A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Should We Bomb Syria and Iran?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 14th 03, 07:24 AM
Kenneth Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Should We Bomb Syria and Iran?

President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.

I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.

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?

I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
allowing democracy in that region.

In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties
in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

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

Kenneth Williams
  #2  
Old October 14th 03, 01:35 PM
tscottme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I vote yes, but I'll leave the tactical decision to the experts. I
think it's clear that Syria and Iran are on the wrong side of the "with
us or with the terrorist" line. It seems clear that the State Dept has
been a key player, again, in keeping the logical consequences of Syria's
actions from being delivered to Syria.

I hope that in this war on terrorism we don't forget to invade the State
Dept and install a regime that will promote the US interest, rather than
taking as their starting position one half-way between the US and other
governments before their negotiating waters down that position further.

--

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
Kenneth Williams wrote in message
m...
President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.

I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.

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?

I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
allowing democracy in that region.

In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties
in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

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

Kenneth Williams



  #3  
Old October 14th 03, 01:44 PM
tscottme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kenneth Williams wrote in message
m...
President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.


Don't forget to add Saudi Arabia to the list. It seems the case for
punishing them is easier to make than Iran.

--

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


  #4  
Old October 14th 03, 06:16 PM
Simon Robbins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Kenneth Williams" wrote in message
m...
I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
allowing democracy in that region.


Don't forget Irael isn't cooperating with the Atomic Energy Agency either.

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


Yeah, (putting aside the machinations of their governments) let's **** off
another few tens of millions of people who already view us and our motives
with suspicion. Go all the way and confirm their worst fears, and give them
a reason to sign up and fight the unholy aggressor...

Si


  #5  
Old October 14th 03, 09:29 PM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #6  
Old October 14th 03, 09:42 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly
that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists.

I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and
export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops.

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?

I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed
if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert
nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed
Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and
allowing democracy in that region.

In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties
in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are
constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail.

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

Kenneth Williams


Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?

Al Minyard
  #7  
Old October 14th 03, 10:22 PM
Yama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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...


  #8  
Old October 14th 03, 11:49 PM
Bill Silvey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #9  
Old October 14th 03, 11:50 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Simon Robbins" wrote:

Don't forget Irael isn't cooperating with the Atomic Energy Agency
either.


Israel never signed the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iran is in violation of the treaty, Israel is not.

You might also note that while Iran has publicly threatened to use nukes
(whenever they get them) several times, Israel has not.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #10  
Old October 14th 03, 11:51 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the
causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls
and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace?


When the teenage girls stop wearing suicide bombs and when the homes
don't conceal tunnels used to smugle weapons and drugs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future Jack White Military Aviation 71 September 21st 03 02:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.