EU undercuts US sanctions with Syrian tradedeal.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Btw, this amuses me, as Europe is trying the good cop bad cop approach (Europe being the good cop and America being the bad cop). I'm doubtful it will work on Assad Jr. but it remains to be seen.


And as far as Israel and syria go - its a nice attempt to treat them the same.

Maybe you could start by cancelling the ban on Israel to participate in the security council.

Why does every change have to be in Isreals favor?

[Spiffor]

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

Well, the Israelis live in fear (and for a reason). Their whole policy is based on paranoia. As such, I don't expect more rationality and restraint from Israel than from one of its non-fundy neighbours.

That's because, when it comes to nuclear destruction, my fears aren't based on "dictatorship vs democracy", but "rationality vs irrationality". You can have very rational dictatorships, and very irrational democracies, just like you can have the opposite.

My worst fear is that Islamists come to power in Pakistan, or that the leadership in nuclear Iran is taken over by actual zealots (and not the current powerhungry cynics). Religious zealots are the epitome of irrationality, and are a real frightening prospect with nukes.

But when we look at Assad Jr, or even at Khamenei, we don't see trigger-happy, illuminated madmen - we see people who want to keep their power, and to that effect, they won't allow their country to be vaporized. I personally expect Assad or Khamenei to use their WMDs as deterrent of potential attacks, and as a formidable opportunity to make some international noise, like North Korea.

I don't see any reason to assume that Israel will be more reasonable with its nukes.

I don't understand the Euro's perception of Israel. In general, Israeli's are good guys... Syria? Bad guys.

What are you talking about? The Israeli people and the Syrian people? If so, you are mistaken: the (admittedly few) Syrians I met were all nice guys, just like the (more numerous) Israelis I know.

If you are talking about the leadership, the Israelis have a war criminal at the helm, who doesn't feel any shame or regret for what he let do (Sabra and Chatila). Assad Jr. is far from being an angel, but he was never associated with the slaughter of thousands of civilians.

Not that it has anything to do with the question of "what nuclear power should we fear?"

But yet you treat Israel as if it was some corrupt rogue state. It makes no sense to me.

We don't treat Israel as a Rogue State, because ultimately, "Rogue States" are those who don't play the international game according to US rules. Since Israel is protected by the US, Israel cannot be a Rogue State, per definition.

However, Israel is the central bone of contention in the Middle East, an overarmed stronghold, one of the most modern militaries in the world. We hold Israel for what it is: dangerous.

Besides, many in Europe (especially France, but it is not only a French trait) are appalled by Israeli policies, that we consider cannot even hope to restore peace. Israel kills hundreds of bystanders, destroys hundreds of houses, supports its colonies, builds a wall on Palestinian territory. To us, such a policy can only lead to further hatred, and has no chance of making for a longlasting peace.

Again, this has nothing to do with my fears on nuclear power. No matter how despicable or appreciable a country is, what counts is the rationality of the wielder.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Taht simply isnt true - KSA was geopolitically conservative, and Iran was not. Bernard Lewis (among others) has written extensively on the Iranian Revolutionarys plans to export revolution throughout the Islamic world (and not just among Shia, either)

Oh, but i forgot, you dont like to read books about politics anymore. Never mind.

So? The fact is that throught the 1980's SA did MORE to spread radical Islam that Iran did and the US stood by and let them do it becuase they saw incrasing lslamisation as a counter to socialism and communism. Besides, that eventuality would only occur if the most radical of the islamists came to power, an event the US could have tried to influence if we had had relations with the new upcoming regime.

[Pax]

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.

Why are Isrealis good guys and Syria bad guys. When was the last time Syria attacked the U.S. or any of it's military? What about Isreal. Can you provide proof under than it being someone's opinion that Syria is somehow plotting to conquer the United States.

The issue is should we not try to make friends by being fair. Or should we continue to "go it alone" Which I equate to attempting to reshape the world in an image suitable to the powers that be and not the common citizen.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GePap
I doubt Senator Kerry reads this.

Who knows, maybe he's registered at Apoly and posts conservatively so that no one is aware who he is. Heck, he may have registered under the name of "Imran Siddiqui"............

[Imran Siddiqui]

Heck, he may have registered under the name of "Imran Siddiqui"............

