Operation Syrian Freedom

[Jedi Poker]

Ideally, the Iraq campaign was just an openning phase of a bigger plan that implements the Bush Doctrine of taking the fight to the terrorists in the Middle East. "A good offense is the best defense", "An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure". Thanks to the success of our war with Iraq, thousands of Arab terrorists who would have eventually found their way into the United States where they could have killed tens and thousands of innocent American civilians, have been killed or captured even before they could begin (it turns out that many of those captured are from Syria, Palestine and Egypt).

The Syrian Regime, which hosts terrorists, suicide bombers, and perhaps holds weapons of mass destruction (including possibly those owned by Saddam - which will explain why we won't find any in Iraq) should be next. And we must do it as early as possible. We must attack Syria while the International Brotherhood of Arab Terrorists (with members from Egypt, Palestine, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other places) are still very pissed at us for having attacked Iraq. By attacking Syria now, the anger that these terrorists are feeling towards us will be so unbearable, it would compel them to immediately go to Syria where they will take arms beside their Syrian brothers so they can drive us "infidels" away. When this happens, we'll have them where we want them and we can proceed to exterminate them with minimal loss to ourselves.

Better to attack them there than to play defense against them here. War against Syria would be the Bush Doctrine at its highest expression. I would support it in a blink of an eye.

[Cyrus]

Jedi, my man? Crazy can be so sexy.

Just don't pack when out on a date.

<ul type="square">"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure ... just an opening phase ... they could have killed tens and thousands of innocent American civilians ... the Syrian Regime holds weapons of mass destruction ... the International Brotherhood of Arab Terrorists ... the Bush Doctrine at its highest expression ... proceed to exterminate them ..."[/list]

[Jedi Poker]

Syria is the hub of Arab terrorists. It is where they hold their summits. It is where they exchange ideas and form new alliances. It is where they hold conventions and tradeshows in which they get to share their most recent suicide bombing techniques and gadgets. It may also be the main newbie terrorist/suicide bomber recruitment center in the Middle East.

As I said earlier, an attack on Syria will anger and therefore magnetize all terrorists in the other Arab states into Syria where they can have a shot at "martyrdom" when they fight side by side with their Syrian brothers to drive us, the so-called "infidels", away. When they do this, they play into our hands because they will become easy pickin' for our troops. Better to have them there (where we can easily swat them like flies) than in a New York subway, a famous US landmark like the Golden Gate bridge, or in Disneyland where they can kill tens and thousands of innocent American men, women, and children.
The Bush Administration, which believes that we must take the fight to the enemy, knows this. Therefore, our troops will be inside Syria before Christmas this year. You heard it here first.

[TimTimSalabim]

I predict he'll save the attack until next summer, when he can get maximum voter mileage. Surely he's not going to get re-elected based on the economy, he can only hope that voters won't want to change horses in the middle of WW3.

[Jedi Poker]

Syria this year. Iran next year. Both for the same strategic reason - namely, to effectively carry out the all-nescessary and morally justified Bush Doctrine of pre-empting the Arab terrorists in their home turf.

Bush wouldn't need a war to win re-election because the economy will probably have rebounded by election day. You heard it here first.

[Ray Zee]

great idea. then iran and egypt, then get them out of saudi arabia. then we have the oil. then the commies have to go. russia china,korea, cuba. soon we can have a truly master race. i think i remember someone trying that before.

[Jedi Poker]

It's all about self-defense against potential Arab terrorists inside US soil NOT about becoming a "master race". The Department of Homeland Security is the shield while the military actions in Iraq (and then hopefully Syria and Iran) is the sword.

Using the shield and "playing great defense" won't do the trick. We have to follow the "a good offense is the best defense" maxim by taking it to the terrorists in their home turf. Keep jabs and straights on their faces instead of just doing a rope-a-dope.

By doing what they did back in 9/11, the terrorists effectively declared war against us. We are in a state of war. Defense never won a war no matter how great. Only offense can achieve victory.

[Cyrus]

We have no offensive objectives anywhere. Ours is a peace-seeking country. I call upon the gentlemen of European governments to understand this and to help us build together a world of peace.

..I'm paraphrasing the words of a German leader, only months before he ordered a "pre-emptive" strike against Poland, "in self-sefense", in 1939. I forget his damn name.

[Jedi Poker]

The man who said that was a pure dictator who didn't have checks and balances. His was a Fascist regime. Our man Bush has checks and balances. In fact he couldn't even get the tax plan he wanted. There is no comparison between the two countries.

The terrorists/homicide bombers WANT to kill us, and they don't care whether "us" means our military personel or our innocent men, women, and children. They have expressed this aim in their words and in their deeds.

Ever since 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered in 9/11, we have in fact been at war against terrorism. And war can never be won with defense. The Bush Administration knows this and it is doing the right thing by following the principle of taking the war to the enemy.

Our offensive is self-defense and it is more than justified.

[ACPlayer]

I would urge people to be vigilant and ensure that the checks and balances are in place and will continue to be there.

