Jane Bovary

The admin may not be bucking for a war with Syria or other countries on the Bush admins list of "terrorist" states but rather counting on the show of force in Iraq to make their governments more compliant with US demands. That may work, regardless of how one feels about the morality or wisdom of attacking Iraq.

It might. Hopefully this would be the preferred option. Iraq was the *example*...but the Syrians might be feeling fatalistic about this. Iraqs version of "compliancy" wasn't given much due...in the end, did the US really even really want compliancy from Iraq?

It's true, the US would not have to manufacture human rights abuses in Syria...just as they didn't have to manufacture them for Iraq. But that alone would not justify a war. The question is, as many here have mentioned, would they manufacture specific accusations which would give the green light for war....such as, Syria is hiding members of Saddams regime or/and is in possession of the dreaded weapons of mass destruction. Are they looking for rationalisations? Planting the seeds for them?

Since the rationale for the Iraqi war was based on similar suppositions of "might" and "maybe" which have not been proven to be true yet...it's reasonable to have these suspicions... even excuse a little leftist paranoia.

sir drinks-a-lot

Yeah, I know. Diplomacy was so fantastically successful in Iraq. For example....well, come to think of it, there are no examples...but I know what you mean, that Bush guy is sure evil.

matthias j.

What diplomacy? Did I miss something?

Oh well, que sera, sera. Operation Syrian Freedom or how I stopped worrying and started to love George W.

...

The SwampThing

Actually, i saw this Syria thing coming a long time ago...
Ever since that "freedom" speech began, i realized that if the US was sucessfull in the Iraqi campaign, it would only be a question of time until Syria follows.
And Iran, and Lybia aswell!
The only real worth fighting target would be North Korea, but the US seems to be using double standards...

Any one who has seen the way the north koreans demonstrate on the streets and the way they talk, would realize they are being brainwashed and held captive inside their own country.
If ever there was a country in real need of "liberation", it would be North Korea. But the US prefers to go against helpless people, like Iraq and Syria... I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with the korean nukes? But wasn�t this whole campaign fought to free the world of the threat of WMDs???
Double standards anyone?

Well, if Syria gets attacked, the entire muslim/arab world will see this as a crusade against them. Bush has used that same word for a couple of times, and been warned about it.
If Syria gets attacked, the rising number of new Osama Bin Ladens wich the Iraq war has caused, would grow to the millions.
Terrorrism is already on the rise because of Iraq. Does anyone doubt what will happen if Syria is next?

Howcome this war against terrorrism is causing more of it, instead of eliminating it???
The answer is quite simple:
This is NOT about terrorrism at all. Its about regional control and ethnic cleansing. It�s about oil.
Some say World War 3 has already started. On what side are you?

sir drinks-a-lot

Yes! The past 12 years.

matthias j.

Well there were hardly any diplomatic efforts made during all those years, we just left Iraq alone. (well not really, we kept bombing them off course, we had some sound reasons for that but I can't remember them...)

leonarde

Since there are no known examples of Israeli terrorist groups which consider the US "the Great Satan" why should we target Israel when:

1) the war is on terrorism (ie the groups themselves and the governments which harbor them)?

2) Israel is, to a great extent, fighting the same durn terrorist groups that we are?

3) one of the chief fears is that one of the terrorist groups will be given a WMD?

Cheers!

Feather

Nope, can't say this is a surprise to me. Neither will it be if Bush suspends elections in 2008. Because it's just too dangerous to transition to a new administration with such a dangerous war on terror occurring. And all that. Ah well.

I wonder if Bush & Co. will actually be able to produce evidence that Syria has WMD. So far they've been unsuccessful in Iraq.

Vorkosigan

That's because those clever Syrians are busily transferring their WMDs to Iran. Didn't you know that?

Vorkosigan

Kwis

I was thinking they'd hand them to the Palestinians.