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

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

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

"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

"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.

Simon Robbins wrote in message
...


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

You must be an serious medication if you think the Arabs are waiting to
make that decision. Time to do what is necessary and forget if they
like it when we do it.

--

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

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
You must be an serious medication if you think the Arabs are waiting to
make that decision. Time to do what is necessary and forget if they
like it when we do it.

And your "what is necessary" will likely earn yourself and your descendants
a hundred years of justifiable hatred and payback by people who largely
couldn't give a damn at present. Any idea that the entire Muslim world is
ready to pick up arms against America at the first chance is simply a
product of your Department of Homeland Insecurity. We're still talking
about a tiny minority that view us all with anything more than a mild
suspicion.

Si

Simon Robbins wrote in message
...

And your "what is necessary" will likely earn yourself and your
descendants
a hundred years of justifiable hatred and payback by people who
largely
couldn't give a damn at present. Any idea that the entire Muslim
world is
ready to pick up arms against America at the first chance is simply a
product of your Department of Homeland Insecurity. We're still
talking
about a tiny minority that view us all with anything more than a mild
suspicion.


Isn't 1% of 1.6 billion people is still larger than the Russian and
Chinese Armies. Unlike the coddled Europeans, I'm under no illusion
that it is possible to have the people with whom you are at war like
you. I see no benefit to listening to the people that always complain
as if their complaints could just as easily have been compliments were
the facts different. When the Arabs say they are shocked that the US
seems to favor Israel over them, when they launch car bombs every 30
minutes, I have to wonder why anyone listens to their hallucinations.

The Wahhabis/Salafis know this is a fight to the death, that won't
change simply because we hope it is not. When I see massive
demonstrations by "peaceful Muslims" protesting the hijacking of Islam,
I will reconsider my suspicion of all of them. When I see them respect
Christian human rights I might consider them civilized. When I see them
protest slavery in various Muslim states I might consider they have an
interest in justice and humane treatment. It matters not at all if
their dysfunctional condition is due to their religion, their ignorance,
their tribalism, or their delusion. When they use "civilians" to
attack, that's reason enough to consider their civilians as soldiers.
When they come after my country, I could care less if they are offended.

--

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

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
Isn't 1% of 1.6 billion people is still larger than the Russian and
Chinese Armies.

1% would equate to 16 million Muslims craving the chance to pick up arms
against Americans. Where are they? 16 million people should be creating
hell on a much larger scale than we're seeing today if that were the case.

The Wahhabis/Salafis know this is a fight to the death, that won't
change simply because we hope it is not. When I see massive
demonstrations by "peaceful Muslims" protesting the hijacking of Islam,
I will reconsider my suspicion of all of them.

If an extremist Christian group started killing people, would you expect to
see massive demonstrations of conventional Christians protesting? If the
media and popular culture actively demonised all Christians because of the
extremist policies of a few would you expect them not to take offence? How
many people really ever protest anything? It's always going to be easier to
organise an anti-American/Abortion/War/Cabbage protest than an anti- one.
It's the nature of humanity. Those in the majority mainstream seem to feel
the cause is diluted enough not to bother.

When I see them respect
Christian human rights I might consider them civilized.

There are few Muslim countries where Christianity is not tolerated, and many
where they exist side by side. Ironically those with the extremist views
seem to be our closest allies.

When I see them
protest slavery in various Muslim states I might consider they have an
interest in justice and humane treatment.

There are plenty of places on the planet where justice and humane treatment
are severely lacking, and Islamic religion is a not a deciding factor. Some
we choose to go to war against, others we make favored trading partners.
When we start considering liberty and justice over commerce and dollars then
we can lecture on that one.

It matters not at all if
their dysfunctional condition is due to their religion, their ignorance,
their tribalism, or their delusion. When they use "civilians" to
attack, that's reason enough to consider their civilians as soldiers.
When they come after my country, I could care less if they are offended.

I spent occasional periods of my forces-brat childhood being told to remain
in the house while my father checked under the car before starting the
engine with the door open, yet never did I believe that all the Irish were
out to get us. Yet you use the term "they" to tar a billion people with the
sins of their worst.

Si

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