Whuh? Damn, I was betting on France or Canada fer sure.

Unfortunately, this is sending out an early warning that we may be seeing an Iraqi opposition fleeing to and operating out of Syria. That's going to make Damascus a pretty tricky problem, and we can also look forward to their sponsored clients helping things out with the occasional suicide bombing.

I think Syria is a big mistake as the next choice. They are nowhere near as dangerous to the USA as Iran or North Korea. Toppling the Syrian regime would certainly be a big favor to Israel, but I think it's highly questionable as an American strategy.

Look, Syria is already going to be surrounded by U.S. allies and quasi-allies after Iraq is conquered. They are not nearly as virulent a terrorism sponsor as Iran, aren't anywhere close to having nukes as far as I know, and also the Syrian public doesn't support America-- UNLIKE the Iranians, most of whom would welcome us!

Also, if we take on Syria right after Iraq, it's going to start looking more and more like an anti-Arab persecution. I live in Egypt, and the Egyptians feel a close camaraderie with Syria, and that really might be a bridge too far for America right now.

Can we please deal with those North Korean psychopaths first, and then maybe Iran? Let Syria wither on the vine for now. We've got bigger fish to fry.

Whaaat!
A convoy has been seen, guarded ??

Is this a reason ???

C'om on, get real.

I hope we make sure the situation is completely stabilized and reconstruction is well underway in afghanistan and iraq before we do something like decide to take on north korea which could turn into a much more serious situation for us than iraq could ever hope to.

North Korea has something like 10000 artillery tubes within range of Seoul right now. The moment the war started they could effectivly level seoul without having to move their armies one inch. That is a serious threat to our ally and would hurt us economically too. Not to mention that tokyo is within easy missile range for the North Koreans.

Sure we could threaten to nuke the DPRK back into the stone age but that threat means little to them as they're pretty much already there.

Let's get the middle east taken care of first. We've got plenty of work ahead of us as it is.

Syria, has for years been the main problem, since the younger Assad ascended, I don,t think he,s anywhere near as good as his old man was at managing regional unrest, whilst at the same time being very invisible, I think they must be made aware that, either reform, or go the way of Iraq, all these despots are now on notice.

If we attack Syria, we're not going to have support from anyone except Israel. If the Syrians did something stupid like invade Israel we could get at least some support (not from the french or other muslim nations but at least from the UK I think) but unless something like that happens, we're better off just trying to take out Assad personally rather than trying a general regime change.

Look at it this way, once Iraq is reconstructed and firmly happy with the US we'll have another ally in the region. Syria will begin to feel very lonely out there, and we will be in a position to pressure them into being good.

I think we should put away the hammer for a little while, lest we use it so much that more problems decide to become nails.

Right now the world is hyperventilating, and without nearly as much cause as they believe they have. We just took down a bully, and if skittish 'world opinion' sees us jump up and chase after another one, it will only help to further compress and polarize opinion against the US. This is not something we should dismiss as irrelevant. Alot of people are angry at us in a mostly suspicious way, and it would not be wise to give them reason to feel justified.

Our military is proving itself to be quite capable, let us give our diplomats the chance to prove themselves worthy of it. If we manage to SOLVE the next problem that we face in an obvious and diplomatic way, we will help to earn the trust that we will need so much if our end goal is truely peace.

How much of the talk is real and how much of it solely for Syria's benefit. I still believe that if the French hadn't been so obstinate and wouldn't have given Saddam wiggle room we wouldn't have even had to fight this war. Diplomacy only works if there is a guaranteed consequence that at least one side doesn't want to have happen to it. I believe Syria is ruled by Ba'athists too, so giving them a threat here or there as they watch their compatriots die horrible deaths is not such a bad strategy.

PLEASE INVADE CANADA

We are being oppressed by the French!

Save us our English speaking brothers...

Oh, and as trophies... Did you know?

French Girls Surrender Easy

The regime that needs changing is the one in Washington. If those idiots in Washington really think the world will stand by and watch this crap happen in country after country they are truely crazy. This is insanity to go on this crusade against countries that have done nothing against us. "Direct threat" that Bush has used is crazy. You know the old saying, " Stick your nose in enough peoples bussiness and sooner or later you get it punched in". If we continue on this course of calling people names and condeming countries who are no "direct threat" to us then we deserve what will surely will be coming our way.

