On to Syria and Iran!

[Vympel]

Key administration officials- Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, have made bellicose, demanding statements of Syria and Iran in the past week. Uber-hawk neocon influence, or just US warnings to prevent their meddling in the inevitable New Order? Regardless, the foaming at the mouth war maniacs of the neoconservative bent are already licking their lips in anticipation for what they hope will be the next wars:


http://motherjones.com/news/warwatch/20 ... 4.html#one

[Sam Or I]

I don't think we will go into either of those countries. We may beat our chest a little, but I doubt we will engage in a war with them. Unlike Iraq, they are run by religion which almost everyone knows not to mess with.

[Stuart Mackey]

Not overly surprising. the US state department is already desribing NZ's anti-war position as "Regrettable"

[Xenophobe3691]

I dunno about Syria, those people are just whack. Have you ever seen the programming from that place? There was one instance where a bunch of people were drinking live snake blood to prove their devotion to the regime. I'm scared to death of it.

Iran, on the other hand, is shaping up. They're getting more and more freedoms, they're lessening the anti-American feelings to a dull murmur, and they want to get on our good sides in this war on Iraq. If we piss them off, we're in for a whole load of Hell.

I personally think that it's just pandering to the masses, they really won't do anything about it.

[Stormbringer]

Given both have major ties to terror it's not suprising we're waving the stick under their noses. Whether it'll lead to war or not is something that can't be predicted at this point.

[Durandal]

Key administration officials- Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, have made bellicose, demanding statements of Syria and Iran in the past week. Uber-hawk neocon influence, or just US warnings to prevent their meddling in the inevitable New Order? Regardless, the foaming at the mouth war maniacs of the neoconservative bent are already licking their lips in anticipation for what they hope will be the next wars:


http://motherjones.com/news/warwatch/20 ... 4.html#one

It all makes sense. The Axis of Evil must have three countries, and once Iraq falls it will only have two! Clearly, we cannot allow this. Having an axis defined by two points is simply unheard of. An axis must be defined by three points which are not on the same line. So, Syria must be ready to step up and be the frontrunner in the Axis of Evil.

Seriously, Bush is setting a precedent with how he intends to deal with his little axis. What if he doesn't attack Iran? Well then you've got an Axis of Evil ... but not that evil, I suppose. Same with North Korea, although Bush would rather just ignore North Korea entirely and let its leader keep clamoring for attention.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I think he'll go for Iran. If nothing else, to ensure another supply of oil.

That the Iran people would be liberated from the religious mullahs is simply a bonus.

The Nice Guy

[RedImperator]

Same with North Korea, although Bush would rather just ignore North Korea entirely and let its leader keep clamoring for attention.

Which is exactly the right strategy. We've been demanding that any talks with them are multilateral--us, them, the South Koreans, Japan, China, and Russia, so Pyongyang gets the message that NOBODY in the region is amued by their sabre rattling. They want bilateral talks specifically to humiliate us by making the hyperpower deal with the Glorious Army Based Leadership as equals, and our allies by making them sit on the sidelines while a nation on the other side of the Pacific negotiates for them.

As for Iran, that's a situation that should be handled very, very delicately. Something like two thirds of the population there is under twenty-five and sick of the mullahs. They don't buy the "Death to America" line anymore, at least not the way their parents did. The last thing we need to do is provide an external boogeyman for the clerics, which would happen if we treated Iran the same way we did Iraq (or if we bungle the Iraqi reconstruction, for that matter). I hope we don't have to pull an Osirak on that nuclear facility of theirs.

[jegs2]

Saber rattling, while whipping the fourth point of contact of another, seems all the louder and more menacing. Saber-rattling is all it is, but let those in Iran, Syria, and the extreme-left press think otherwise...

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'm sure we'll end with Iraq, as popular support for any future wars will be in the crapper, and it will be near election time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why not? It'll be about a decade before we get the Iraqi oil wells up to the production required to allow us to take out the KSA without major disruptions to the world economy. Iran will fall from eternal processes (and perhaps a little and quiet outside aide) quite soon - But Syria and their terrorist-ridden puppet Lebanon will not. The second half of the Ba'athist party and it's support for terrorism needs to be dealt with as well.

Why would we stop when the job isn't finished yet? And if Syria has been allowing Syrian citizens and military aide to cross the border into Iraq to fight for the Iraqi regime, that in fact gives us a legal casus belli.

