Bush's new case for War?

[Pekka]

I've seen moon made out of cheese. honest.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nope, not based on this. Unlike UNSC Res 1441, which you may be thinking of, this doesnt mention serious consequences. There are also other serious legal differences between UNSC 1559 and the case on Iraq.

Definately agree LotM, but this could be the beginning of laying ground work in that direction. Once Iraq gets somewhat settled, the war machine has to go somewhere...

[Spiffor]

I'm not sure if it'll last long. Baby Assad has always been keen of appeasing the US. And the real threat comes from Iran, not Syria. The sabre-rattling will have is conjunctural, and will have no bearing on the future IMHO.

Unless the US can afford to go to war against Syria under the term of a hawk. in this case, this peace of paper will be all the "legality" the US will need, just like 1441 was all the "legality" the US needed for Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by PLATO


Definately agree LotM, but this could be the beginning of laying ground work in that direction. Once Iraq gets somewhat settled, the war machine has to go somewhere...

no it doesnt.

And this is not laying the ground work. Again contra both you and Spiff, the legal situation wrt to UNSC 1559 is not comparable to that wrt Iraq.

The real laying the groundwork is the steady chorus of accusations about Syrian support for violence in Iraq. And THAT is not something that matters once Iraq settles down. IF, as Spiff says, Baby Assad appeases the US and clamps down on that, theres no good reason for the US to take on Syria any time soon. and probably not later either - the expectation is that once the Iranian regime falls, the Syrian regime will be facd with a new reality. Like Spiff, I see this as largely about leverage on Syria to improve its behavior.

[Solver]

At any rate, WHAT does the US have now to attack Syria or Iran with? I think that 9 out of 10 active duty brigades are deployed now, and additionally there are still major troop losses in Iraq. Syrian military might be outdated, but it would still not be easy to take down by airstrikes only, while invading Iran without a sizeable land force is not possible. So it's my understanding that the US doesn't simply have the resources to attack now, although it does seem clear that Bush wants to.

[Pekka]

DAMN YOU lord of the mark.. I set you 2 traps and you're not biting . Well, more power to you. And more power to me too! Celebrate the power!

[Ted Striker]

Pekka, the moon is made out of styrofoam.

[Kidlicious]

If we keep invading countries over there the whole place is going to unite against us and we will end up pulling out with our tail between our legs. ****, it'll be a miracle if we can keep a hold of Iraq.

[Shi Huangdi]

I doubt it. Lebanon isn't worth going to war over.

[Joseph]

Yesterday on CNN, they said the US Army is now at 500,000 and a few. With 150,000 in Iraq, you have 350,000 left. With many of those all over the place. I don't know how many National Guard and Reserve we have.
Wait Rummy does not want overkill forces. He wants the Calvary, so they can move fast, securce nothing, just move fast. (Leave all the guns and ammo around so that everyone can be shooting at our guys just a few days after we declear we won).
It will be March in 9 days. So we will strike April 1, 2005.

[Sava]

yeah syria
****s gonna hit the fabn