Regarding Syria...

[SnapIT]

A few thoughts...

I have no doubt that this war will last a few months more, especially as US intelligence is beginning to report that Syria helped Saddam escape and that some of the WMD's are hidden in Syria, it seems like the perfect opening for an extension of the war...

I have to say that an attack on Syria would be a huge mistake... Bashar Assad (the president of Syria) is very popular in the arab world right now, attacking his country would probably mean that the support from Jordan and Saudi Arabia would be gone...

Syria is a cynical powerplayer that will use whatever organization (including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah) to put pressure on Israel but the country isn't a hopeless terrorist state.... Syria want's peace with Israel, even american diplomats in the area agree on that, Barak and Assad the elder were close to an agreement in Genéve three years ago under Clintons supervision..

The only problem at the moment is that Syria will not settle for less than a complete return of the occupied Golan heights, it has to be an "honorable" peace, like the one Egypt got...

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

I'm not going to get into any flamefest here, and i'm not trying to portray the US as a warmongerer, it's just a few thoughts, discussion is welcome but please keep your cool...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Please read the news - We are NOT going to war with Syria - "they are NOT on the list" - "there is NO 'list' "

I know some of you are searching for more things to bash Bush about but you'll get no milage out of the Syria angle.

Syria is a BIG concern but we there are other ways we can try to handle it first - just like we did with Iraq. I for one won't stand for 12+ years of inspections/sanctions if Syria really is found to have WMD and/or harboring deposed Iraqi leaders though.

CkG

The above comments aren't neccessarily directed at SnapIT but rather to hopefully quell the Bush bashing that will take place in this thread.

 

[Grakatt]

Didn't both Ari and Rumsfeld say they were on 'the list' ?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Please read the news - We are NOT going to war with Syria - "they are NOT on the list" - "there is NO 'list' "

I know some of you are searching for more things to bash Bush about but you'll get no milage out of the Syria angle.

Syria is a BIG concern but we there are other ways we can try to handle it first - just like we did with Iraq. I for one won't stand for 12+ years of inspections/sanctions if Syria really is found to have WMD and/or harboring deposed Iraqi leaders though.

CkG

The above comments aren't neccessarily directed at SnapIT but rather to hopefully quell the Bush bashing that will take place in this thread.

Well, it doesn't matter if there will be a war against Syria, many of the points i made are still valid...

Bringing lasting peace to the entire region is the ultimate goal, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Grakatt
Didn't both Ari and Rumsfeld say they were on 'the list' ?

Please read

and

"No War Plan"

If you find a links to what Ari or Rumsfeld said within the recent context of this conflict let me know My links are comments made by Powell.

CkG

 

[rudder]

The U.S. has already put a big hurt on Syria by closing the illegal oil pipeline. And it was done without firing a shot. I don't think we will be invading Syria anytime soon.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Please read the news - We are NOT going to war with Syria - "they are NOT on the list" - "there is NO 'list' "

I know some of you are searching for more things to bash Bush about but you'll get no milage out of the Syria angle.

Syria is a BIG concern but we there are other ways we can try to handle it first - just like we did with Iraq. I for one won't stand for 12+ years of inspections/sanctions if Syria really is found to have WMD and/or harboring deposed Iraqi leaders though.

CkG

The above comments aren't neccessarily directed at SnapIT but rather to hopefully quell the Bush bashing that will take place in this thread.

Well, it doesn't matter if there will be a war against Syria, many of the points i made are still valid...

Bringing lasting peace to the entire region is the ultimate goal, right?

Yes ultimately Peace is the goal. And sure I mostly agree with your points on Syria.

CkG

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Please read the news - We are NOT going to war with Syria - "they are NOT on the list" - "there is NO 'list' "

I know some of you are searching for more things to bash Bush about but you'll get no milage out of the Syria angle.

Syria is a BIG concern but we there are other ways we can try to handle it first - just like we did with Iraq. I for one won't stand for 12+ years of inspections/sanctions if Syria really is found to have WMD and/or harboring deposed Iraqi leaders though.

CkG

The above comments aren't neccessarily directed at SnapIT but rather to hopefully quell the Bush bashing that will take place in this thread.

Well, it doesn't matter if there will be a war against Syria, many of the points i made are still valid...

Bringing lasting peace to the entire region is the ultimate goal, right?

Yes ultimately Peace is the goal. And sure I mostly agree with your points on Syria.