[Posbi]

If they go after Iran, they'll really have earned themselves the title of "Dumbasses of the Decade"...

[Durandal]

Why would we stop when the job isn't finished yet? And if Syria has been allowing Syrian citizens and military aide to cross the border into Iraq to fight for the Iraqi regime, that in fact gives us a legal casus belli.

Yup, then maybe we can wave our magic wand and make a democracy there, too.

Wait a second, things don't work like that! Rebuilding governments costs money! Our money! What was I thinking?

[Sea Skimmer]

At some point the US may opt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But I doubt there's any intention to invade Iran or Syria. Any such talk is almost certainly just aimed at advising them that the US is watching their conduct in regards to Iraq.

[Wicked Pilot]

Syria is not worth the effort. Who gives a fuck about them?

Iran has an very bright future, we need not fuck it up.

[Raptor 597]

I think he'll go for Iran. If nothing else, to ensure another supply of oil.

That the Iran people would be liberated from the religious mullahs is simply a bonus.

The Nice Guy

Yeah, Iraq was defintely about the oil. Thats why it cost more to wage it then the profits of cutting off the oil supply. Yup, defintely about Iraqi oil.

[Posbi]

At some point the US may opt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But I doubt there's any intention to invade Iran or Syria. Any such talk is almost certainly just aimed at advising them that the US is watching their conduct in regards to Iraq.

The more eager the US is to destroy said infrastructure, the more effort will the Persians -ALL of them- put into rebuilding and progressing it. They are a very proud people, even more so than the Iraquis, and an unprovoked attack by the US certainly won't help them on their slow way towards a western-styled democratic system...

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Yeah, Iraq was defintely about the oil. Thats why it cost more to wage it then the profits of cutting off the oil supply. Yup, defintely about Iraqi oil.

Really? Thats pretty interesting, I always though the oil was at least secondary objective. Alternatively however, it could be that the price of oil will dropafter the war, and we'll make a profit in the long run. I don't have any figures, just purely speculative.

[Posbi]

I think he'll go for Iran. If nothing else, to ensure another supply of oil.

That the Iran people would be liberated from the religious mullahs is simply a bonus.

The Nice Guy

Yeah, Iraq was defintely about the oil. Thats why it cost more to wage it then the profits of cutting off the oil supply. Yup, defintely about Iraqi oil.

It's a geostrategical longterm-calculation. If you just take the market value of the raw oil to calculate it, it won't work. Of course not. But this cheap oil will have an overall positive impact on the US- -and therefor- global economy that in essence might be able to create much more money by the income from taxes than the US by now is spending on the war.
Even more so, by the de-facto military and commercial control on the oil deposits of both Saudi-Arabia and Iraq the US does not only gain a fine means to gut other, rising powers (looks into China's corner) by dictating them their conditions, it also creates a military presence in the Gulf region that will be able to project massive military power deep into the Indian Ocean region, and downwards towards Africa, where with Somalia we do have the next logical target for petrol exploitation.

[Coyote]

Iran will have its own revolution before the US needs to charge in. And we could swat Syria as a side-show, and it may actually be for the better; since they never did pull out of Lebanon and continue to support terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

[Sea Skimmer]

The more eager the US is to destroy said infrastructure, the more effort will the Persians -ALL of them- put into rebuilding and progressing it. They are a very proud people, even more so than the Iraquis, and an unprovoked attack by the US certainly won't help them on their slow way towards a western-styled democratic system...

Nor will the fanatics who for the time being do run the nation having an atomic bomb. It doesn't matter if they start over, by the time the work is done most US ABM programs will be online and of course the reactors and plants can simply be destroyed again.

[Posbi]

Yeah, fine, why just help to create an allie by secret emans and subtle influence if it is so much easier to piss the people of and create an enemy...

[theski]

Blair just says no to Iran and Syriahttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Apr4.html

[Durandal]

Blair just says no to Iran and Syria http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Apr4.html

But don't Syria's people need to be freed too? After all, this is first and foremost about the people in those nations ... right?

[Joe]

Blair just says no to Iran and Syria http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Apr4.html

But don't Syria's people need to be freed too? After all, this is first and foremost about the people in those nations ... right?

We didn't screwfuck Syria in the first place, we don't have the same obligations there that we do in Iraq.