, another antagonist to Western dreams of imposing democracy on Muslim nations is the kinship or consanguity factor. People have more loyalty to family than to state. In the Middle East the preferred form of marriage is a between a man and his cousin, so even in so-called secular countries in the ME, there's a loyalty to kin, to tribes, that is far greater than to Western "liberators." Here's a map of how important a role kinship plays in various parts of the world:
http://www.consang.net/global_prevalence/index.html

I predict it will take a couple more 9/11's to have us reach a level of fear to wage war effectively. Until I hear the words from Congress and the WH "We declare war on blah, blah country ", I think it's selfish to put our troops in harms way in Muslim countries with a mission of "liberating" them. Can you think of any successful democracies that is primarily Muslim? Turkey...maybe, sort of...Some people believe forcing democracy on Muslim countries will give the West peace and security. I disagree. Unless someone wants something so much they are willing to fight for it themselves, they will not value it if it's handed to them on a platter. I say let Muslim countries form an oozing pus whose governments declare war on us. Only then will we prevail.

Until that time we should deploy our military along our southern and northern borders to act as the strong fist backup to our border guards and send them on occasional UN peace keeping junkets to keep a profile in the UN.

Posted by rex 2004-05-31 1:48:41 PM|| 2004-05-31 1:48:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 With all due respect, I think you're talking alot of rubbish, rex.
You have your defeatist attitude about what America is doing over there, but I don't envy you it.
Those of us who back President Bush and the WOT fully believe that Democracy can and must come to the Middle East, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is the only way for the U.S. to achieve long-term peace and security.
Battle was well and truly joined on 9/11 when America was attacked and 3,000 of our people were murdered on our soil.
President Bush took the fight to the Enemy.
Without a Democratic Reformation in the Arab world, we all know that in no time at all, Islamist terrorism will return to harm us with a vengeance.
We committed our military--with the consent of Congress and after an 18-month discussion among the American citizenry that is erroneously called the "rush to war"-- to Iraq and stay in Iraq we shall.
Now is the time.
Iraq is the place where we are making our stand.
Let the chips fall where they may.
But I'm betting on Bush and democracy (even in the Middle East) and Victory.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-31 2:14:47 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-31 2:14:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Has Aris always thought the US should have invaded Iran and Syria? If we had would he have been supportive?

Get over it Aris, Saddam is history and your pessimistic "I told you so" snorting sounds childish. Explain your Damascus, Tehran strategy. Now that would be interesting!

Rex good points. "Oozing pus". I don't like fighting the WoT in the sands of Afgan or Iraq either. But with the events that lead up to the Iraq invasion, in particular the breaking of the cease fire agreement after the Gulf War, pretty much had the overthrow of Saddam a done deal. I don't think it needed to be done but had it not, Saddam would still be plotting ways to further undermine our security. I'm good with it. (Not needed as a critical battle in the WoT, but more of unfinished business in the heart of the snakes)

I do feel that Iraq is not that important on the WoT now. It is that damnable islam that needs to be confronted as discussed in the other thread.

The Jun 30th deadline is a major event. I hope we get out of the dust bowl and I hope the Kurds will welcome our security as we take on the more harmful sects of islam. But while we do that (if we do that) there will be animosity among islamic kurds, Turks, Stans, ect. that will be nasty.

rkb, don't worry about a little sloppyness. It's ok, we all do its'. You write really well.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-31 2:27:58 PM|| 2004-05-31 2:27:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 it's its' isn't it?

;-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-31 2:46:42 PM|| 2004-05-31 2:46:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Jen, I never believed that Iraq posed enough of an imminent threat to require our troops invading it. I'm sorry but that's the way I've always felt and I assure you I am a conservative.

But like Lucky, now that we are there, we can look at the silver linings of the invasion-we have removed Saddam, who himself was a WMD to Kurds, Shiites, as well as Israelis. We have empowered Kurds to rightfully establish a state for themselves without fear of being mowed down by Saddam. And with regards to the Kurds, if we play our cards right, we can position ourselves strategically to keep a watchful eye on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as well as gain access to theone of the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world.

While it's true that the Turks won't be happy initially, a couple of days ago there was an article posted here from a Turkish source that argued the benefits of a Kurdistan where the PKK and the PKU [whatever those acronymns are]could live happily ever after and out of Turkey's hair. Also, the article suggested that contracts with Kurdistan could be quite an economy booster for the Turks and a strong Kurdistan would serve as a buffer to the hoardes of Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites. Evidently, Turkey may fear those folks more than an up and running Kurdistan. So the Turks may see a silver lining in a Kurdistan, like we should see in regime change of Saddam.

