TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- World media ask: Why Syria?

World media ask: Why Syria?

World media ask: Why Syria?

quote:

World media claim US is targeting Muslim states The world's press is querying US accusations that Syria harbours Iraqi fugitives and is developing weapons of mass destruction, with some seeing sinister motives behind Washington's stance. "Now that the US is nearly through with 'regime change' in Iraq, Syria could be the next on queue for gunboat diplomacy," says Kenya's Standard. Indonesia's Koran Tempo is convinced that Washington is not making idle threats against Syria and is intending to launch a military attack. "Washington will isolate Syria, strangle it with embargoes and force it to disarm," it writes. "When it is powerless, the United States can 'liberate' the Syrian people by dropping bomb after bomb on Damascus. If Bush's re-election in 18 months should be endangered by the poor economic situation, his advisers could consider a new confrontation useful Die Tageszeitung "Prepare for a sequel to US-style slaughter." Germany's Die Welt is not so sure: "Political Washington is threatening but the military is silent. That shows that there are no operational plans in progress." Another German paper, Die Tageszeitung, thinks US domestic politics will determine whether or not the US attacks Syria. "If Bush's re-election in 18 months should be endangered by the poor economic situation, his advisers could consider a new confrontation useful to get the voters back behind the commander-in-chief in the White House," it says. What weapons? Several papers give little credence to the US reports that Damascus is giving sanctuary to fleeing Iraqi officials and has weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan's Nawa-i-waqt describes the claims as "totally unjustified". The US is targeting not destructive weapons but the Muslim world. Pakistan "Syria is neither a threat for the US nor does it have any weapons of mass destruction," it says. For the Irish Times, "it is stretching credibility to believe the Syrian government would knowingly give sanction to leading figures from the vanquished regime". The Kenya Times suggests the US is engaged in "sabre-rattling". "As for the weapons of mass destruction Syria supposedly harbours, why would those pushing for war against yet another Arab regime not reveal to the world the bio-chemical weapons they may have unearthed in Iraq?" the paper asks. Dangerous trend There is widespread belief that the US will not stop at Syria but will move to confront other Arab countries and Muslim states. "The talk of Syria after the attack on Iraq reveals the US is targeting not destructive weapons but the Muslim world," the Pakistan daily believes. India's Hindustan Times appears to agree: "The US warning only exposes its expansionist policy and its intention to seize the entire Arab region." Some papers believe US plans to realise peace in the Middle East are behind its threats towards Syria. The Irish Times describes Syria's role in the region as "deeply bound up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". China's Renmin Ribao warns the US of the dangers it may face if the threats against Syria continue. "The condemnation that the US will suffer from the international community and domestic public opinion over this will be unprecedented," it says. Beijing's official China Daily reiterates this point: "The US intention to use the leverage it has gained from its military victory in Iraq to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on other nations to change their behaviour is dangerous."

MmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMmmmmmmmmmmmm so.. do you guys think that the UK will support the US on this, IF action is taken?!.. as well, what do the Americans think on this?..

Info obtained @ bbcnews.com

No. There is no way anyone but neoconservatives will support this. Sadly, that doesn't mean that they aren't going to go for it eventually. It's not like anyone agreed with them over Iraq besides Blair and a bunch of FND's (I now officially coin this acronym to describe Fox News Drones). I don't trust any of those polls saying 70% of Americans were for the war. The Gallup poll that made that claim had a biased sample in that 70% of those polled considered themselves "conservative." No one can make the argument that 70% of this country is conservative. That's just hogwash.

PS - Why the hell doesn't anyone EVER call me for those polls? I barely ever see my opinions represented on them. Grrrrrr...

quote:

Originally posted by cougar23 No. There is no way anyone but neoconservatives will support this. Sadly, that doesn't mean that they aren't going to go for it eventually. It's not like anyone agreed with them over Iraq besides Blair and a bunch of FND's (I now officially coin this acronym to describe Fox News Drones). I don't trust any of those polls saying 70% of Americans were for the war. The Gallup poll that made that claim had a biased sample in that 70% of those polled considered themselves "conservative." No one can make the argument that 70% of this country is conservative. That's just hogwash. PS - Why the hell doesn't anyone EVER call me for those polls? I barely ever see my opinions represented on them. Grrrrrr...

