No, that’s just a convenient bullshit answer. What about our other Arab “friends”? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan also fail the democracy test, but you don’t see them as targets of US foreign policy. For that matter, they all operate repressive regimes. They just don’t (actively) threaten Israel.
Your next two paragraphs are dead-on, and they are asking the right questions. I suspect my answers to those questions are obvious to most readers, so I won’t bother to elaborate.
Well tagos, it does seem like AZ and Rick got a valid point on your Rumsfeld / Powell paraphrase. That discussion begins to look as somewhat a hijack though.
I do agree with tagos conclusion though, if not to his premises:
That is if Syria identifies Israel as an hostile / enemy state that possesses nuclear arms it would make sense for Syria to also possess nuclear arms.
Rick, on credibility: I believe that given that the US and Israel are strategic allies, the US have very little international credibility in asking syria to rid themselves of WoMD. It seems to obviously be within the interests of the US and Israel, but not necessarily within the interests of the rest of the world.
Ignorant and uninformed demonization of what you perceive as your enemy. Go have a long talk with Tamerlane immediately!
Magiver, I don’t think the issue of unstable governments fits too handily with regards to Syria, or most other nations seriously attempting to acquire WMD’s for that matter. Pakistan is a political mess, but Syria under the Assads has been remarkably stable. Prior to Hafez Assad taking power, Syria had been averaging over a coup a year for more than a decade. Since 1966 it’s had two leaders, Hafez and his son. North Korea has had two rulers since 1945, and unfortunately I don’t think there’s any danger of the government falling apart tomorrow. Saddam Hussein’s regime was also very stable prior to it’s overthrow by external forces. In all these cases, stability is achieved by means of brutality against any that would challenge the government, but that doesn’t make them unstable.
Hmmm…maybe I was being too coy. What I’m asking is for those who have offered the “Isreal is the only democracy” justification to defend their position.
Anybody remember who the one country to ever actually use nukes on another country is?
The Middle East is arguably the most volatile region in the world, and the more countries there have these kinds of weapons, the more potential for utter disaster exists. As long as Israel has nukes (plus, according to MSNBC and others, thermonuclear weapons and more), pretty much all of the Arab nations are going to feel threatened and want these weapons. That’s true of the ones that are, to whatever extent, allied with America, as well as those that are not. [And, for that matter, as long as the US acts only on Israel’s behalf and intervenes militarily in the region, they’ll want those weapons.]
None of the Arab nations are a threat to Israel militarily, period. It beat several of them in 1967 when those nations were stronger and Israel less strong. For that matter, it could defeat any of those countries WITHOUT those weapons.
The Palestine situation is making everything worse, but prior to a year or two ago, some had decent relations with Israel. If Israel is ever going to be on anything but hostile footing with those nations, it needs to offer some (ANY already) kind of evidence that it doesn’t want conquest. The same goes vice versa. Hence the idea of making the Middle East a WMD-free zone.
It’s like any other religion. It has a belief structure, rules, and a dash of mysticism. How it is practiced is a far cry from its teachings. Islam loosely translates into “peace”.
IMO the leadership structure is too flat. There is no unified “Pope” who can make changes. Paradoxically, that also prevents change from within because there is no single focal point to rally against. It could use a man like Martin Luther to shake things up, but we all know what happens if you even suggest a Mullah is wrong. Islam is stuck in a point of societal evolution they cannot seem to escape from. Reminds me of the Christian period of the Crusades. Look at the countries in the region, they all consist of feudal groups driven by religion toward a common enemy (non-Muslims).
.
Do you think that also explains why Saddam was such an enemy of the West? Was he driven by religious fanaticism?
Saudi Arabia is populated with a large proportion of extreme fundamentalist Muslims, but we seem to get along with their government.
While I agree with a number of your points, I think you’ve oversimplified the issue in a dangerous way.
There’s only one religion with a Pope, after all. There’s no Jewish Pope, no Buddhist Pope, no Hindu Pope… and when was the last time anyone accused the Catholic Church of being progressive?
All of that, including what happened if you criticized the leadership, was true of Christians at that period. Ask Giordano Bruno or Galileo, or thousands of others.
Islam is stuck in a point of societal evolution they cannot seem to escape from. Reminds me of the Christian period of the Crusades. Look at the countries in the region, they all consist of feudal groups driven by religion toward a common enemy (non-Muslims).