As for my "defeatist" attitude about Iraq...look, I'm copacetic about regime change in Iraq but I am not at all happy about nation building a la Jeffersonian democracy model for Iraq. I say get them their elections, like all the other ME countries have for whatever that's worth, and hope a benign strongman gets into power. I think keeping Iraq as one country will not work after the first election. Realistically, I think 3 states will function better in the long run because of tribal/religious loyalties. And Shiite Iraq may be more of a religious run government than Sunni or Kurdish states. But who cares? As long as they muddle along without threatening other countries, who are we to judge their approach to governing is wrong?

Jen, I do not believe forcing democracy on the ME is the answer to peace for the West. If anything, this type of Western arrogance will cause even more resentment and resistence. Islam is a chauvinistic religion for one thing and the concept of democracy dictating equality for all people/both genders is an exceedingly bad fit for Islamic countries.

I believe that Reformation of Islam is the answer and it has to be generated internally.

OBL and his ilk are winning over followers because they do not want to be "infected" by the decadence of Western democracies. Democracy may mean wonderful things to you and me because our religion does not clash with its ideals, but to Muslims in other countries, even our country, democracy, signifies weakling men choosing to marry men, and Britany Spears-Madonna-Lyndie England type liberated women. George Bush praises the idea of liberating women in Afghanistan and Iraq, but where are the visible hundreds of thousands of liberated women from those 2 countries chiming in with thankfulness for being "liberated?" We can re-build as much infa-structure in Iraq and Afghanistan as we want, but as soon as there is a gay parade in either country, all hell would break loose be it tomorrow or 100 years from now.

David Frum wrote an interesting article a couple of days ago in NRO entitled "Sacred Murder II." Frum is a neocon journalist who was quite optimistic for an Iraq democracy. It looks like Frum is having second thoughts about Islam, radical or moderate, taking a back seat to personal liberty and national democracy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary052404.asp
We in the Western press often praise âmoderate Islam.â But in practice, âmoderate Islamâ often turns out to be moderate in its actions only. As decent human beings, moderate Muslims will of course refrain from committing acts of oppression, cruelty, and terrorism. But intellectually, moderate Muslims have a difficult time explaining why these acts are âun-Islamic.â ...What Westerners are really yearning for is not a âmoderateâ Islam, but a âliberalâ Islam â one that accepts peace and tolerance on principle, and not just as unfortunate necessities. Yet such a âliberalâ Islam, if it ever came to be, would pose a very serious challenge to the whole elaborate structure of Islamic thought and practice...Intellectually, traditional Islam forms a closed system. You can exit the system (although the penalty for exit â apostasy â is death). But so long as you remain within it, the intellectual system forbids its own reform. A liberal Islam would have to begin by challenging the system. It would have to begin by submitting the Koran itself to human inquiry and reason.

Posted by rex 2004-05-31 3:50:26 PM|| 2004-05-31 3:50:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Aris - I do agree about destroying secular forces..but you have to understand we had very few choices.

1. Give up and run leaving the ME to the mulla's
2. Tell saddam his time is up and he must be our pawn. Essentially becoming allies to confront a common foe.
3. Taking the harder route which Bush has taken. He has complety broken with the past and taken a more enlightened approach - the democracy approach.

Choice 1. is not even on the table.

Choice 2. - well the left, you and the rest of the EU would be in an uproar calling us vile things and how we support tryanny.its all about us controlling iraqs oil..ect..not that EU would do anything on their own to confront tynanny.

Choice 3. - taking the hard route but the morally correct route. take out iraq, scare the shit out the soddys and put the iranians on notice - we are your new nieghbors and things will change.

You call invading iraq moronic. Well please explain to us morons a better option. In the long run (decades - not months or years) Bush has made the correct decision. War is not easy and we have many hard days ahead of us. But quite frankly there is no other nation to step up to the plate.
Pulling out and doing nothing would put your kids, my kids and their offspring at risk of nuclear blackmail and their economies at the mercy of the mad mullas in iran. Now from your posts I can honestly say you do not support the islamofacists. So please tell us a better option.

As for me I do not want to pass this problem to my grandchildern.

Posted by Dan 2004-05-31 3:59:52 PM|| 2004-05-31 3:59:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 And yes Aris - we will be dealing with iran. Before they go nuke - either internally or externally. There is still a chance in iran for the moderate voices (where in iraq there was only one voice) to prevail. I do not believe this but it is still possible. If not then you will see American forces there by the end of 2005... you speak of day's..get off the liberal bandwagon and think a little more strategically

Posted by Dan 2004-05-31 4:05:51 PM|| 2004-05-31 4:05:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 rex, and that brings us back to the funky thing that OldSpook clearly opined.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-31 4:08:17 PM|| 2004-05-31 4:08:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 There are probably no "right" answers here. We do nothing, it will get worse. They will work at trying to hurt us (proof: US response during the 90's.) There certainly is no evidence that this problem is going to "go away". We try and wack the bad guys and help the good guys. This certainly is not easy or fun. It may not even be possible. There seem to be an awfully large number of people who are spoiling for a war.
We should note that there are US foces on both sides of Iran. There is a large US force near Syria.