At present they are few and far between. To wit:

Internal Checks and Balances:
- A bruised writ of habeas corpus
- A rubber stamp republican house which will pass anything sent by the administration
- A mostly rubber stamp republican senate
- A democratic party in complete disarray
- An ever increasingly pliant judiciary
- An inner circle in the white house of like minded hawks


On the internation side:

- The UN sec council which has been run over
- The NATO alliance where major western powers are not speaking to each other (Chirac and Bush have not had even a phone call in months, even when we were going the extra mile in diplomacy).
- The international courts that have been undermined.

I wish I was as sanguine as some that the war on Iraq will substantially reduce our risks, at the cost of thousands on innocent lives, billions of dollars, bruised friendships, etc, etc. If we end up with a Shah of Iraq (hopefully not) trouble looms....

Note, there are definite pluses to what we have done too. But lets not run with blinders on and keep asking questions rather than repeating the Rush/Fox propoganda.

[Cyrus]

"The man who said that was a pure dictator who didn't have checks and balances."

Are you seriously suggesting that the nature of a regime, rather than its military stength relatively to its opponents, is what defines that regime's beligerence? History abounds with examples of countries with democratic regimes attacking other countries. (Always for "self defense" of course, or to "defend" something or other.) U.S. of A. is a prime example; it has been on the attacking side hundreds of times in its brief History. Wasn't it always a democracy? Were all those attacks in "self-defense"? Look 'em up.

"The Bush Administration is doing the right thing by following the principle of taking the war to the enemy."

This logic extends to attacking any country in the world that can potentially harbor terrorists, for whatever reason. Since this is the logic of the terrorists, who will strike at any target, without a care about the consequences, and only because those targets can potentially harbor their enemies, what is the gain from adopting the terrorist's ideology when your objective is to destroy that ideology ?

"Our offensive is self-defense and it is more than justified."

Anything can be justified as long as one holds the nuts. Wouldn't that be a more real (and more honest) argument?

[Jedi Poker]

Just because Bush is on a rush against those that disagree with him doesn't mean that the checks and balances are gone for the long-term. The checks and balances are firmly there. He just happened to play his hands very well at all levels - at the party level, vis-a-vis the Democrats, and against the people in the UN and NATO who ended up being wrong. Let's face it, the Iraqis have enthusiastically toppled, trampled on, and spit on the statues of the murderous dictator that Annan, Chirac, and others wanted to trust and appease.

Sure, there's a long road ahead for Iraq but they're gonna make it. There is going to be pain but it's going to be the pains that come with growth and empowerment not suppression. They've been around as a society for thousands of years. The Saddam Regime was just a short-term bad beat that's no longer there. They have a long history of trading and entrepreneurship, and they have the oil to jumpstart themselves this time, not to mention an assist from the USA, most successful capitalistic nation of all-time which sure as heck beats an assist coming from Uday and Qusay that the Annan's and Chirac's ideas would have supported!

[Jedi Poker]

It sure is a heck of a relief that Annan, Chirac, Putin, and the other Hussein supporters and appeasers don't hold the nuts.

[MMMMMM]

The more often someone cites the U.N. or international courts, the more convinced I become that only elected representative governments should be allowed any say in bodies like the U.N.

The votes of tyrannical regimes can be expected to be for bad causes most of the time--and they are. They're tyrants--get it? And the U.N. gives tyrants far too much say. They should have either minimal say, or none.

The people of various countries do deserve a say--which they will get only when their governments are elected representative forms of government. Until such time, the dictatorial masters will act in the best interests of themselves, not their people.

Hopefully this century will see the defeat or dissolution of all tyrannical regimes, and their replacement by elected representative governments. To the extent that it is practical, this process should be hastened.

[Cyrus]

"It sure is a heck of a relief that Annan, Chirac, Putin, and the other Hussein supporters and appeasers don't hold the nuts [of military supremacy]."

I agree completely (well, the bit about Kofi Annan as a danger to world peace is a stretch, but whatever). We are indeed better off with the U.S. holding the nuts than any other country I can think of, at the moment.

Notice however that the current condition, whereby the nuts are held by the good guys has been the result not of (deterministic) necessary twists and turns in History. The fact that the Nazis, for instance, didn't get to the A-bomb earlier than the U.S., was not due to political but rather to scientific factors. Which, you will agree, is not a very comforting thought, even in retrospect.

What I'm driving at is that it is necessary for the world, since we are in possession of the means to destroy it, to install a system whereby no matter who holds the nuts there are enough checks and balances in place that the probability of him "using" those nuts is minimized. This involves a completely different evaluation of what constitutes a nation's true interests.

We used to have a prototype of that concept in the U.N. system. We need a new system, perhaps, as Bush says. But it has to be a system that doesn't depend on the "nuts" being held only by good guys. Only the good guys holding the nuts is, in the long term, highly improbable.

We may need a game-theoretic concept here, in the sense that Game Theory doesn't take into account things like the morality of the players. That's all I can say.