[/quote]
Not all of the bad leadership over there is Islamic. I don’t know why you seem to need a giant hammer these days to inform people that Saddam Hussein, for example, led a secular government.
Ag, before we get into this, I know there are religions with leaderships LIKE the Church, i.e. the Orthodox Church, I’m just saying there are plenty that don’t.
Martin Luther.
One of his complaints against the church (which led to him breaking away to creat his own church) was that the Catholic heirarchy was too easy on Galileo. Martin Luther thought Galileo should have been burned as a heretic for saying that the earth rotates. Instead he was only forbidden to publish and sentenced to lifetime house arrest. Luther thought the catholic church was much too “soft on crime (science)”.
Maybe not the last time, but certainly one of the most far-reaching times.
I don’t think the US government really considers Israel’s WMDs to be potentially unstabalizing. I find it more likely that Syria would be willing to use their WMDs. Unless attitudes in the mid-east change on all sides I don’t see how Israel could ever get rid of their WMDs. I wouldn’t trust Syria to get rid of them all and I’d expect them to use them directly or indirectly at Israel if there were no threat of nuclear retaliation.
Marc
Mgibson:
This my friend is utter and pure speculation for which you have not got a shread of proof.
Wasn’t this one of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq? Strangely enough, I didn’t see any Iraqi use of chemical weapons against coalition forces. For the record I haven’t the slightest doubt that Israel would use it’s nuclear weapons as a last resort, as Syria presumably would if it had them. To suggest that Syria would more willingly use a theoretical small arsenal in the face of utter and assured retaliatory destruction from Israel is saying that Syria is suicidal.
Oh yeah, there’s not one shed of evidence that Syria has ever attempted to invade or supported terrorism against Israel over the past 50 years. :rolleyes:
Marc
I think they’d be more willing to provide such weapons to terrorist groups then Israel would.
Marc
Perhaps, but that does not constitute any grounds for speculation of the future use of nuclear weapons.
The US has invaded many countries during the last 50 years (and used nuclear weapons twice). In the struggle for the jewish return to Israel terrorist attacks where used. F. e. in the bombing of the King David hotel. The man in operative charge of the bombing, Menachem Begin, wen’t on to become Israeli PM in the eighties. Doesn’t say squat about future Israeli use of nuclear weapons.
So: it’s to simplistic and takes to few factors into account.
Speculation. You believe the Syrians have WoMD, and yet they haven’t given them to terrorists.
“Syria has a mature chemical weapons program, begun in the 1970s, incorporating nerve agents, such as sarin, which have completed the weaponization cycle. Future activity will likely focus on CW infrastructure enhancements for agent production and storage, as well as possible research and development of advanced nerve agents. Munitions available for CW agent delivery likely include aerial bombs as well as SCUD missile warheads. Syria has not signed the CWC and is unlikely to do so in the near future.”
So, Syria has had chemical weapons for over 30 years, has fought one full scale war ('73) and a limited war (Lebanon) against Israel yet never used them. Syria has also been supporting anti-Israeli terrorist groups yet never slipped them any nerve agents to spread in Tel Aviv. Would you actually argue that if Syria had nukes, they’d hand one over to Hamas? I wouldn’t want to imagine Israel’s reaction to Tel Aviv going up in a mushroom cloud, regardless of what caused it. I’d be willing to wager Damascus and Tehran would be on the short list of targets, with perhaps Amman and the Aswan Dam thrown in as well, depending on the size of the nuke in Israel and current relations with Jordan and Egypt.
It would still require Syria to be suicidal to use nuclear weapons against Israel, even by proxy.
As far as you know. It appears that someone is passing the stuff out. (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28358509.htm)
**
I’m going to have to disagree with you. Past behavior is the best indication of what someone might do in the future. Those who ignore the past…you know the rest. That isn’t to say that anybody knows for certain what the future holds.
I don’t know if Syria has WMDs. I don’t really want to hijack this thread. I believe the US government doesn’t consider Israel’s posession of WMDs to be bad for stability in the region. Why? Because from the US point of view the Isralies don’t have a habit of invading their neighbors or sponsering terrorist. (Whether or not Israel does these things is for another thread.)
Marc