CkG

The momentum created by the Irak war should help the US to bring lasting peace to the region, both the arab world and Israel listens to the US now, and focus is on the region, i think this is a golden oppertunity to get the opposing parties to discuss the Saudi peaceplan...

Lasting peace in the region would reduce the terror threat both in Israel and in the US/western world...

If that happens, nobody can say that it wasn't worth it...

 

[T2T III]

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

 

[Grakatt]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

If you find a links to what Ari or Rumsfeld said within the recent context of this conflict let me know My links are comments made by Powell.

CkG

" "Syria's been on the terrorist list for years," Rumsfeld said. "

" "Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation that, "Syria has been a concern for a long period of time. We have designated Syria for years as a state that sponsors terrorism.

That is me quoting myself quoting what they said in a CNN article, I think it was..I read it when I read about those underground laboratories, only CNN changes their pages all the time.
I posted that in an earlier thread but nobody reacted so I assumed it was well known they had their 'list' .

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/13/sprj.irq.bush.syria/index.html
Anyway, seems I included Ari just because he looks so suspect

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

So what should be done. Maintain the status quo of you kill me I'll kill ten of you? Or maybe permanent Israeili occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? After all, we must ensure the happiness of the Israelis at all costs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Grakatt

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

If you find a links to what Ari or Rumsfeld said within the recent context of this conflict let me know My links are comments made by Powell.

CkG

" "Syria's been on the terrorist list for years," Rumsfeld said. "

" "Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation that, "Syria has been a concern for a long period of time. We have designated Syria for years as a state that sponsors terrorism.

That is me quoting myself quoting what they said in a CNN article, I think it was..I read it when I read about those underground laboratories, only CNN changes their pages all the time.
I posted that in an earlier thread but nobody reacted so I assumed it was well known they had their 'list'

This isn't about the terrorist list - this is specifically talking about the "hit list"(invasion/war) on which people are claiming that syria is next. That is the context of this - not the terrorist sponsor list.

 

[Grakatt]

Ah. There we go for being abstract.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

So what should be done. Maintain the status quo of you kill me I'll kill ten of you? Or maybe permanent Israeili occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? After all, we must ensure the happiness of the Israelis at all costs.

I'm not a solutions person for this particular problem. I'm just an observer who has witnessed too many peace attempts that have never gone anywhere. However, clearly, we got the attention of Iraq and North Korea once we attacked Iraq. So, there was some benefit to the attack. I realize that the U.S. can't come up with 80 billion dollars each time we need to "straighten" a country out. Attacking is not always the solution either.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

I think you are wrong, i do think that there is a chance for peace in the middle east, but i also think that the nations need to be forced to peace by a very strong middleman, that middleman exists and it is the US, the US can force Israel and the arab nations to sign the Saudi plan...

Israel would have to give up the occupied territories but would have lasting peace in exchange, sounds like a good deal to me...

May i ask you what your proposed solution is if you think that peace is not an option?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Grakatt
Ah. There we go for being abstract.

Abstract? No

There have been those on this board and elsewhere that claim we have a "next to invade" list. That is what I meant by "recent context"

CkG

 

[Grakatt]

Ah. So abstract enough for me not to understand , with the limited(recent-timewise) experience I have with this board.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

I think you are wrong, i do think that there is a chance for peace in the middle east, but i also think that the nations need to be forced to peace by a very strong middleman, that middleman exists and it is the US, the US can force Israel and the arab nations to sign the Saudi plan...

Israel would have to give up the occupied territories but would have lasting peace in exchange, sounds like a good deal to me...

May i ask you what your proposed solution is if you think that peace is not an option?

The US can force no one to sign any peace treaties. The US has the ability to influence but we cannot force anyone to do anything unless we invade the country. Israel insists that the terrorism stops. I firmly believe that regardless of whatever papers are signed Hamas will NEVER EVER stop. As long as terrorism continues Israel will reciprocate. (an eye for an eye) Short of invasion and occupation of every country in the middle east I don't believe peace is possible in the middle east UNTIL the arab countries reach the same prosperity as Israel. That prosperity will never occur untill democracy comes.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

I think you are wrong, i do think that there is a chance for peace in the middle east, but i also think that the nations need to be forced to peace by a very strong middleman, that middleman exists and it is the US, the US can force Israel and the arab nations to sign the Saudi plan...

Israel would have to give up the occupied territories but would have lasting peace in exchange, sounds like a good deal to me...

May i ask you what your proposed solution is if you think that peace is not an option?

