EU undercuts US sanctions with Syrian tradedeal.

[Sava]

Who likes the idea that Syria and Israel should not be treated differently on the WMD issue?

Yes, let's compare a democratic state to a corrupt, oppressive, Ba'athist regime that probably supports terrorists.

Spiffor, I like and agree with you a lot, but you are way off base on this one.

I don't understand the Euro's perception of Israel. In general, Israeli's are good guys... Syria? Bad guys. But yet you treat Israel as if it was some corrupt rogue state. It makes no sense to me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
to disarm. I fundamentally think that WMDs are extremely dangerous in the area, and that Israel is not less dangerous than Syria or other non-fundy Arab countries.

You may well believe that. I do not. Sen Kerry says that he does not. I presume he will make policy based on his stated belief that Syrian (and Iranian) WMDs are more dangerous to the region and to the US than is Israels nuclear arsenal.


BTW, you are aware that secular Syria is in close alliance with fundamentalist Iran, fundamentalist Hezbollah, and supports fundamentalist Hamas?

[GePap]

I doubt Senator Kerry reads this.

But my point still stands- other states get to make their own foreign policy. Our sanctions will do nothing to disarm Syria-until Syria no longer sees a reason to be armed they won't give them up whatever we do short of attacking, and the problems in Iraq make that highly unlikely.

We are also not likely to carry out any pre-emptive attacks against Iran, and if iran follows NK and pulls out of the NPT we won't even have a legal excuse for it. I seriously doubt even the UK would go along with us to strike Iran. And in the end, if they pull out of the NPT, Iran will have as much a right to nukes as we do. We only have a right to ***** at Iran for its nukes becuase they are in the NPT system.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava



Yes, let's compare a democratic state to a corrupt, oppressive, Ba'athist regime that probably supports terrorists.

Spiffor, I like and agree with you a lot, but you are way off base on this one.

I don't understand the Euro's perception of Israel. In general, Israeli's are good guys... Syria? Bad guys. But yet you treat Israel as if it was some corrupt rogue state. It makes no sense to me.

puh - leeze Sava, lets not start that debate again. Havent we had the generic arab - israeli debate here enough times already. Lets just accept it as fact that theres a difference in perception, rooted ultimately in differences of interest - despite proclaimed "idealism".
GIVEN that, how does a would be multilateralist US administration respond?

[Sava]

Gepap: We have the right to ***** about Iran and nukes because they are evil douchebags that would probably kill us all if they had the chance.

[GePap]

NO. We could , but we don;t have the right. There is a difference. The only reason the US can push for sanctions is becuase Iran signed a deal way back when saying it would not get nukes if we allowed them to get nuclear power. Well, we accuse them of breaking that deal. If they pull out of the deal than other states part of the NPT would have to stop helping them develop peaceful nuclear power, BUT we would have no legal basis for our complaints.

[Sava]

GIVEN that, how does a would be multilateralist US administration respond?

I'd impose some sort of penalty on the EU... trade wise... if they want to go *** for tat on trade sanctions/penalties over Syria... then so be it. While I'm not of the neo-con belief that we need to take on a crusade to democratize the mideast, I do think we should recognize that Syria, Iran, and probably other states are evil, oppressive regimes that should face sanctions and other penalties until they aren't evil, oppressive states.

I'm of the belief that we shouldn't trade with evil asswipes. And we should give our friends a hard time if they trade with evil asswipes.

[Sava]

BUT we would have no legal basis for our complaints.

legal schmegal... I have a problem on a moral level with Iran having nukes... **** legality... if I were president, I'd definitely be *****ing at or about states that I feel are immoral or oppressive.

[GePap]

Why you will never be president. Get rid of laws and what AQ did was OK, since they got through.

The NPT deal is a bad deal, but we pushed for it becuase it enshrined our right to have nukes-it was a self-serving deal that we would not get again.

Besides, the Iranian government has more reasons for nukes than we do.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

I doubt Senator Kerry reads this.

Yes, i know that. It was simply a way of expressing my concerns here.

But my point still stands- other states get to make their own foreign policy. Our sanctions will do nothing to disarm Syria-until Syria no longer sees a reason to be armed they won't give them up whatever we do short of attacking, and the problems in Iraq make that highly unlikely.

1. Im not sure what reasons Syria has for keeping them. As you have stated so eloquently, CW is of limited military use. Whatever prestige reason, bargaining chip reasons, or other reasons will have to be weighed against the consequences of sanctions.
2.As far as limits due to overstretch in Iraq
A. An attack on Syria would likely be by air, not ground forces. No overstretch there at all
B. A threat of attack over CW would likely be tied to an ultimatum to stop Syrian support of insurgents/terrorists within Iraq - it would thus make the situation EASIER in Iraq
C. Were not talking short term. Kerry wont be in office till Jan 2005 (if he wins) and will be in office till 2009. I dont think we will be in overstretch for that entire period.

We are also not likely to carry out any pre-emptive attacks against Iran, and if iran follows NK and pulls out of the NPT we won't even have a legal excuse for it. I seriously doubt even the UK would go along with us to strike Iran. And in the end, if they pull out of the NPT, Iran will have as much a right to nukes as we do. We only have a right to ***** at Iran for its nukes becuase they are in the NPT system.

I wonder if Kerry and Holbrooke share your belief that the US has no right to a preemptive strike against NKor or Iran even if they have nuclear weapons. If so Id like to see them state it. I dont think they trust MAD to work in those cases, and I dont think they are willing to lose an American city to preserve the sanctity of the Treaty of Westphalia and the UN charter. Again, Im NOT asking for your views on the proper conduct of international relations, Gepap, i think i have a good idea of them by now. Nor am i advancing my own views. I AM trying to reconcile what seem to be contradictory aspects of Sen Kerrys views. I am as yet undecided how I will vote in November. I am impressed with some aspects of Kerrys speech the other day, and some aspects of Holbrookes record - but I need to get around the contradictions, which are by no means minor in IMHO. Since I dont think you share the viewpoint of Kerry and Holbrooke, perhaps you are not the best to defend it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Besides, the Iranian government has more reasons for nukes than we do.

I somehow doubt Sen Kerry shares that belief.

[Sava]

Besides, the Iranian government has more reasons for nukes than we do.

so? who gives a flying **** about Iran... and why are you defending Iran? jesus christ, if the Iranian government had the chance, they'd probably cut your head off for being a Westerner. As a liberal (as I generally perceive you), you have often voiced discontent with right-wing, conservative theocratic elements in America... but yet, you're defending Iran like their some innocent state being bullied by EVIL AMERICA.

It's okay to be upset or to criticize America's hypocrisy... but c'mon man, be sensible. In the grand scheme of things... Iran is a bad guy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
I'd impose some sort of penalty on the EU... trade wise... if they want to go *** for tat on trade sanctions/penalties over Syria... then so be it.

starting a trade war with the EU in an attempt to force them to sanction Syria or Iran would be far more damaging to the US position in the world than simply attacking Syria or Iran.

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


starting a trade war with the EU in an attempt to force them to sanction Syria or Iran would be far more damaging to the US position in the world than simply attacking Syria or Iran.

well, I'm not in a position to know the most effective way to impose sanctions on Syria... I was just tossing that out there as an idea. I'm sure there are much better ways to get what we want without pissing off the euros.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Sava
I'd impose some sort of penalty on the EU... trade wise... if they want to go *** for tat on trade sanctions/penalties over Syria... then so be it.

Sort of a repeat of the Helms- Burton act on Cuba?
Here European companies are not allowed to trade with the US if they trade with Cuba.

You want all trade to go to the US, and you can't even pay for it.