Is Syria Next?

resinate · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from KymarFye:

Congratulations, and I mean no sarcasm here, for setting yourself apart from so many on these threads by actually showing an interest in dialogue.

Thank you and likewise to yourself.

I prefer to be cautious about going too far with historical parallels. Baathism and Hussein may have much in common with Nazism and Hitler, but the differences are just as critical. I don't think, for instance, that Hitler ever qualified as anyone's "client," and he never had to deal with a superpower, but his willingness to negotiate when relatively weak, then to make non-negotiable demands when he believed himself stronger, might compare. Anyway, I don't think whether Hussein's behavior at any point directly compares with Hitler's necessarily tells us anything very useful.

Similarly, relying on past experience with other WMD-possessing states for guidance may not be helpful or sufficient. Even merely by possessing WMDs, without actually using them, the possessor can alter any power equation crucially. Even if we choose to presume (to my mind unjustifiably) that Hussein or his successors would remain deterrable at some tolerable price (at least for us), we also know that there are other actors in his part of the world who are willing to engage in mass slaughter and destruction for no purpose that makes much practical sense to us. For Islamic extremists, the medium is the message, and we know that they are active in Iraq and throughout the region, and that Hussein has maintained relationships of different types with a wide variety of extremist groups. It's quite possible that even one "exception" to the general rule of deterrence would, in a word, change everything - and also initiate a reaction on our part that makes the current War on Terror look like a beer brawl.

Putting aside our differing assessment of the dangers which Iraq/states pose, I think you are bringing up the larger problem of terrorism in the world of high tech. I have been worried about bin Laden et al more than states because of the obvious reaction any use of WMD would produce and fear of the state leader ever being linked back to the terrorists.

Look at what we know of bin Laden's post Afghanistan war (against the USSR) funding. According to the US much of his money comes from wealthy individuals in the Gulf states, mostly Saudi Arabia, and Islamic charity organizations around the world. Even though al Queda may have received state help from Pakistan and Iran, this points to the danger that a terrorist group with high level of financing and modern technology/communications. Add in the black market for advanced weapons, which grew exponentially with the end of the USSR, and you have a recipe for any number of groups composed of a small group of individuals with wealthly backers to wreck havoc- state support or not. Should this come to be true, the utility of attacking states - and the unavoidable human suffering produced, will decline and could wind up fueling additional terror.

i.e. the larger question: Can war ever work against terrorism and is there an example in history where it has?
More...

msfe · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from resinate:

the larger question: Can war ever work against terrorism and is there an example in history where it has?

no - war is terrorism

rs7 · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from msfe:

no - war is terrorism
More...

No, war is one army fighting another army. Terrorism is an "army" (to use the term very loosely) of cowards murdering innocent civilians.

Babak · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from msfe:

Quote from resinate:

the larger question: Can war ever work against terrorism and is there an example in history where it has?

no - war is terrorism
More...

war is terrorism? do you realize how stupid you sound?

msfe · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from rs7:

Terrorism is an "army" (to use the term very loosely) of cowards murdering innocent civilians.
More...

concur

candletrader · Mar 30, 2003

Terrorism and freedom-fighting are defined by opposing interests...

msfe · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from candletrader:

Terrorism and freedom-fighting are defined by opposing interests...
More...

whoÂ´s "army" (to use the term very loosely) of cowards is actually murdering innocent civilians in Iraq ?

resinate · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from msfe:

whoÂ´s "army" (to use the term very loosely) of cowards is actually murdering innocent civilians in Iraq ?
More...

The pentagon is conducting active investigations to answer this perplexing question.

msfe · Mar 30, 2003

is Morocco next ?

Blair seeks to defuse Arab anger

Protests today in Morocco, traditionally a US ally, showed what Mr Blair is up against. The demonstrations turned violent when 200,000 people marched against the US. Protesters carried coffins representing "Arab martyrs" and waved posters referring to Mr Bush as a "vampire of Arab blood".

Government ministers even took part in the demonstration in a country with traditionally strong ties with the US. In a signal of displeasure with America from the very top, King Mohammed VI yesterday announced the opening of a bank account to take in donations for "brother Iraqis".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,925989,00.html

rs7 · Mar 30, 2003

Quote from msfe:

is Morocco next ?

Blair seeks to defuse Arab anger

More...

Oh my goodness. He quoted from The Guardian. What a shock!!