Syria next?

[Kropotkin]

While it's quite clear in my mind that Bush is the kind of guy that wouldn't mind to start a nice little war if he finds a decent enough reason for it (or fabricates one). It's on a normal day a good way to get support and drag away the attention from the economy close to an election. However, this is hardly a normal day. As long as the Iraqi-situation is as it is, Bush would be foolish to start even more armed conflicts. An invasion would be out of the question.

Like your new avatar Chemical Ollie.

[lord of the mark]

btw i know you guys are having fun and all on the question of nuclear vs Chem weapons, but might i point out that violation of the NPT does not carry war as a punishment, at least by the terms of that treaty. Rather,IIUC, violators are to be cut off from nuclear technology, supplies, etc.

NKor, IIUC, announced that it was withdrawing from the NPT. The powers are concerned, and may, under some circumstances, sanction Nkor, not because Nkor is in violation of the NPT, but because the powers fear the consequences of allowing Nkor to retain nuclear weapons (the likelihood of Japan rearming, the potential that Nkor might sell nukes, etc)

[Dinner]

Japan is already rearming and we might see powers such as Taiwan and South Korea get involved in an arms race against North Korea/China if North Korea if things don't change. The sad fact is the Chinese supply 90% of North Korea's energy and can stop the North Koreans any time it wants to but has decided to let this train wreck continue.

[The Mad Monk]

Taiwan is running radio commercials (in the NYC area, at least) lobbying for admittance into the UN.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taiwan is running radio commercials (in the NYC area, at least) lobbying for admittance into the UN.

Before it does that doesn't it have to declare statehood?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GePap


So why can't they? you forget that usally the kid who can is some example of bad behavior or has rotten parents.

Did you get to always do what the other kid's did ?
If you say you did, well, let me just say I don't believe you.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



Did you get to always do what the other kid's did ?

CHOSON

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
anymore than we have no ground to insist India, Pakistan and Israel get rid of their nukes, since they never signed on the the NPT.

Just to point out, Israel already had nukes (thanks to France) by 1967, before the NPT.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
They're worse because they're actually used.

Very, very rarely. Iraq is the only country I've heard of using them since WWI where there's any actual proof that they were used. US use of extremely poisonous pesticides in Vietnam comes close, but since it didn't cause immediate death, isn't considered.

[chequita guevara]

The US is done invading countries for now. We have barely enough troops for the jobs they're doing. You might have noticed lots of reservists are getting their period of service extended. If we start a third war and another occupation, we won't be able to respond to an actual threat.

[SpencerH]

The question is not which of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons are worse than the other, the question is whether one or the other are more likely to be used. The fact is that chem and bio weapons are easier to produce than nukes and that virtually any semi-industrialized tin pot nation can make them. Throw Syria's continued and consistent support of many terrorist organizations into the pot and you've got the same potential problem as we had with Iraq.

What was not said at the public committee meeting but what was clearly written between the lines (to me at least) and that may have been said at the secure meeting was how much help Syria have been giving to the Iraqi resistance and how many american lives it has cost.

You say we wont go into Iraq. What if I said that Syrian support had cost 100 american lives and that we could cut our cost by 100 billion by removing Syrian support for the Iraqi resistance and thereby shortening our time in occupation of Iraq ?

[chequita guevara]

I don't think the Administration has enough credibility to sell that right now, even if it may be the truth. That whole thing about crying wolf and all.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Just to point out, Israel already had nukes (thanks to France) by 1967, before the NPT.

Which makes no difference to the NPT whatsoever.

btw i know you guys are having fun and all on the question of nuclear vs Chem weapons, but might i point out that violation of the NPT does not carry war as a punishment, at least by the terms of that treaty. Rather,IIUC, violators are to be cut off from nuclear technology, supplies, etc.

Even more reason why the whole: 'invade Syria" bit is absurd, though it also brings into question the "invade Iraq" ude to WMD's just as much.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Which makes no difference to the NPT whatsoever.

Umm, yes it does. It means that if one were to hold Israel to the NPT, Israel would be a nuclear-weapon state, not a non-nuclear weapon state.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Which makes no difference to the NPT whatsoever.

btw i know you guys are having fun and all on the question of nuclear vs Chem weapons, but might i point out that violation of the NPT does not carry war as a punishment, at least by the terms of that treaty. Rather,IIUC, violators are to be cut off from nuclear technology, supplies, etc.

Even more reason why the whole: 'invade Syria" bit is absurd, though it also brings into question the "invade Iraq" ude to WMD's just as much.

As you know well, the admin did not base its case on the NPT, but on UNSC resolutions, and the 1991 ceasefire, which do not apply in the case of Syria. You can (and have) disagreed with the admin on the validity of using those as a casus belli - lets please not go through that again - the point is that Syria is different from Iraq.