I'm a very big advocate of gallup fairly representing the general public opinion of the polls it has conducted (regardless of the turnout of the polls). I've thoroughly read the statistical sampling methods it has used and from the statistics and econometrics courses I've taken, I've found that its methods are impecable. So despite your misgivings, please provide an alternative source that statistically proves and demonstrates that 70% of Americans WE'RE NOT in favor of the war at that given date.

But to answer the original question, keep in mind the title of the article ... "World media claim US is targeting Muslim states" ... this is a compilation of extremist, tabloid stylized media headlines designed to be provocative and attention gathererers. Pay closer attention to the ACTUAL bbc and reuters articles that are announcing a reduction in forces in the Middle East. Of course people are too stupid to realize the implications of such articles and only pay attention to the headline grabbers.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm a very big advocate of gallup fairly representing the general public opinion of the polls it has conducted (regardless of the turnout of the polls). I've thoroughly read the statistical sampling methods it has used and from the statistics and econometrics courses I've taken, I've found that its methods are impecable. So despite your misgivings, please provide an alternative source that statistically proves and demonstrates that 70% of Americans WE'RE NOT in favor of the war at that given date.

I'm not saying that gallup is a bad polling organization. In fact, I didn't say anything about them in general. I was simply talking about one poll, the one done about a months ago saying there was 70% support for the war, yet their "sample" was 70% conservative. It is widely known that about equal parts of this country consider themselves conservative and liberal, so the results of that one poll were suspicious to me. I have no idea what the accurate percentage is, but for that one poll, I think support for the was was clearly overstated.

OCCRIDER, Id like you to specify the dates of when 70% of the people supported the war. I know, for sure, that after that speach Bush gave to the nation, the percentage of people accepting a WAR rose, but before that, the majority was against it, that was the MAIIN reason why Bush gave that speach in the first place, to rally americans to support his move for "war", before that he was all worried, because majority was against it, but right after that speach.. the polls started changing, I saw this on various polls.. so my best guess is that you are speaking of the polls taken 1 week before the war started or around that period.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX OCCRIDER, Id like you to specify the dates of when 70% of the people supported the war. I know, for sure, that after that speach Bush gave to the nation, the percentage of people accepting a WAR rose, but before that, the majority was against it, that was the MAIIN reason why Bush gave that speach in the first place, to rally americans to support his move for "war", before that he was all worried, because majority was against it, but right after that speach.. the polls started changing, I saw this on various polls.. so my best guess is that you are speaking of the polls taken 1 week before the war started or around that period.

Here were the polling results since March 22.

Back in March 7th the results were that approximately 60% were in support of the a war, still a majority:

http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13199

Same numbers on Feb 28th:

http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13170

How far back are you looking to go?

-IM looking as far as the ending of February.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX -IM looking as far as the ending of February.

Well that last quote was February 28th and support was still at 59% ... keep in mind these are figures for an invasion of Iraq when negotiations were still going on with the UN and Iraq, support for an invasion is obviously going to be less as you go farther back in time due to the fact that weapons inspections were still going on and we were waiting for inspection reports.