Ahhh, the hubris of empire.

YEAH!!!!!! Just like we deserved 9/11 for leaving everything alone to fester!!!!!

Graham, spin, and CM - I agree. I see NO cause to go into Syria. At least a legitimate case could be made for going into Iraq. Syria had WMD prior to any Iraqi transfers - so that bird won't fly. Unless Syria initiates a direct attack against us, there is nothing to support an attack on it.

Lori,

Well, attacking Syria gets into the field of preventative warfare, and warfare based on tangential possibilities. It is in fact an offensive war, not a defensive war, and as a principled libertarian I will not support the former.

I'm with Lori and Gary today...

Saxien says "Syria has for many years been the main problem." Sure: FOR ISRAEL! All the best wishes to the Israelis, but as an American citizen, I am not interested in executing wise Israeli foreign policy, but wise _American_ foreign policy.

The Taliban obviously deserved whatever they got after 9/11, and good riddance for Saddam as well. But what case do we really have against Syria? They've had chemical weapons for awhile, yes, but that is not the USA's problem, and I've never heard anyone say that Syria has a secret nuke problem (let me know if I'm wrong about that).

At this point, we need to deal with the single most pressing threat in the world, which is North Korea. Probably by diplomacy, because someone up above was right in talking about what would happen to Seoul if we attack the People's Democratic Republic.

Iran we don't need to attack. There will probably be a revolution from within. And although I do worry a bit about their nuke program, Israel will probably bomb it anyway in the interests of their own self-defense, so why should we do their dirty work for them?

Same for Hezbollah-- Israel's problem, until further notice, not the USA's. I know they bombed the Marines, and I don't blame the Marines for wanting revenge. But the Marines happened to be viewed at the time as just another faction in the Lebanese Civil War. As far as I know, there is no solid evidence of Hezbollah doing anything to the USA outside of those incidents in Lebanon two decades ago.

Again, best wishes to Israel, but we don't need to base our entire foreign policy on Israeli security interests. As Henry Kissinger said after '73: it wouldn't be bad for Israel if all the Arab states hated the U.S., because it would inevitably draw us both much closer together, but for the U.S. this would be a diplomatic and strategic catastrophe. Let's stick to our own enemies, please.

Graham, I completely agree with your last post. Israel's enemies do not automatically equal America's enemies - spinning otherwise does not make it so. If some folks want the U.S. to be responsible for Israel's defense, then the issue should be debated in the public for what it is.

I happen to think Israel's interests coincide with our own, and I'm having a hard time keeping track of those terrorist groups that HAVEN'T publically called for suicide bombings and attacks against the U.S. Didn't Hezbollah also threaten such attacks on us as well? I can't remember. There's been reports of Syrian mercenaries fighting our forces, and if it's true Saddam moved a lot of his WMDs to Syria, we're going to have to go in there one way or another to get rid of it. Anyone who thinks Syria won't happily distribute these weapons to whacko terrorists have another thought coming. And I seriously question the validity of ignoring Syria's threats to Israel simply because it doesn't directly concern us. How does it look if Syria or one of the terrorist groups it sponsors unleashes a chemical/biological attack using IRAQ's WMDs on Israel, and we stand by and do nothing? "Oh well they only attacked Israel, so it don't concern us." Bullshit.

Most of the Arabs that will perceive this as a conquest of sorts are the ones we are fighting to begin with, that is, those who prescribe to the form of Islam known as Wahhabism. I doubt the Sunnis or even the Shiites, especially after being liberated in Iraq and having a more favorable opinion towards the West, will regard our intentions accurately. Kuwait is well aware of the reality that we did not take over their county, but liberated them, and then restored their government. Even in light of tremendous backlash from Arab "thugocracies", they are still our solid allies, and if Kuwait is any indication, Iraq will be too.

I'll tell you one thing though, I am getting fed up with Saudi Arabia getting a pass through all this. I only hope that a new Iraq will happily offer us a new oil trade agreement that will put us in a better position to address Saudi Arabia's grievous and atrocious acts against humanity.

Caleb,

Syria already had WMD prior to any Iraqi transfer - do a google on Syria and WMD. *They already had them.* Nothing on the ground has changed relative to the U.S. and Syrian relationship.