[Spiffor]

So THAT was the truth! Imran, I mean John, you're busted, you can as well change your handle back to your true name.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
[Yes, as would any state Invaded. The uS has gone to several wars since 1945-none of which threatened regime survival or involved the US defing its own territory. Plus the US had to worry until 1991 about a possible nuclear reaction from another enemy. Iran in its war with Iraq faced no such issues.

In October 1973, Syrian troops were halfway across the Golan, and approaching the Galillee. Israel did NOT use nukes or CW, and its stratetegic bombing was aimed at economic and military targets.

Syrian troops in 1973 were far closer to Israels main cities than Iraqi troops at any time were to Teheran, Qom, Isfahan or other Iranian cities. As for regime change, thats absurd. Iran and Iraq were fighting a national war, one that united all Iranians against the national enemy. The only place where Saddam had real support was in the predominantly Arab region of Khuzistan. There is no way Iraqi forces could have established a new regime in Iran. And that doesnt seem to have been SH's goal - his goal was A. To gain control over the Shatt al Arab B. To gain control Khuzistan and its oil C. To show himself the strongman of the arab world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Me and Kucinich have been found out! RUN!

[GhengisFarb™]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, the Israelis live in fear (and for a reason). Their whole policy is based on paranoia. As such, I don't expect more rationality and restraint from Israel than from one of its non-fundy neighbours.

Would a paranoid state have made a peace agreement with Egypt, and withdrawn from the strategically valuable Sinai? Would a paranoid state have signed the Oslo accords? Would a paranoid state have invited Arafat back from Tunisia, and armed his security forces? Would a paranoid state have withdrawn unilaterally from Lebanon?

I mean cmon. Israel is cautious - Israel has REAL security dangers. And yet it gets the kind of response you give. Does it ever occur to you that your attitude, and that of Europeans like you, contributes to paranoia?

[Spiffor]

Seriously, imagine the lots of fun if your screenname was "John Kerry", with your Reagan avatar

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In October 1973, Syrian troops were halfway across the Golan, and approaching the Galillee. Israel did NOT use nukes or CW, and its stratetegic bombing was aimed at economic and military targets.

So? What does this have to do with Iran? You accuse others of always bringing up Israel-don;'t do it yourself, specially if it is even less relevant.

Syrian troops in 1973 were far closer to Israels main cities than Iraqi troops at any time were to Teheran, Qom, Isfahan or other Iranian cities. As for regime change, thats absurd. Iran and Iraq were fighting a national war, one that united all Iranians against the national enemy. The only place where Saddam had real support was in the predominantly Arab region of Khuzistan. There is no way Iraqi forces could have established a new regime in Iran. And that doesnt seem to have been SH's goal - his goal was A. To gain control over the Shatt al Arab B. To gain control Khuzistan and its oil C. To show himself the strongman of the arab world.

If Iran lost the war, it could face counter-revolutionary pressures. Many non-democratic regimes have falled after loosing wars. add to this the fact that Iraq used chemical weapons on iran first. Once chemical weapons had been used on Iran and its cities bombed by Iraq, then Iran got to hit back equally.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If you are talking about the leadership, the Israelis have a war criminal at the helm, who doesn't feel any shame or regret for what he let do (Sabra and Chatila). Assad Jr. is far from being an angel, but he was never associated with the slaughter of thousands of civilians.

1. Look at how Sharon has acted since taking power. He has been pragmatic throughout (if more violent than you would be) Right now he is desperately trying to wrestle the Likud part to pragmatism. The constant villificantion of Sharon, for negligence, leads to fundamental misunderstanding of Israeli politics.

Besides, if being negligent during a massacre makes one unfit for office, I hope you felt the same way about M. Mitterand after Rwanda.

2. Wrt Baby Assad - Does he fill shame or regret for the DELIBERATE actions of his father and predecessor in Hama, where far more arab muslims were slaughtered than in Sabra and Shatilia.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I mean cmon. Israel is cautious - Israel has REAL security dangers.

I know Israel's security dangers are real. And I know the Israelis have very valid reasons to be afraid. And even if the reasons are valid, their policies aren't any less real.

And yet it gets the kind of response you give. Does it ever occur to you that your attitude, and that of Europeans like you, contributes to paranoia?

I can understand that I won't endear the Israelis with my attitude (what's even more fun is that I don't endear the Pro-Palestinians either, because I'm in the middle and I consider both sides to suck utterly).

But I can't imagine that I contribute to the Israeli paranoia. Unless the Israelis confuse my criticism of their policies with antisemitism, or with some dream of the Arabs crushing Israel, or something.