At any rate, I'm going to go ahead and nail down the lid on the coffin of theories that the US is going to invade Syria and Iran:

quote:

Rumsfeld Says U.S. to Reduce Forces in Gulf Region Mon April 28, 2003 11:49 AM ET By Charles Aldinger DOHA, Qatar (Reuters) - The United States said on Monday it will reduce its military presence in the Gulf because the threat from Iraq has gone, but it has not decided whether to move a combat air command center from Saudi Arabia. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, visiting Qatar on a week-long tour of the Gulf, said for the first time that the normal U.S. military presence in the oil-rich area will go below pre-Iraq war levels. "The one thing we do know is that we're going to be able to reduce the size of our forces obviously," Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him in the region. U.S. forces in the Gulf grew to over 200,000 for the Iraq war. They normally stand at about 15,000, including 5,000 aboard an aircraft carrier. But Rumsfeld, without providing specific details, indicated they would go even lower. "Iraq was a threat in the region. And because that threat will be gone, we also have the ability to adjust some of our arrangements," he said. Asked about reports that the Pentagon might move operations at a high-tech Combined Air Operations Center from Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Rumsfeld said no decisions had been made about individual deployments. "We've not made final decisions with respect to how we're going to be arranged at various bases. General Franks is thinking about that with his staff," the secretary added. Gen. Tommy Franks is the U.S. general who has commanded the Iraq campaign ...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=2643297

With less than 15,000 troops in the area good luck trying to forecast an invasion any time soon. Looks like my hat, my shoes, and whatever else I said I would eat are safe for the time being.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa An invasion is not the only way to target Syria. But even an invasion is not out of the question if the Neocons don't get their way with eliminating Hezbollah by bullying Syria. It will take very long before the US has even a theoretical possibility of reducing their Middle-Eastern troops to 15,000. They need hundreds of thousands soldiers as an occup ... umm, sorry ... peacekeepers to prevent Iraq from falling into a chaos and civil war. Rumours about permanent American bases in Iraq hardly support Rumsfeld's propaganda about troop reductions. The main reason why the Syria issue has now been put on hold is the power battle between the Neocons and the State Department, as well as partly the North Korean crisis. Before the Neocons can proceed with their Middle-Eastern plans, they need to purge the US Administration of all sensib... umm, sorry ... Anti-American elements Bush's latest foreign policy outline supported the Hawks 100%, and prominent anti-Neocons have recently been fired from the US Administration, so the Hawks can soon concentrate on their next foreign enemy. The Neocons' aggressive rhetorics related to their Middle-Eastern plans have continued. Except that it now looks like Iran is a more important target than Syria. Against the expectations of the Neocons, (and matching the expectations of CIA, State Department and everyone else), Chalabi and INC were received only as unpopular puppets, while the Iran-supported Shiites are getting the upper hand. But Syria's turn will come after Iran because it is located near , and supports the terrorist group. Actually, I have no doubt that Hezbollah has a potential to be a very serious threat not only to Israel, but to the entire pro-American Western World (does it still exist?) if Hezbollah gets very pissed off about the Palestine situation. So the US will hardly repeat their Al-Qaida mistake of sitting on the sidelines, while a terrorist group freely develops their infrastructure. I predict that either an American provocation against Hezbollah will happen before 2006, or the Americans decapitate Hezbollah by bullying Syria to stop funding them.

So now you're scaling back your predictions? I seem to recall that not too long ago you were predicting iminent invasion . Ok well I'll revise my conjecture. If ANY military action occurs against Syria I will eat my hat ... if ANY military action occurs against Iran I will eat my shoes. Let's see if my prediction holds true ...

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa The Neocons wanted to do Iraq with 5,000 Spec-Ops parachuting to Baghdad or a 40,000 strong American attack force. Their military doctrine is very small troops. That's probably the explanation for Rumsfeld's desire to reduce troops in the long run. So actually I'm not the one scaling down predictions The Neocons are purging the Administration, so they can carry out their next operations with as few troops as they please, instead of having to water down plans after the bigger firepower demands of realis ... sorry ... senile outdated American military staff.

Care to put your shoes or hat where your mouth is?

