Should We Bomb Syria and Iran?

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 think we should bomb your house, and then nuke you until you are
radioactive cinders.

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.

Ha ha ha. And if the majority of the people in rebuilt Iraq wanted
to have nuclear weapons, would the USA let them? No of course not,
the only people in the middle east to be allowed nukes are Israel
and not the racially inferior (according to the USA) Arabs. And if
you support that policy, then you are a filthy contemptable racist
too.

On the subject of democracy, Iran's president is the guy who got the
most votes, something that can't be said for the USA. But I suppose
thatc doesn't fit in with Bush's idea of democracy, which seems more
about subservience to US corporate interests.

--
"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).

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).

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:37:37 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

The problem with a 'retaliatory' strike is that, even if you
could bring on incriminating documents by trainloads,
the credibility of the USA has now sunk so low that nobody
is even going to bother to read them,

I think there's some trith in this. Last year, I was certain that
Iraq had WMD. It turned out they didn't, and the British and
American dossiers were seriously at odds with the truth.

Now the USA says Iran is building nuclear weapons. Last year, I
would have beleived them. Now I place no trust in their words.

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.

You can't rationally threaten people with bombs and expect
them to disarm... Non-Americans have pride too. The Iranians
are least likely of all to cave in to that sort of pressure; and it
gives them the best motive they could ever have to develop
a WMD capability ASAP.

Indeed. Gaining nuclear weapons would be a rational thing for Iran
to do now, for the same reason that Britain and France had them
during the cold war.

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.

Why not? During the Cold War many successful democratic
nations had the enemy on their doorstep. Of all problems the
problems facing the American efforts Iraq right now, Iran
seems very low down on the list. The real danger is that Iraq
will follow the road of Iran -- that an American-imposed
'friendly' regime will ultimately be rejected by the people and
replaced by a hostile fundamentalist regime.

Yep.

An Iraq governed
by an ayatollah would be an ironic outcome of this war, but
at the moment it looks like the most likely one to me.

I don't know about "most likely", but it's certainly a possibility,
and the US govmt seems by their behaviour to be almost blind to that
possibility.

--
"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).

From: ess (phil hunt)


Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
The problem with a 'retaliatory' strike is that, even if you could bring on
incriminating documents by trainloads, the credibility of the USA has now sunk
so low that nobody is even going to bother to read them,

I think there's some trith in this. Last year, I was certain that Iraq had
WMD. It turned out they didn't, and the British and American dossiers were
seriously at odds with the truth.

Now the USA says Iran is building nuclear weapons. Last year, I
would have beleived them. Now I place no trust in their words.

We (the US) have fallen into an extremely serious credibility trap laid out by
Saddam. A guerilla war trapping tactic designed to defeat the ability to win
"the hearts and minds" of the Arab world and to divide (and then to conquer)
the countries of the Western alliances. Remember the "Mother of all Battles"
phrase Saddam coined? Well, debasing the credibility of the US with both the
Arab world and the US's allies is just the next step in the war plan of a guy
who considers himself to be the next "Saladin". A crafty manuever if ever the
world has seen one.

Saddam has been sucsessful in this goal. It is extremely important that he be
found and, either killed, or brought to trial.

The plan of the "one true way" Islamic religious fanatics is to economically
strangle the West by gaining control of the oil reserves of the Middle East.
They even refer to oil as "the sword of Islam". These fanatics believe that
"Allah" has "blessed" these countries with these oil resources so that the
final vicory of Islam over the "infidel" religions can be assured. Oil MUST be
used as a weapon. The jihad against the infidels requires it.

Now that Saddam's tactic of debasing the credibility of the US and dividing its
alliances has worked, it becomes perfectly obvious to the Muslim masses that
now is the time for the "Mother of all battles" against the
"infidels"......they are ALL liars afterall (lying is a characteristic of those
who are infidels to Islam).

Rise up!! Unite, brother Muslims!!! We will be victorious in the final jihad to
transform the entire world into a glorious Islamic paradise under the guiding
light of Sharia law!!!! Oh glory be to Allah and his one true prophet Muhammad
for giving us the resources we need to carry out Allah's will on this
Earth!!!!!

The only problem with the aspirations of this Islamic dream of a utopian one
world government is that there are alot of people here in the West that have no
desire to give up their current religions at the point of a sword and have
enough nuclear weapons to really slap the entire Islamic world into rethinking
the whole idea of jihad.

In the mean time, the jihadis operate carefully hidden amongst the civilian
populations until such time as their war plan becomes obvious and gains
strength amongst the Islamic masses......and debasing the credibility of the US
is only an attempt to speed that gain of strength.

Still think WWIII hasn't begun? I think it has, and Osama lit the fuse.
Dave

"phil hunt" wrote in message


On the subject of democracy, Iran's president is the guy who got the
most votes, something that can't be said for the USA. But I suppose
thatc doesn't fit in with Bush's idea of democracy, which seems more
about subservience to US corporate interests.

Incorrect. Also, the United States is a representative republic, not a
"democracy". They are very similar but not the same at all.

--
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.

"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

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

Yama wrote in message
...

"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...).


Syria also houses the headquarters for organizations that have killed
more Americans than anyone else, prior to Sept 11. Time to punish Syria
for what is doing and hasn't done. I haven't even brought up the few
billion dollars of "super notes" that they counterfeit each year.

As for Axis of Evil, the phrase wasn't used to convey that the three
members were working in league, but that they have a common purpose.
And they do.

--

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

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

There are numerous examples of Israel pulling back or helping the
"palestinians" only to have that be taken as a sign of weakness and
increased terrorism followed. For Pete's sake the Israelis equipped the
PA police, they pulled out of Lebanon behind UN mandated lines, left the
West Bank until attacks forced them to return.

Israel is only further along the same path the US has just started on
fighting terrorism.

There already is a palestinian state, it's called Jordan. The
Hashemites should pick up their toys and return to the Arabian
peninsula.

--

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
Alan Minyard wrote in message
...
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