[Cyrus]

Those were noble thoughts you expressed in your post, with the best of intentions, I'm sure. But there is something which you omit in your considerations, in my opinion, and it is a very important aspect of today's world.

We should not be too certain that democratically-elected and truly empowered governments everywhere are the best possible situation! This may sound a bit elitist, I know, but consider this: Suppose tomorrow Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey become truly democratic countries, which today they are not, each to a different extent. What then?

The people of these countries will bring to power anti-West governments, if not outright fanatics. (In Turkey, Islamic fundamendalists would rule the country is it wasn't for the secularist Army.) Various reasons would have contributed to that result but forget about reasons now. All the opinion polls and all the available information points to one irrefutable fact: That the current (undemocratic or even dictatorial) governments of a large number of countries in the world are way ahead of the people they rule over in moderation, tolerance, liberal values, pro-Western attitudes, etc.

When we possess the means, when every country can posses the means, to inflict serious damage to others or indeed to the whole world, the issue of survival takes clear precedence over the issue of popular representation.

The logical approach, howevr, is not to impose dictatorships everywhere (a losing, regressive strategy) but, rather, to bring all those people to the 21st century as soon as possible. Can this be done through war, as the U.S. is trying to? Or perhaps through other means and policies?

[ACPlayer]

Just because Bush is on a rush against those that disagree with him doesn't mean that the checks and balances are gone for the long-term.

I am happy that you recognize that the checks and balances are gone in the short run. This war was clearly conceived by, sold by and run by Cheney, wolfy and Rummy with Bush as their puppet.

[Jedi Poker]

The willingness to have people in one's staff that are more competent (in their specific specialties at least) and more experienced than oneself is a sign of a great leader. Leadership is about picking topnotch people, delegating to those people, and listening to the advise of those people (but reserving for oneself the right to make the final decisions). Jimmy Carter showed that he was the exact opposite of a great leader by "micromanaging" instead of delegating. Bush is a great executive and leader.

Rummy and Wolfy has sold to Bush a very good product and he correctly bought it. To Clinton's credit, he also bought it back in the late 90s. But the Lewinsky thing (along with the UN and the absence of a "9/11" public leverage in his time) prevented him from implementing it.

Gore and Lieberman were career lawmakers and politicians, not executives. Bush and Cheney are executives. The presidency is an executive position. The right team is in the White House. Whew!

The Anti-war people and the UN are not getting their way because they suck at communicating and implementing ideas and strategies that also suck.

[ACPlayer]

I AM glad that we have found common ground.

Checks and balances in the short term are gone.

[Jedi Poker]

Resoluteness, steadfastness, objectivity, fairness, integrity, decisiveness and courage. These virtues are the ultimate checks and balances. The French, Germans, Russians, the UN, the Liberals, the Anti-War Activists and the others who have been strongly favoring the appeasement and trust of the murderous and terrorist supportive Saddam Regime currently are dysfunctional with regards to these virtues.

While the world waits for them to gain these virtues, checks and balances will just have to come internally from the Bush Administration. It definitely has the sense of fairness and objectivity to check and balance itself. Then when the Hussein Regime supporters get their senses back, then they can help do the checks and balances thing.....assuming they don't get replaced by new more up-to-date entities.

Checks and balances is safe in the short-term as it is in the long-term. But it has to come from inside the Bush Administration for now. It certainly has the capability ot check and balance itself. The UN, the French, and the others have done a very pathetic job. And if indeed there is no checks and balances, they are to blame. But don't worry. There is checks and balances.

[ACPlayer]

But don't worry. There is checks and balances.

Thank you for your patronizing statement oh all seeing one.

You may wish to re-read your message. If I am policing myself it is not checks and balances. Dismissing opposing viewpoints with inflammatory, self serving rhetoric is the practice of tyrants.

[TimTimSalabim]

Check and balance on itself? Man, you should get a job as one of those administration spin doctors.

[Cyrus]

"Checks and balances will just have to come internally from the Bush Administration."

By definition, checks &amp; balances are factors that are not self-defined nor self-controlled. It is noteworthy that you refuse to agree on even this elementary and glaringly obvious little fact : That, with the U.N. pretty much out of the way, there is actually not even the flimsiest pretense at "checking &amp; balancing" the United States.

It took another poster who also thinks along those lines some thirty posts to finally blurt out that America might as well behave like a criminal, since people call it that way. Or words to that effect. I wonder how many posts it'll take for you to admit that what we have right now can be spun lotsa ways (e.g. "American self-restraint") but it cannot be called "checks and balances".

[MMMMMM]

Agreed that democracy in Arab nations may bring to power fanatics-we'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

Part of your post, I think, supports arguments for enforcement of non-proliferation...and even perhaps a decent missile shield.

I agree that bringing them into the 21st century is a major key, and I think that probably a combination of approaches will work best--perhaps a tailor-made approach for each country.

[Zeno]

"- The international courts that have been undermined."

The Hague should be reduced to rubble by smart bombs.

Le Misanthrope /forums/images/icons/grin.gif