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa I'm not brave enough to bet on this one My estimate is that when reason and well-funded office theorists are the opponents, it can go either way Perhaps you are right that the Neocons can't pool enough resources to get a go-ahead against Syria before the next Presidential Elections. In fair elections the Neoconservatives are outnumbered like 1:10, so their moment of power is likely to stop soon. Almost every other party from Communists to Extreme Right are now mainly plotting on how to derail them, so they'll probably need to make compromises to retain at least some of their power. Anyway, the world needs to be prepared for a huge reconstruction work by the time Neocons are kicked out. Casualties include the UN, NATO, EU, the Middle-Eastern stability, any sympathy the Arab countries had left towards the pro-war countries, and the credibility of several European parties who supported Bush on this one One day political historians will look back at this Presidency, and shake their heads.

Well we both agree that there is a neoconservative, hawkish political party of sorts that is striving to implement its policies. I think that the difference in opinion between us lay in two areas.

A) You seem very convinced that the neocon element is single-minded in focus and blind to nearly every other issues in its attempts to implement its new world order of sorts. For example, your absolute convictions that they would plant evidence, escalate hostilities in the middle east to Iran and Syria, bomb N. Korea, etc. It seems that you anticipate the hardline, ultra-aggressive approach for many of your predictions. For example if you go to PNAC's site even they don't advocate using force in N. Korea. One would like to think that some of these analysts are moderately intelligent and have situational awareness of current events.

B) I find the connection with which you associate the US government to the Hawkish, neoconservative party to be overexagerrated to the point where you establish the US government as being one and the same as the neoconservatives. First of all Bush is not a neoconservative. His foreign policies largely came about in reaction to 9/11. And your insinuations that he is a neocon puppet implies that the republican party as a whole is a neocon puppet. Additionally I think your assumptions about his IQ (further establishing him as a puppet) was based on false data. Are Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney neoconservatives? Hmmmm possibly. They are hawkish yes. But the fact that the three think alike is nothing we should really be surprised about. As you stated before, Wolfowitz was deputy defense secretary to both rumsfeld and Cheney. They've likely formed similar perceptions on middle east policy and what should be done about Iraq. But they are unlike Perle (a true neoconservative Hawk in my opinion) in a broader range of policy. That they have clashed with the pentagon is nothing we should be surprised at or correllate with neoconservative policies as well. McNammara essentially ignored the pentagon for all that it was worth. I'm sure you would find much interference by the white house in pentagon planning. And in this case Rumsfeld was correct. The pentagon DID need to be revamped. Remember the 15 billion dollar crusader artillery system that the pentagon was heavily backing? Can you imagine a more worthless investment today? The pentagon is still firmly entrenched in cold war mentality when we do need a smaller, more mobile, better trained fighting force. The soviet army is obsolete much like much of the pentagon military planning.

I mean we can keep quoting analysts ... former officials who retired years ago (keep in mind all the armchair generals at the start of the war prediciting that the pentagon war plan failed) and double guess ourselves 10 times over. I think that sometimes you are looking into things a little too deeply and implying too much from it. At the same time however, I may not be picking up on things and not reading into things as much as I should. Haha I guess that's why I hate discussing current event politics, I like to stick to 10-20 year old issues when you can actually read primary documents and know for certain what elements were in control or what they thought.

However, I am a gambling man and I will bet my shoes and my hat with regards to you know what

