Can Syria legally supply equipment to Iraq?
No. I think Syria is playing with fire here.
Legality means nothing in this war.
So is Syria this war’s Cambodia? When does the US invade and how will we keep it secret this time?
We won’t have to keep it secret if Syria joins the war on the side of Saddam Hussein.
Um, excuse me? In what way is it “illegal” for Sovereign Nation A to engage in trade with Sovereign Nation B? And if they’re not getting paid for the equipment, if they’re just donating it, in what way is it “illegal” for Sovereign Nation A to help Sovereign Nation B, currently under attack by Sovereign Nation C, by sending them some equipment?
I don’t see any mention in the article that it’s “illegal”. I see Rumsfeld pissed off because he seems to think there’s a “no helping” or “no coaching from the sidelines” rule in effect, but I don’t remember hearing anything from the Geneva Convention about “Nation A not being allowed to come to the assistance of Nation B when Nation B is under attack by Nation C.” Wasn’t that kind of the whole point of World Wars One and Two?
So if Canada sells military equipment to the United States, that’s an act of war against Iraq, and Iraq is entitled to launch an attack on Canada?
That is perfectly equivalent to what Rumsfeld is saying.
Of course they are - but then they’ll have to deal with Canada. And I hear that the Canadians are pretty good fighters when they actually have a military.
Rumsfield’s job is to win the war. If Syria is helping the enemy, then he has an obligation to stop them and, the only question is how far to go. The one thing that’s certain is that if Syria chooses to ally itself with Iraq, then it also gets Iraq’s enemies. The friend of my enemy is my enemy, you know?
OTOH, this new development is scaring the crap out of me. Because if Syria gets actively involved, Israel will get actively involved, and I’ll be finding myself wearing green and getting shot at.
No, no, no, it was “carefully phrased”, Rick. 
What he actually said:
He very carefully did not use the phrase “an act of war”. He said, “Hostile acts”.
Alessan: What happens if Syria and Iran get involved?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43069-2003Mar28.html
<< hands Alessan a roll of toilet paper >>
Wht are all these minor leaguers trying to get in on the act??
If Iran wanted to fight Saddam, why didnt they officially pledge allegiance to the coalition in the first place? Even a token force of a few hundred wouldve been a boost in the political arena.
Syria has just been officially warned. Any shipment they find coming from syria gets investigated and if need be bombed. In a few weeks 100,000 US troops will be in Northern Iraq. They can can swing north if needed instead of south to Baghdad.
Well, that certainly moves Syria straight to the top of Shrub’s Christmas list.
The OP title really should have been “Syria sets up Iraq the bomb. Rumsfeld: “All Syria are belong to US.””
Seriously, though, I think we’ll probably ignore Syria for a while. It could start getting ugly if Syria comes in and then Israel comes in and then God only knows what’ll happen next.
Syria doesn’t have much force to project, though, so even if they got involved they would be less than successful. And then they’d be crushed.
I can’t see any benefit to Syria to do anything beyond what they are doing now, so doubt it would ‘escalate’.
The U.S. does NOT want to attack Syria. At least not now. The U.S. is having a tough enough time dealing with Iraq - Syria’s military has been weakened a lot since the fall of the Soviet empire, but it’s nothing to sneeze at.
But it’s possible that the U.S. would selectively target arms shipments inside the Syrian border, but more likely to attack Syrians who bring weapons into Iraq once they are in Iraqi territory.