Posted by Charles 2004-05-31 4:55:55 PM|| 2004-05-31 4:55:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Jihadists can win Muslim "hearts and minds" far faster than we can convince Muslims the subtle values of democracy because jihadists can appeal to a familiar ages old religion for unity and which is, unfortunately, antagonistic to individual liberties.

Excellent point, except that the word "unfortunately" needs to be replaced with "intentionally."

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-31 5:37:02 PM|| 2004-05-31 5:37:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Okay, #21, you caught me outright -I plead guilty to too much fuzzy yaking about reformation of Islam. That's as naive as hoping that Muslims will embrace democracy. Sure, I can go with OldSpook's clarity - use overwhelming force, "innocent" collateral be damned. Works for me instead of waiting forever for reformation or democracy to take hold. Force is good. I like force. In fact, it should be a)overwhelming force or b)none at all-in which case we should just stick to doing the blue helmet thingie and let the Islamic pus foment until we are forced to resort to a.

#19 Re: not wanting to leave a "problem" for your grandchildren...You wrongly assume that there are a finite number of Muslim bad guys in Iraq, and that once X number are wacked or jailed, presto, the "problem" is solved and then your grandchildren will be able to do summer internships at Baghdad U in their Junior year at college. Even Muslims in our own country say they will vote for the Democrat Party because of our Iraqi "liberation" efforts. These American Muslims have enjoyed the benefits of democracy and still they turn their backs on George Bush. Doesn't that make you pause and re-consider the benefits of engaging in touchy feely "winning of hearts and minds" wars?

I would suggest to you that Iran is not shaking in fear of our Geneva Convention handcuffed military dodging bullets and bombs in Iraq 24/7, when they are not re-building mosques and apologizing for throwing panties on the faces of Fayedeen. Iranians are probably losing patience, however, reading about Saddam the Butcher still breathing and getting 3 square meals aday 6 months after he was captured or how Saddam has access to the best lawyers money can buy while he awaits "trial" and may not even face the death penalty because L. Paul Bremer kindly suspended capital punishment in Iraq. Iranians are impatient, yes, fearful, I don't think so.

Posted by rex 2004-05-31 5:51:17 PM|| 2004-05-31 5:51:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Suicide bombers may be "martyrs," but how often were they used before, oh, I don't know, the mid '80s? They certainly weren't used during any of the conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors. If my admittedly spotty memory of WWII serves, Japan didn't even start with the kamikazes until near the end (Guadalcanal was the first instance, I believe, and by then they were on the defensive). The Paleos don't have much else at their disposal; suicide bombers are cheap, effective at killing, and a good place to get rid of extraneous, depressed, angry individuals. It's one of the few things they can do against the better-trained and -equipped Israelis. So why would Iran need a squadron of suicide jihadis, unless their military is either (A) not all it's cracked up to be, or (B) somehow unreliable?

I have nothing to back this up, but somehow I get the feeling that the mullahs have tipped their hand in some way, shown something that maybe they shouldn't have. Whether that be involvement with Iraq, or perhaps some kind of vulnurability that wasn't apparent before, I'm not sure . . .

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-31 5:57:29 PM|| 2004-05-31 5:57:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Aris quick question..what's your plan on taking on the islamofaciscts? Hit Iran? Hit Saudi Arabia and more importantly where/what targets/whom and where do those attacks come from if there ARE to be attacks? Not sniping at you here, just an honest question.

Posted by Valentine 2004-05-31 6:59:06 PM|| 2004-05-31 6:59:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Valentine>
Hitting Syria would be my favoured course of action. Destroying the headquarters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. Freeing Lebanon at the same time.

Since Syria is the main supporter of Palestinian terrorism, at this point even the Palestinians may be forced to figure out there's no hope in the so-called "armed resistance" of these organizations. They accept the formation of a state (with wall of separation) that's roughly on the Green Line, minus Eastern Jerusalem, which the Israelis keep. Even if they don't accept it, you force it on them anyway.

The democratization of Syria proceeds more easily than the democratization of Iraq because it's much more ethnically homogeneous -- and also because it doesn't border with Iran or Saudi Arabia but Iraq instead. Cult-of-personality dictatorships aren't very exportable to other nations -- Islamic dictatorships are.