If Israel (or the U.K. or Australia or Japan, etc.) is attacked, THEN I would support coming to their defense. No way, no how, do I support *pre-emptive* attacks in effort of another country's defense. Big deal if Syria and Iran made threats against the U.S. - Iran has been doing it for decades. Threats and actions are two different things. I don't agree that Israel and American interests/security completely coincide - spinning the facts doesn't make it so.

Like I said, if there are some who want the U.S. to act pre-emptively on behalf of *Israel* - bring it out in the open and have a public debate about it.

(IIRC, Syria has had WMD for a couple of decades - and they haven't used them in all that time. There is no valid reason for the U.S. to go after Syria. None.)

Guy (Nice alias Mr. Kerry!),

YOU are the IDIOT! Why don't you go find a whale to save...a tree to hug?!?!I will refrain from battle (albeit a battle of wits!) with an unarmed person. Bottom line, planes, boats, buses leave the US EVERY SINGLE DAY! In fact, I hear Zehira Houfani could use a good publicist...!!!

Don't worry, American GI's will fight and undoubtedly die to protect your precious First Amendment Rights, but please understand that those "Rights" are REALLY a privilege with which comes resposibilities.

It is quite obvious from your post that you were NOT 'Captain' of your debate team as it contains NOTHING but left-wing, liberalist buzz-words (MANY of which are used repeatedly by the likes of Al-Jizz *AND TRAITORS!* such as Peter Arnet, Michael Moore, and Senator Kerry!). Bottom line, take off the blinders and the rose-colored glasses and go thank a GI and/or their family.

I only HOPE that you make some stupid comments such as these, and I assure you that it will be YOUR nose that is punched in (and probably by a GI's WIFE!

BTW- You sure your name is not spelled Beret?!?!

"The regime that needs changing is the one in Washington. If those idiots in Washington really think the world will stand by and watch this crap happen in country after country they are truely crazy. This is insanity to go on this crusade against countries that have done nothing against us."
Posted by GUY BARRETT at April 8, 2003 08:57 AM

Caleb,

I agree that Israel is an ally, but that doesn't mean that our interests entirely overlap. Turkey is still an ally, for example, but that doesn't mean we let them go into Kurdistan even though their own national interests dictate it. England and France were allies in 1956, but that doesn't mean we supported their invasion Egypt. By the same token, we can call Israel an ally without supporting everything they do (their stupid invasion of Lebanon in '82, for example).

As Lori put it so lucidly, pre-emptive ttacks for our own safety is one thing, but pre-emptive attacks for _another_ country? Wow. That pushes us into totally different territory than we've ever seen before. And I agree that if the backbone of the war on terrorism strategy is to be a total union with Israeli strategy (dubious foreign policy indeed), then I also think this is questionable enough that it needs to be publicly addressed. We can back Israel's right to existence without attacking every Arab country in sight. Assad is no peach, but he's also no Saddam. And he has no nuke program that I've ever heard of.

Syria is the least of our problems right now. They are going to atrophy once Iraq is under a pro-U.S. government. What I want is for W. to focus like a laser beam on North Korea, and on trying to salvage whatever alliances we can (Germany and Russia may still be salvageable, whereas France may not be).

And hear hear to whoever said we can't let the Saudis keep playing dirty pool. That's the real "oil" factor in this war-- not to make Exxon rich, but to put us in position to tell the Saudis to get real about their "charity" practices.

Nope, it's about making Exxon rich.

In case anyone care's, in 2001-2002 the 6 largest oil companies outperformed the Fortune 500 by 90% due to the war on terror and the one on Afghanistan.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Just like the 1980's the U.S. Government will spend a decade trying to set the whole middle east ablaze.

Which for me begs but one question: Do the hawks believe their drivel, or do they know whose interests their actions are actually in?

People say that Syria ceases to become a problem once we get Iraq stabilized.

Wake up! Syria will prevent Iraq from being stabilized. It will be a staging base for every band of terrorists which wants to make its name (which leads to funding) by killing Americans in Iraq.

It will be sort of like the situation in Vietnam, where for a long time there were protected sanctuaries in Cambodia. The NVA could come across the border, attack, and then the moment they were in Cambodia we couldn't touch them.

Syria will end up doing the same thing.

Isn't there a large expanse of desert between the population centers of Iraq and Syria? I'd think we'd see them coming.

Lets Get Syria and the rest of the Arab World. Lets get those Camel piss drinking towel heads.