The US can force no one to sign any peace treaties. The US has the ability to influence but we cannot force anyone to do anything unless we invade the country. Israel insists that the terrorism stops. I firmly believe that regardless of whatever papers are signed Hamas will NEVER EVER stop. As long as terrorism continues Israel will reciprocate. (an eye for an eye) Short of invasion and occupation of every country in the middle east I don't believe peace is possible in the middle east UNTIL the arab countries reach the same prosperity as Israel. That prosperity will never occur untill democracy comes.

I somewhat agree with you, but still, it would help, take away most reasons for terrorism and terrorism will decrease, that is pretty obvious...

I still think that the occupation of land that Israel is doing is counterproductive and will only lead to more violence, which is also pretty obvious...

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah will still be there, but if they are fought by forces looking for lasting peace, both in Israel and in their own countries, they will eventually be gone...

As i see it, there are two ways to fight terror, one is to do it with violence, but if your enemy does not care about getting hurt, it will not work, the other way is to take away his reason to fight...

To just say "terrorists by religion" and give up will not help...

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

I think you are wrong, i do think that there is a chance for peace in the middle east, but i also think that the nations need to be forced to peace by a very strong middleman, that middleman exists and it is the US, the US can force Israel and the arab nations to sign the Saudi plan...

Israel would have to give up the occupied territories but would have lasting peace in exchange, sounds like a good deal to me...

May i ask you what your proposed solution is if you think that peace is not an option?

The US can force no one to sign any peace treaties. The US has the ability to influence but we cannot force anyone to do anything unless we invade the country. Israel insists that the terrorism stops. I firmly believe that regardless of whatever papers are signed Hamas will NEVER EVER stop. As long as terrorism continues Israel will reciprocate. (an eye for an eye) Short of invasion and occupation of every country in the middle east I don't believe peace is possible in the middle east UNTIL the arab countries reach the same prosperity as Israel. That prosperity will never occur untill democracy comes.

I somewhat agree with you, but still, it would help, take away most reasons for terrorism and terrorism will decrease, that is pretty obvious...

I still think that the occupation of land that Israel is doing is counterproductive and will only lead to more violence, which is also pretty obvious...

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah will still be there, but if they are fought by forces looking for lasting peace, both in Israel and in their own countries, they will eventually be gone...

As i see it, there are two ways to fight terror, one is to do it with violence, but if your enemy does not care about getting hurt, it will not work, the other way is to take away his reason to fight...

To just say "terrorists by religion" and give up will not help...

You know it's funny the Europeans and Americans actually agree about what should happen, the americans are just far more pessamistic about what is possible. I agree with everything you have said. I encourage peace and the pursuit of it, I'm just pessamistic about whether it will occur. Sure Isreal should kill the settlements and the PLO should crack down on the terrorists but neither have happened and I'm not sure they will. I would like to see the US warn Israel that economic consquences may follow if they don't puruse peace. But with more Jews (actually I think it's 3x) living in the US than there are in Israel that occuring would be political suicide for the politician that proposed it.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

I think you are wrong, i do think that there is a chance for peace in the middle east, but i also think that the nations need to be forced to peace by a very strong middleman, that middleman exists and it is the US, the US can force Israel and the arab nations to sign the Saudi plan...

Israel would have to give up the occupied territories but would have lasting peace in exchange, sounds like a good deal to me...

May i ask you what your proposed solution is if you think that peace is not an option?

The US can force no one to sign any peace treaties. The US has the ability to influence but we cannot force anyone to do anything unless we invade the country. Israel insists that the terrorism stops. I firmly believe that regardless of whatever papers are signed Hamas will NEVER EVER stop. As long as terrorism continues Israel will reciprocate. (an eye for an eye) Short of invasion and occupation of every country in the middle east I don't believe peace is possible in the middle east UNTIL the arab countries reach the same prosperity as Israel. That prosperity will never occur untill democracy comes.

I somewhat agree with you, but still, it would help, take away most reasons for terrorism and terrorism will decrease, that is pretty obvious...

I still think that the occupation of land that Israel is doing is counterproductive and will only lead to more violence, which is also pretty obvious...

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah will still be there, but if they are fought by forces looking for lasting peace, both in Israel and in their own countries, they will eventually be gone...

As i see it, there are two ways to fight terror, one is to do it with violence, but if your enemy does not care about getting hurt, it will not work, the other way is to take away his reason to fight...

To just say "terrorists by religion" and give up will not help...