And the Kurdish minority of Syria can get autonomy. They're located in a small enough area that this doesn't threaten the entire integrity of the Syrian state, as it would if Sunnis/Shias tried for autonomy on Iraq. But the future possibility would exist for unity with the Kurds of Iraq and the creation of a state that forms a bridge all the way to Iran, if the need arose.

Saddam is treated last -- the same way he was pretty much last on the list of regional threats.

Lucky> "Has Aris always thought the US should have invaded Iran and Syria?"

Well, there was a time that I was more trusting of USA strategy (i.e. I thought one existed)
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=b3el2k%24f3v%241%40usenet.otenet.gr

At that time, I had thought that the Bush administration had figured out how many troops they would need for each phase. Back then I had really thought that Iraq was the first phase in a campaign. So it didn't matter much to me which one would be the first country and which would be the second. Iraq still seemed like a foolish unimportant target, but since I'd expected more important ones to follow, I didnt mind so much.

Then it was shown that no other countries would follow because America simply didn't even have enough troops to occupy Iraq itself, let alone Iraq and the other nations combined.

*I* couldn't have known that back then, but I think I'm still free to blame the Bush administration for seemingly not knowing it either. It was their job to know it and they utterly messed up.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-31 8:13:15 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:13:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 The future is an undiscovered country. Whether Iraq ends up as a democracy is unknown. If it ends up as a Saadam mark II dictatorship or a mullahocracy, was it worth trying? Absolutely! We can then move on to plan B.

On a note to Aris, my mother used to tell me that many things in this world are not good or bad, they are just better or worse than the alternatives.

BTW, I agree with you that Syria should have been job one, but that would have entailed completely ditching the UN and even the Brits would have balked at invading Syria. After Afghanistan, Iraq was the low hanging fruit - all those UNSC resolutions.

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-31 8:43:06 PM|| 2004-05-31 8:43:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Well, well. Look who's back.

Surprisingly, I agree with Aris' evaluation of the salutary effects of invading Syria, plus the benefits it would accrue to Israel. Can't argue with THAT.

However, at $25,000 per suicide bomber, Saddam WAS a major player in Palestinian terror. The very same border over which Assad's feeding shahids into Iraq is the same border over which Saddam would be feeding HIS shahids into Syria. And what about the international outcry? At least the United States had a raft full of violated UN Sanctions to wave at to justify the Invasion of Iraq. If THOSE weren't enough in international eyes, what would the justification be for invading Syria, who DIDN'T invade Kuwait? How many UN resolutions have called for Syria to pull out of Lebanon? The outcry when we toppled Saddam would have been nothing compared to the outcry of spearing Assad WITH NO VISIBLE JUSTIFICATION WHATEVER. We'd have been truly alone, for the resolutions against Iraq were what Blair relied on to dare join us in Iraq.

Iraq had records which Syria didn't, and which have proven MOST illuminating.

Although not finding a huge arsenal of WMDs in Iraq, what WAS found were WMD programs in statis and seed form. I know most people are not engineers, and so wouldn't appreciate the finding of a single working gas centrifuge in a rose garden. However, to an engineer, a working model is so close to the Holy Grail that the difference doesn't matter.

Invading Syria would NOT have shaken Quaddafi as much as winning in Iraq and dragging Saddam out of his hidey-hole. Assad was a little fish compared to Saddam.

Politics is the art of the Possible. Within the parameters of the American political system at the time, Bush did what was possible. Seems to me the Euros and Al Jazeera know more about how to jerk the lines in our political environment better than some let on.

Posted by Ptah 2004-05-31 8:58:53 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-05-31 8:58:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 We need to build a wall of shame somewhere for these suicide bombers. These jihadi morons ruin their families' lives and their countries' futures and seem to get nothing but accolades for their actions. If we had a wall of shame built somewhere, we could counter the ridiculous fawning over murderers so prevalent in the Muslim world. We could pelt the walls with animal manure and rotted vegetables, etc to show them the derision and denegration they deserve. Let's even put photos of it on the web to really piss off the abetters of terrorism.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-01 3:05:12 PM|| 2004-06-01 3:05:12 PM|| Front Page Top

15:05 jules 187
14:23 jules 187
08:56 Anonymous4617
05:58 rkb
05:48 JFM
05:13 Phil B
03:22 Zenster
03:21 Mike Sylwester
03:19 Mike Sylwester
01:15 Tresho
01:11 .com
01:06 Phil B
00:26 Mark Espinola
00:21 Tresho
00:12 Tresho
00:05 Atomic Conspiracy
00:05 Desert Blondie
23:56 Zenster
23:48 Anonymous4617
23:48 Zenster
23:46 Tresho
23:37 Phil B
23:36 The Doctor
23:33 Zenster