Originally posted by donat
It would be a very good idea for us to hit Syria first now that we have an excuse to do so.e
To all armchair warriors: please, think about what you're saying.
I assume you meant to be quoting me there. You have completely missed my point, and you seem to have forgotten that this tread is about the "common
front" and not directly about the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
Strategically speaking, and ignoring for a moment what is right and wrong (because those who know me know that I have issues with Bush on Iraq),
hitting Syria first is the only way to fly.
Iran controls the Persian Gulf thanks to their missiles. We need an alternate route into Iran before we can hit them effectively. Turkey may not play
ball against Iran, and Turkish cooperation is vitally important to the protection of Iraq in any war against a Syria-Iran alliance.
Syria presents an alternate route to Iraq and thus to Iran. Turkey has had differences with Syria over Iskenderun though. Also, Turkish cooperation
will not conflict with their desire to enter the EU as long as the UN is on board for this war, and Syrian aggression against Lebanon is the best bet
for UN intervention against Syria.
The US would be nuts not to make a play against Syria now that this situation presents the opportunity. The situation is so fortuitous that I'm open
to consideration that America really did bump off Hariri just to create the opportunity.
1) The Damascus regime called this attack 'a criminal act'. Is this a phrase a government that has just committed a terrorist atrocity would
use? I don't think so.
I could go either way on this. There is a decent chance that it wasn't Syria, but there is also a fair chance that it was. Nations lie all the time.
Americans know this all too well. America calls it a criminal act, Syria calls it a criminal act- I dont know if Israel has done so yet, but I dont
see them admitting it like they almost always do when they kill an enemy. Somebody
is lying their ugly little arse off. Bush? Asad? Sharon? All
of them? I don't know.
2) Syrian soldiers fought on the Coalition side during the first Gulf War, you remember; the non-profiteering, morally-objectionable,
land-grabbing, apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist-led one?
This is hardly enough to make them the good guys. Their cooperation saved Saddam, kept Israel out of the war, and probably netted them a nice little
payoff from America. They still sponsor terrorism, occupy a neighbor(lebanon), wish to anhilate another neighbor(israel), and claim territory
belonging to a third neighbor (turkey).
I am somewhat confused as to what the fact of their cooperation with Desert Storm is supposed to establish. That they would never kill Hariri? That
they don't deserve to be attacked? Help me out if you could.
How can an entire nation of educated people be so easily fooled???
Before I bite your head off, I'll politely ask for clarification of what I've said that seems so ignorant. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding.