US, Israel and Syria.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It seems odd that the attack of Syria by Israel and the sanctions of Syria now being voted on in congress should coincide so closely. Is it possible that the Bush administration not only did not frown upon Israel's bombing of a target deep within Syria, but was in collusion with Israel and urged them to stage the attack? In addition IMO were it not for the US being overextended in Iraq, Syria would be getting the change of regime or else message?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,987 • Replies: 71

No top replies

I think we are sending the message to Syria loud and clear, and yes, we may be 'using' Israel to sharply define that message.

I am concerned that we have our hands full at present without these rather provocative messages. But, I think the ship of Iraq is seen to have a gaping hole Syria-side, which Bush et al may feel a dire need to plug up.

0 Replies

The problem with that strategy is experience from that past -- when you plug up one hole, it seems several other holes suddenly appear. Vietnam was a primary example. Exactly how Nixon got trapped into the covert Cambodian bombings. The politicians and the military know the fuse is ignited but they really don't have a clear idea of where the bomb is or how big it may be. Once this was all set in motion there is no way back.

0 Replies

Re: US, Israel and Syria.

au1929 wrote:

It seems odd that the attack of Syria by Israel and the sanctions of Syria now being voted on in congress should coincide so closely.

I don't know what new sanctions you are referring too, but it does not surprise me. Syrias status as an enemy of America has ebbed and flowed in line with thier willingness to bow to American policy interests. Our opinions about Syria changes on a monthly basis. So, no, it is not neccessarily anything more than the usual politics.

Quote:

Is it possible that the Bush administration not only did not frown upon Israel's bombing of a target deep within Syria, but was in collusion with Israel and urged them to stage the attack? In addition IMO were it not for the US being overextended in Iraq, Syria would be getting the change of regime or else message?

Given that we have absolutely no information to indicate this belief, I don't know why you would think they are collaborating. Also, I doubt even the Bush administration would be so reckless as to invade Syria. Even Bush, in his seemingly endless ignorance, must know that attacking Syria would lead to universal alienation among his allies and far-reaching, possibly violent reactions from other Middle Eastern states.

0 Replies

Ironlion zion

US eyes second-tier threats in terror war
From Article;• With the administration dropping its opposition, stiff new sanctions against Iraq's neighbor Syria are likely to win House approval this week and a Senate nod after that. Called the Syria Accountability Act, the legislation would impose new sanctions against a country that has long been on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism -
http://csmonitor.com/2003/1014/p02s01-usfp.html

Regarding our relations with the other Mid Eastern states. I can only ask what relations. If Bush were concerned would he have invaded Iraq?

As for collusion between the US and Israel that is only a question and a possibility.

0 Replies

ILZ

Syria sanctions bill moves forward

Wednesday, October 8, 2003 Posted: 5:48 PM EDT (2148 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House International Relations Committee recommended approval Wednesday of a bill that would authorize President Bush to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/08/whitehouse.syria/index.html

0 Replies

As I've mentioned before, the religious right needs their "river'o'blurd!"

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

. . . The politicians and the military know the fuse is ignited but they really don't have a clear idea of where the bomb is or how big it may be. Once this was all set in motion there is no way back.

Well, there is that. Not all slippery slopes come with handgrips.

0 Replies

The sooner we get our nose poked out of the Middle East -- the better.

It is laughable that we think we can help with the solution -- when we are part of the problem.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The sooner we get our nose poked out of the Middle East -- the better.

It is laughable that we think we can help with the solution -- when we are part of the problem.

When exactly should we abandon the middle east----tomorrow or the next day?

Second question-----what exactly will that abandonment accomplish? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Frank
Are you suggesting we cut and run? It is far too late for that. In fact if we did that would only embolden the terrorists and terrorist nations. The US is rightly or wrongly committed and must finish the job we started.

0 Replies

We ought to get the hell out of there -- and stop this idiotic pretence that we are being fair and even-handed.

We ought to do it tomorrow.

If things blow up -- let the people who are involved handle it.

If one group gets wiped off the face of the planet, so be it.

But maybe if we were out of the picture -- some of the nonsense going on would cease.

0 Replies

Well Israel could certainly handle it but it would require nukes-----the first one on Damascus, the second on the Irans nuclear facilities and the third on Teheran.

Trouble is if we leave Iraq with Saddam still around all of our guys would have died for exactly nothing. Then again Saddam might laugh himself to death as he kept saying to himself "I knew those liberals would cut and run". All I had to do was kill one soldier a day and the news media would take care of the rest.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Well Israel could certainly handle it but it would require nukes-----the first one on Damascus, the second on the Irans nuclear facilities and the third on Teheran.

Good. Let 'em handle it.

Quote:

Trouble is if we leave Iraq with Saddam still around all of our guys would have died for exactly nothing. Then again Saddam might laugh himself to death as he kept saying to himself "I knew those liberals would cut and run". All I had to do was kill one soldier a day and the news media would take care of the rest.

I'm not a liberal, so that gratuitous poke at liberalism was completely wasted on me.

0 Replies

Don't be so presumptuous Frank----I wouldn't waste anything on you-----that was meant for all liberals on this forum.

0 Replies

An exit strategy is now cut and run? We've already dipped our hands in the honey (a euphemism for oil) and there's no way we can wash it off now. Bush is now on the air with damage control for his Iraq policies wondering why the press is only giving the bad news. Does the press every give us the good news? It really does take some research to come up with some good news and then it can easily turn out to be progaganda. I think we're still arguing about something that has an unforseen future. I also think this adminstration is relying on Taro cards to see into the future. Like I said before, the fuse is now lit.

0 Replies

Exit strategy???? The only ones pushing for an early exit strategy are the French, the Germans and the Russians for all the wrong reasons. The others talking out of both sides of their mouths are the Democratic presidential canditates and I would guess that even the "uneducated masses" (as identified by the liberal elitists) will throw that garbage out the door with the rest of the dirty dishwater being spewed out by the NYTimes and others.

I stand by my earlier accusation that Saddam had developed a strategy of killing one American soldier a day thinking the world's news media, especially the BBC and all American media, would force the administration to cut and run---- good plan but wrong president.

0 Replies

One American soldier a day? Seems there's more underestimating here than usual. And where is the proof that it is Sadaam? Pretty weak evidence IMO.

0 Replies

So, the US, Israel, and Syria walk into a bar.
Syria says, "Let's get blasted."
And Israel says, "Okay, this one's on me."

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

One American soldier a day? Seems there's more underestimating here than usual. And where is the proof that it is Sadaam? Pretty weak evidence IMO.

0 Replies

US, Israel and Syria.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know