You know it's funny the Europeans and Americans actually agree about what should happen, the americans are just far more pessamistic about what is possible. I agree with everything you have said. I encourage peace and the pursuit of it, I'm just pessamistic about whether it will occur. Sure Isreal should kill the settlements and the PLO should crack down on the terrorists but neither have happened and I'm not sure they will. I would like to see the US warn Israel that economic consquences may follow if they don't puruse peace. But with more Jews (actually I think it's 3x) living in the US than there are in Israel that occuring would be political suicide for the politician that proposed it.

I know that you are right, i have lived in the US for a number of years... And the perfect solution i am looking for will probably not be available any time soon...

I'm just stating my opinion, even though i know it is a far-fetched solution...

In a perfect world... you know...

 

[jam3]

Syria has used the golan heights to bomb farms for pete's sake. The Heights is a PERFECT geographic location for Syria to launch artillery virtually anywhere in israel it pleases. It is also very very tough to assualt.

I doubt the Israeli's will ever give the hieghts back to Syria. Its patently ridiculous to think they would anyways. The Syrians have deliberatly attacked israel 4 times to drive them into the sea. And at times when there isn't an overt war going on the launch artillery at civilians and support terrorist organizations.

People who defend this type of behavior absolutly astound me. Syira, and for that matter the rest of the arab world's, blatant anti-semitism is rooted in two causes. 1) Israel was created by the colonial oppressors, the british 2) The Nazi's used this anger and focused it towards israel prior to and during ww2. Research it yourself. The nazi propaganda machine was well alive in the middle east. Also look at the millions of jews who lived across the arab world prior to the 1900's.

We are fighting brainwashed terrorists and goverments that support them and somehow people think were dealing with rational people and/or that the U.S. somehow is just as "evil". It's truly unfrickin believeable.

My teacher is history and not the general media or or some talk show quack. Read some books people. Take out a topographic map and look at the areas in question. Most of the land israel is being asked to capitulate would almost negate the 1-3 minute warnings that they now have against countries that have done NOTHING but invade and terrorize them.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: rudder
The U.S. has already put a big hurt on Syria by closing the illegal oil pipeline. And it was done without firing a shot. I don't think we will be invading Syria anytime soon.

Bingo..

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: jam3
Syria has used the golan heights to bomb farms for pete's sake. The Heights is a PERFECT geographic location for Syria to launch artillery virtually anywhere in israel it pleases. It is also very very tough to assualt.

I doubt the Israeli's will ever give the hieghts back to Syria. Its patently ridiculous to think they would anyways. The Syrians have deliberatly attacked israel 4 times to drive them into the sea. And at times when there isn't an overt war going on the launch artillery at civilians and support terrorist organizations.

People who defend this type of behavior absolutly astound me. Syira, and for that matter the rest of the arab world's, blatant anti-semitism is rooted in two causes. 1) Israel was created by the colonial oppressors, the british 2) The Nazi's used this anger and focused it towards israel prior to and during ww2. Research it yourself. The nazi propaganda machine was well alive in the middle east. Also look at the millions of jews who lived across the arab world prior to the 1900's.

We are fighting brainwashed terrorists and goverments that support them and somehow people think were dealing with rational people and/or that the U.S. somehow is just as "evil". It's truly unfrickin believeable.

My teacher is history and not the general media or or some talk show quack. Read some books people. Take out a topographic map and look at the areas in question. Most of the land israel is being asked to capitulate would almost negate the 1-3 minute warnings that they now have against countries that have done NOTHING but invade and terrorize them.

Ehhh... no... i will not spend time disputing this post... your history teacher needs a proper education...

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

I think the US should use the momentum that the Irak war has brought to try to produce a peaceful solution that involves the entire region on a basis of the Saudi peaceplan - normal relations with Israel in exchange for the occupied territories would bring lasting peace and democratic change to the region...

But, peace has been the approach for how many years now? Clearly, peace has not worked. There are too many differences of opinions (and variations of stubborn people) to make peace in the Middle East work.

I think you are wrong, i do think that there is a chance for peace in the middle east, but i also think that the nations need to be forced to peace by a very strong middleman, that middleman exists and it is the US, the US can force Israel and the arab nations to sign the Saudi plan...

Israel would have to give up the occupied territories but would have lasting peace in exchange, sounds like a good deal to me...

May i ask you what your proposed solution is if you think that peace is not an option?

YEah right, the Arabs who want to push isreal into the Ocean are just going to wake up the next day and say, yeah, we will live in peace now. What dream world do u live in?