← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 6064 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-04-09
2003-04-09 05:33 | User Profile
By claiming that Syria has been hiding Iraq's supposed WMDs, the Bush regime and its Zionist masters kill two birds with one stone: (1) they excuse their inability to find the weapons that were supposedly the cause of this war, and (2) they get an excuse to invade Syria. I don't think the US has made any public, explicit threats of military action in Syria yet, but just give it some time.
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/08/wsyria08.xml/]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...8/wsyria08.xml/[/url]
2003-04-09 11:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Angler@Apr 9 2003, 05:33 ** they get an excuse to invade Syria. I don't think the US has made any public, explicit threats of military action in Syria yet, but just give it some time. **
Syria doesn't have any reason NOT to have weapons of mass destruction. Are we now in the business of deciding who gets to have what weapons?
When are we going to take out China... unless I'm mistaken... they have WMD.
I think that'd be an awful long stretch. I'm not sure you could get congress to go along with it.
I hope you're wrong... I'm afraid you're right though.
2003-04-09 15:01 | User Profile
'A Los Angeles Times poll from last week found 50 percent of Americans favoring "military action" against Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons and 42 percent wanting to fight Syria if it supplies night vision goggles and other assistance to Iraq, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has charged it is doing.'
source: [url=http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030408-074455-1967r]http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200304...08-074455-1967r[/url]
2003-04-09 19:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by londo@Apr 9 2003, 05:17 ** Syria doesn't have any reason NOT to have weapons of mass destruction. Are we now in the business of deciding who gets to have what weapons? **
Incredibly, that is indeed the case. The US has now arrogated to itself the sole authority to decide that very question. Of course, our precious Israelis are allowed to have whatever weapons their little hearts desire.
2003-04-11 13:05 | User Profile
Uncle Scam has just started World War III (or IV, if your consider the Cold War to count). Thanks to a combination of native American hubris and arrogance, and the kosher uber-arrogance of Israel, the Israel lobby, and Bush's khazar advisors. IF THEY WANTED TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES, THEY COULDN'T HAVE CHOSEN A BETTER METHOD! Are Syria, Iran, et al, going to sit on their hands and wait for the US to act, now that they've seen Iraq fall and know what's ahead for them? Or will they decide to finally unite for that last, desperate jihad and really unleash a storm of terrorism on the Zionist entity and its golem? And will Russia and China sit back and watch? Watching the televised "victory" in Iraq at work, some idiot stood up and proclaimed that Iraq was now our gas station, and who was going to do anything about it? Famous last words. The US and its Freeper citizenry have now officially reached the point of classical mad pride, hubris, which always preceeds a fall as it arouses the attention and ire of the gods. The US can't win forever, and all good luck streaks eventually turn bad. That slight majority of Americans who want to continue the crusade, they'll get what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will get it too.
2003-04-11 13:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by NativeExile@Apr 11 2003, 13:05 ** Are Syria, Iran, et al, going to sit on their hands and wait for the US to act, now that they've seen Iraq fall and know what's ahead for them? **
I think that the Syrians might just knuckle under like the Iraqis. It's important to keep in mind that the political entity we call "Iraq" is the creation of British imperialists - it has little to do with ethnic borders. Iraq is really the poster child of Multiculturalism, with the territory shared by Kurds, Chaldean Christians, Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, and Turkomens. But that's only the beginning. Even the Sunni Arab subgroup is not a united people - they're riven by tribal and religious rivalries. Saddam was the Chief of Tikrit. He married his first cousin. It was all in the family, as they say. His dictatorship was, the pundits say, all about the power of his clan. When that clan was driven out, the remaining tribes weren't terribly upset. I'm no expert in this, but I understand that the same situation applies in Syria, where Assad's party is bound up with the power of his religious sect/tribe who aren't exactly loved by the others. Syria has Christians, Armenians, Kurds, Druze (a Muslim sect, once met one but they don't talk about their religion much), Alawite (no idea what they are), and so forth. I suspect that Syria will crumble under an assault. Wipe out the Assad clan, and the rest might see us as an improvement.
The Persians willl be a different story, I suspect. The political entity that we call Iran is like Iraq in that it doesn't follow ethnic lines. Iran has large Kurdish and Azeri (Turkic speaking) populations, both of whom are restive. The largest population by far, however, are the Persians, our distant Aryan cousins. They are very animated by their religion, and I think that while there is disappointment with the Islamic Revolution, it isn't so great that the people see the Mullahs as foreign as the various groups and subgroups in Iraq viewed the Tikriti dictatorship under Saddam. I think that they might be more like the Vietnamese than the Iraqis. But again, I'm no expert.
The main thing to keep in mind I think is that there is no such thing as an "Iraqi", "Iranian", "Syrian", "Jordanian, or "Kuwaiti." These are all states made up ad-hoc by the British as the carved up the carcass of the Ottoman Empire. It's important to see through to the ethnic essence in assessing the risks and opportunities.
I'll bet Syria is next for a number of reasons, including the need to build a pipeline from Kirkuk in Northern Iraq to the Mediterranean, but also because they'll be much easier to take out than the mighty (and soon-to-be-nuclear) Persians.
Walter