SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (36430)8/7/2002 10:33:23 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Saddam is a family dynasty? Nice invention. He's got a ways to go to match the longevity of the Pahlavi "dynasty".



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (36430)8/7/2002 10:48:08 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
I guess Syria figures if we take out Saddam, they will go down also. From NRO.

August 7, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Saddam's Newest Playmate
A deadly alliance.

By Michael Freund

It is August in the Middle East, and despite the intense summer heat, love is in the air. Saddam Hussein, the region's least-agreeable resident, has found himself a new playmate in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and their two countries haven't been this friendly in a good long time.

Though regional tourism has been in a slump since September 11, the number of dignitaries, delegations, and diplomats traveling between Iraq and Syria in recent months has hit a feverish pace, as these two traditional rivals are growing increasingly nervous about Washington's war on terror.

Just last week, the state-controlled Iraqi Journalists Union visited Damascus to meet with Syrian government officials and discuss "the necessity of enhancing cooperation between the two countries" in the field of media, the Syrian news agency reported on July 25. Since the media in both countries serve as little more than propaganda tools for the respective regimes, it is clear the two are planning something far more sinister than just an exchange of TV game shows.

In late June, Syrian Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade Ghassan al- Refai signed an agreement with Saddam's government to establish seven companies under joint control in fields such as land and sea transport and oil. After the ceremony, Al-Refai noted that Syrian-Iraqi relations "are proceeding forward rapidly" and said there is a "joint desire to revitalize bilateral cooperation at all levels." And if that didn't get the point across, al-Refai went on to add that, "Iraq is the strategic depth for Syria and that Syria is Iraq's depth for the interests of the two sisterly countries."

On July 11, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz conferred with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk A-Sharaa in Damascus. It was their second meeting in the Syrian capital since the beginning of the year, and it came just four months after Bashar al-Assad hosted Saddam's deputy, Izzat Ibrahim, for talks on the situation in the region.

When two of the Middle East's most prodigious neighborhood bullies put aside their differences and start courting each other, it is time for Washington to wake up and take notice.

Indeed, Syria has repeatedly come out against the impending U.S. assault on Iraq, sharply criticizing the Bush administration for its intention to remove Saddam from power.

During a visit to Ankara on July 26, Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam said in an interview with a Turkish newspaper that there is no justification for America to go after Saddam. "The U.S.'s reasons to strike are baseless. Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction and does not pose any threat to her neighbors."

The day before, Syrian Foreign Minister A-Sharaa, speaking to journalists in Damascus, also made clear that the Assad regime "rejected" any American plan to strike at Iraq.

The Syrians, it appears, have not limited their support for Saddam to bluster, however. As Israel's most respected military analyst, Zeev Schiff, recently reported, weapons and military equipment are being shipped to Syrian ports from Eastern Europe and then covertly forwarded to Iraq by road and rail. It seems safe to assume that these very same weapons will no doubt be put to use against America's young men and women in uniform, once they arrive on the outskirts of Baghdad.

And, though a Washington Post story last week asserted that Syria is evolving into an "anti-terror ally," that is little more than Beltway wishful thinking. Damascus continues to play host to a range of terror groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and it has cooperated with Iran in transferring rockets, weapons, and explosive materials to Hezbullah in southern Lebanon.

Even more ominously, there are reports that al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have found refuge in Syrian-controlled Lebanon. In a letter sent to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last month, Israel's U.N. Ambassador Yehuda Lancry noted that al Qaeda's presence "has increased ... as operatives have fled Afghanistan and sought safe haven in Lebanese territory." Lancry identified Abu Mohammed Al Masri as al Qaeda's ringleader in Lebanon. Since the Syrians maintain an iron grip over Lebanese affairs, there is little likelihood that Osama bin Laden's associates would find refuge in the area without prior consent from the Assad regime.

In his June 24 speech on the Middle East, President George W. Bush said that Syria would have to close down terrorist training camps and expel terrorist groups from its territory. His words have no doubt sent a shiver throughout the Syrian regime, which fears being added to the "axis of evil," as it undoubtedly should.

But rather than joining the West in its war on terror, Damascus has instead embraced Saddam and strengthened its ties with him, precisely when the war on Baghdad seems increasingly inevitable.

Bashar al-Assad, then, has made his choice. It is now time for America to treat the Syrian dictator accordingly.

Michael Freund served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Israeli prime minister's office from 1996 to 1999. He is currently an editorial writer and syndicated columnist for The Jerusalem Post.
nationalreview.com



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (36430)8/8/2002 9:26:45 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
>>Marriage and economic opportunity is the way to prevent terrorism from getting out of hand.<<

Most of the time, the power of the purse and the pocketbook is sufficient to keep nations in check. Read the first few chapters of Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation. International bankers do wield a great deal of power and they mostly *don't* like wars because wars are traumatic to economies.

One of the main reasons the Soviet experiment faltered was that international bankers refused to invest there, for very good reasons. The first Five Year Plan was an all-out effort to generate goods (wheat, mostly) to sell abroad in order to obtain capital in order to build factories.

Hitler financed rearmament by stealing money from Jews, then invading countries and looting their banks. The Germans were almost broke by the time the war ended.

Look at how much power the IMF has. Countries that want to borrow money have to toe the line. Of course, Iraq isn't terribly susceptible because of all the oil money.

Re: why did we not attack Stalin first? It is a little known fact that the US did send some troops via Alaska into Siberia during the Russian Revolution. The Brits, under Churchill, also some sent troops to fight against the Russian Revolution.

This was immediately after WWI and there was no strong desire to keep fighting.

When a country is very large, and very powerful, you'd better have a very good reason to attack it, otherwise, it's safer to just rely on the balance of power.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (36430)8/9/2002 1:56:04 AM
From: D. Long  Respond to of 281500
 
As is the likelihood that Saddam, and eventually his sons, will use such an opportunity to encourage attacks against the US by extremist groups. This is a family dynasty we're talking about here. When he dies, his kids will carry on the "family business".

And that is not an encouraging thought, for anyone that has read anything about the sons, especially Uday. Psychopaths.

Derek