Debka.com says Saddam's WMD are in Syria

[SPOOFE]

Wanna attack Syria? Slap some UN sanctions on 'em first. The Iraqi attack had perfectly valid justifications (violations of UN sanctions), even if Bush's reasons weren't the valid ones. Syria? I don't care if they're a country full of America-hating assholes, with a bio-warhead in every household... no justification to invade.

You think there's Iraqi weapons in Syria? Show me proof.

[Axis Kast]

"Consequences" and "war" are two different issues.

Again, do you believe the United States will ignore credible reports - or actual discovery - of Syrian WMD?

[Axis Kast]

No justification? Perhaps from your point of view; I'd consider Syrian WMD a dangerous threat necessitating an immediate response. While I'm not necessarily an advocate of invasion and regimé change, economic sanctions and diplomatic containment would not - should not - be out of the question.

[Edi]

Good luck trying to get support for your personal crusade, you'll get a resounding "hell, no" from the rest of the world, making your desire for sanctions meaningless. Your opinion and verifiable facts are not necessarily the same thing, Kast.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

Good luck trying to get support for your personal crusade, you'll get a resounding "hell, no" from the rest of the world, making your desire for sanctions meaningless.

My “personal crusade?” Perhaps in your zeal to lock horns you’ve neglected to check the newspapers. Or hadn’t you noticed that Colin Powell and George Bush have more or less promised to press for sanctions if something untoward (Iraqi or Syrian) is discovered?

A “hell no” based purely on desires to derail American initiatives, nothing more. What happens if somebody more popular brings up the issue once Bush is gone? You don’t think Bill Clinton could have organized sanctions had he felt Syria a threat?

Your opinion and verifiable facts are not necessarily the same thing, Kast.

You mean “verifiable facts” like newspaper reports? Or CNN? And my “opinion” was a question: do you think the United States would try and apply diplomatic, political, or economic force to disarm Syria – successful nor not?

[Vympel]

Again, do you believe the United States will ignore credible reports - or actual discovery - of Syrian WMD?

Not ignore, but what are they gonna do about it? Syria is much more low profile than Iraq, and Assad ain't exactly the same on the 'monster' metre as Hussein. In all liklihood, the neocons will shout "Amen!", the American public will scratch their heads and say "Syria, whuh?", the world community will say "it's not illegal", and the left-wing will say "this is just Dubya sucking more Sharon cock".

[Axis Kast]

The United States would enact unilateral sanctions – probably backed up by at least one or two of the Coalition members – in an effort to curb Syrian activities.

If Bush was able to spin a façade of legitimacy for Iraq without presenting public evidence of WMD, he can certainly make a similar presentation to Congress in support of economic retaliation against Syria.

I don’t doubt that the rest of the world will cry bloody murder. But the left won’t really have any bark to its bite like last time; remember, these are unilateral – or international – sanctions, not outright invasion plans.

So … in all likelihood:

American Right: “Amen!”
American Public: “Syria? Huh? Sounds like ‘Saddam.’”
American Left: “But Israel’s got them, too!”
International Community: “We can not support any action at this time.”