Should We Bomb Syria and Iran?

On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in
pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the
war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be
forced to do something drastic?

What is the general concensus here at RAM?

Confusion. You're suggesting that the US should bomb these two
countries.....

It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

In the name of helping the US promote peace? You didn't used to be SAC
did you?

Personally, I believe pressure should be brought to bear on both Syria
and Iran for their support of terrorists, not their WMD - IIRC Syria
hasn't even signed the CWC and yet is being lambasted for having
chemical weapons.

Use the processes in place - including sanctions, and don't do an
IRAQ2 and go off in a storm of outrage (and cruise missiles) if the
UNSC doesn't immediately fall into line.

I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances.

I disagree. Israel is a poor example to follow. For example at one
point they were blowing the hell out of every Palestinian Authority
facility, including police stations, while complaining the police and
PA were ineffective!

Personally I'd find it a little difficult to do any work with
Hellfires coming in the window.

One other thing to remember is that Syria allegedly has large numbers
of chemical tipped SCUDs. Push them too far or attack them, and they
could be heading both towards Israel, and towards US bases in Iraq.
Israel would then retaliate and things would go to hell in a hand
basket.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in message
...
Personally, I believe pressure should be brought to bear on both Syria
and Iran for their support of terrorists, not their WMD - IIRC Syria
hasn't even signed the CWC and yet is being lambasted for having
chemical weapons.

The fun thing is, Syrians have actually provided USA some intel about Al
Qaida: Al Qaida is ideological enemy of more-or-less socialist and secular
Arab governments, like Syria (and Iraq...).

"Axis of evil" is a product of imagination, countries generally associated
to it tend to have little or no common interests and goals and in some
cases, they were/are downright enemies. Each of them is a separate case.
Hence the question is not "should USA bomb Syria and Iran" but "what USA
should do to persuade Iranians" and "what USA should do to persuade Syrians"
[to see US point of view].

And it's fairly certain that "bomb them" is pretty down on the list...

"Yama" wrote in message

"Axis of evil" is a product of imagination, countries generally
associated to it tend to have little or no common interests and goals
and in some cases, they were/are downright enemies. Each of them is a
separate case. Hence the question is not "should USA bomb Syria and
Iran" but "what USA should do to persuade Iranians" and "what USA
should do to persuade Syrians" [to see US point of view].

And it's fairly certain that "bomb them" is pretty down on the list...

Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:49:36 GMT, Bill Silvey wrote:
"Yama" wrote in message

Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

There's a lot of truth in this. Unfortunately aggressive US action
against Iran would tend to reduce it.

Perha[ps the weest could play "good cop, bad cop" with Iran: USA and
Israel threaten to attack, Europe offers to sell (or give) them
modern weapons if they liberalise.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message .com...
Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way
many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the
fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what
happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing
a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of
doing things.

Rob

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htmRob van Riel
wrote in message
om...
"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
.com...
Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The
current
Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western
values.

I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way
many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the
fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what
happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing
a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of
doing things.

Rob

Iran is a wonderful example, or it could be, to some of the Muslims.
It's had virtually no Western influence in decades and still failed as a
Muslim state. All the other miserable ****-holes can always claim their
failure is due to a Burger King or Coca-Cola stand on the corner
somewhere. The Iranians have no excuse but their own dysfunction. It's
a shame they are Shia Death Cult members rather than
Sunni/Wahabbi/Salafi Death Cult members, otherwise the lesson would be
perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past by
accident.

Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism in
the meantime. Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where
the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to ignoring
the world.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter

"tscottme" wrote in message ...
perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past by
accident.

You do realise you're talking about a nation that is building its own
jet powered fighters, don't you. If that's their version of 1500 AD,
I'd really like to see how advanced they'll be when they catch up with
the rest of the world chronologically.


Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism in
the meantime.

Good idea, trying to get their own nukes, as there are several nuclear
tipped nations making nasty threats against them. We'll talk about the
terrorism bit after you dig up some some reliable (that is, in this
case, not US government sponsored) evidence of that.


Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where
the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to ignoring
the world.

I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
that of Americans, for that matter.
On the other hand, I've heard plenty of Americans screaming for
theirs. I'm sure there's a conclusion in those observations, but I'll
ignore it for now.

Rob

Rob van Riel wrote in message
om...
"tscottme" wrote in message
...
perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past
by
accident.

You do realise you're talking about a nation that is building its own
jet powered fighters, don't you. If that's their version of 1500 AD,
I'd really like to see how advanced they'll be when they catch up with
the rest of the world chronologically.


Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism
in
the meantime.

Good idea, trying to get their own nukes, as there are several nuclear
tipped nations making nasty threats against them. We'll talk about the
terrorism bit after you dig up some some reliable (that is, in this
case, not US government sponsored) evidence of that.


Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where
the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to
ignoring
the world.

I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
that of Americans, for that matter.
On the other hand, I've heard plenty of Americans screaming for
theirs. I'm sure there's a conclusion in those observations, but I'll
ignore it for now.

Rob

Do you know anyone that disputes Iranian support for Hizbollah? You
remember Hizbollah, the organization that had killed more Americans than
any other terrorist group prior to Sept 11.

Simply being ignorant of the rantings of the Iranian mullahs is not
exactly the same as they not making the threats.


--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

(Rob van Riel) wrote:

"Bill Silvey"
Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way
many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the
fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what
happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing
a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of
doing things.

And especially next to a (hopefully) stable Iraq. Saudi Arabia
is about to hold elections, and I think it's safe to say their
government is going to wobble around some as they move away from a
tightly controlled monarchy. A developing Iran, a rebuilding Iraq
could make Syria a little more likely to negotiate and be peaceable
when they see their neighbors doing well.

At this point I have precious little faith in the State Dept
being able to do anything in this regard, though.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 15 Oct 2003 04:15:44 -0700, Rob van Riel wrote:
"Bill Silvey" wrote in message .com...
Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current
Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the
country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values.

I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all
leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a
thoughroughly modern state.

I think you're probably right here.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).