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well we both agree that there is a neoconservative, hawkish political party of sorts that is striving to implement its policies. I think that the difference in opinion between us lay in two areas. A) You seem very convinced that the neocon element is single-minded in focus and blind to nearly every other issues in its attempts to implement its new world order of sorts. For example, your absolute convictions that they would plant evidence, escalate hostilities in the middle east to Iran and Syria, bomb N. Korea, etc. It seems that you anticipate the hardline, ultra-aggressive approach for many of your predictions. For example if you go to PNAC's site even they don't advocate using force in N. Korea. One would like to think that some of these analysts are moderately intelligent and have situational awareness of current events. B) I find the connection with which you associate the US government to the Hawkish, neoconservative party to be overexagerrated to the point where you establish the US government as being one and the same as the neoconservatives. First of all Bush is not a neoconservative. His foreign policies largely came about in reaction to 9/11. And your insinuations that he is a neocon puppet implies that the republican party as a whole is a neocon puppet. Additionally I think your assumptions about his IQ (further establishing him as a puppet) was based on false data. Are Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney neoconservatives? Hmmmm possibly. They are hawkish yes. But the fact that the three think alike is nothing we should really be surprised about. As you stated before, Wolfowitz was deputy defense secretary to both rumsfeld and Cheney. They've likely formed similar perceptions on middle east policy and what should be done about Iraq. But they are unlike Perle (a true neoconservative Hawk in my opinion) in a broader range of policy. That they have clashed with the pentagon is nothing we should be surprised at or correllate with neoconservative policies as well. McNammara essentially ignored the pentagon for all that it was worth. I'm sure you would find much interference by the white house in pentagon planning. And in this case Rumsfeld was correct. The pentagon DID need to be revamped. Remember the 15 billion dollar crusader artillery system that the pentagon was heavily backing? Can you imagine a more worthless investment today? The pentagon is still firmly entrenched in cold war mentality when we do need a smaller, more mobile, better trained fighting force. The soviet army is obsolete much like much of the pentagon military planning. I mean we can keep quoting analysts ... former officials who retired years ago (keep in mind all the armchair generals at the start of the war prediciting that the pentagon war plan failed) and double guess ourselves 10 times over. I think that sometimes you are looking into things a little too deeply and implying too much from it. At the same time however, I may not be picking up on things and not reading into things as much as I should. Haha I guess that's why I hate discussing current event politics, I like to stick to 10-20 year old issues when you can actually read primary documents and know for certain what elements were in control or what they thought. However, I am a gambling man and I will bet my shoes and my hat with regards to you know what

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz are neo-conservative from the inside out. All three have signed the PNAC statement of principles. Bush's campaign made him look moderately paleo-conservative, and perhaps he was. His administration since 9/11 has been acting the part of the conservative extremist, however. Whether the hawks took control, or the shock of 9/11 was what changed his policies is a subject for debate. Evidence shows, however, a George Bush (a president who didn't even win the popular vote) standing up against the majority of the world, including the CIA, State Department, the UN, and Democrats in favor of the clearly stated policies of the PNAC, which includes Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush. If the PNAC hasn't snatched Bush's puppet strings, than he is making an extremely independent decision; an uncanny and very unusual decision for a man who has spent his entire life being dependent on others. What makes you think that a man who has been dependant on daddy his whole life, dependent on alcohol for half of his life, and dependent on cocaine for a good portion of his life is suddenly able to make independent decisions as the president of the United States? Is it really Bush thinking outside of the box? Or is it just some crazy coincidence that the policies of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Eliott Abrams (the PNAC, neo-conservative crew) are the only ones that seem to materialize in reality?

I very much doubt the USA has any concrete plans to get stuck into Syria or Iran.

Maybe over the next few months as the conflict in Iraq escalates maybe the conflict will spill over into those two countries much like US violence spilled over from Vietnam to Cambodia in the early 70's.

Maybe they will use their new found best friends the Kurds to destablise Syria and Iran but they dont have any intention on any regime change.

The USA new Iraq was an easy target that is why they attacked it. Iran and Syria would cost too many american lives and more importantly cost too much money for the USA to realistically consider it.

As for prying Syria and Irans support for Hizbollah. Never. They will never abandon Hizbollah. They might make a few noises until the tension dies down. But Syria will continue to support Hizbollah as long as Israel has the Golan Heights and there is not a damn thing USA can do about.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider B) I find the connection with which you associate the US government to the Hawkish, neoconservative party to be overexagerrated to the point where you establish the US government as being one and the same as the neoconservatives.

You need to research little bit more before you come up with the above conclusion. Read the link below, it'll shine some light on how corrupted the defense department is.

Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld ARE the neocons!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.