Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: slacker711 who wrote (93440)	4/14/2003 11:16:48 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here goes the Diplomatic pressure on Syria. When we have the "Smoking Gun" WMDs proved, you can expect it to really get hot. Powell Says U.S. Considering Sanctions Against Syria By REUTERS WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will examine possible diplomatic or economic measures against Syria, which the United States suspects of developing chemical weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday. "With respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward," he told reporters after talks with Kuwait Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah. "In light of this new environment they (Syria) should review their actions and their behavior, not only with respect to who gets haven in Syria and weapons of mass destruction but especially the support of terrorist activity," Powell added Before Powell's statement on Monday, Syria denied U.S. charges that it had chemical weapons and, brushing aside British allegations, said it had never cooperated with Saddam Hussein's administration. ``We say to him (President Bush) that Syria has no chemical weapons and that the only chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the region are in Israel, which is threatening its neighbors and occupying their land,'' Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Buthaina Shaaban told Reuters. REST AT:http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-usa-britain-syria.html

To: slacker711 who wrote (93440)	4/14/2003 11:22:59 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think it will take years to prepare the domestic political situation for war with either of those countries. Why would the Bush administration go to war with Syria? There are many alternatives - economic, political, diplomatic, special ops, ... to be tried before putting a single American in harms way. There is 0 upside to a war with Syria. The people crying for war with Syria or who are puking on Bush for getting ready for a war on Syria have one track minds. If Syria continues to be belligerent, Bush could go to the other leaders in the Arab League and say, "How long do you want me to keep my 250,000 troops in Iraq? The sooner you clean up your own messes, the sooner we can leave." Make supporting terrorism and WMD a problem for those in the region. Time to use all that leverage you earned in Iraq, not squander it over Syria. Unless Syria attacks the US first, there will be no war in Syria, even then it will be a 'devestating proportional' attack but not full out war. Paul

To: slacker711 who wrote (93440)	4/14/2003 11:34:21 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

I didnt believe in the "wag the dog" scenario for Clinton's Tomahawk strike and I dont believe it with Bush. That's not my argument. Mine is that these considerations are always on the table at moments like the present, like Clinton and Afghanistan, Sudan, etc. That some administrations are more susceptible to these arguments than others. From those two assumptions, I simply wished to make the contrarian point that the Bush folk are more susceptible than other administrations since they are well into binary absolutism, just to coin a phrase.