What about Syria?

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: What about Syria?

Word is, they're next on the list. We've already removed the American ambassador from Syria, and we're accusing the nation of having harboured and abetted terrorists. Any thoughts?

Chris OConnor · Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:32 pm Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

I'm nervous about Syria, Iran and North Korea. All are on our radar. Part of me wishes Bush would chill out and leave these nations alone, and another part of me agress that we have to be proactive and wipe out threats before they do us some serious harm.

Syria and Iran are more of a threat than North Korea. I think we could fix things diplomatically with N. Korea by simply shutting up and not threatening them.

Syria and Iran are active in their efforts to harm the US right now. Both are threats that need to be addressed in some fashion.

Chris

jjacobs43 · Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

Quote:
I'm nervous about Syria, Iran and North Korea. All are on our radar. Part of me wishes Bush would chill out and leave these nations alone, and another part of me agress that we have to be proactive and wipe out threats before they do us some serious harm.

I think we need to be proactive AND chill out at the same time.

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:32 am Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

I think we need to be proactive AND chill out at the same time.

What would you suggest in particular?

Murray Graham · Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:35 am Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

Quote:
Syria and Iran are active in their efforts to harm the US right now

In what way? Syria is a non-nuclear nation of 27 million, and dares not even attack its nearest rival, Israel...Iran is twice as large at 70 million, but has a pitiable military (One reason Iran wants nukes...deterrence) and more internal problems than it can count, esp. economic. Both nations are led by pragmatic politicians that are amenable to pressure and/or diplomacy.

North Korea, on ther other hand, has a huge conventional military, says it has and may well have) nuclear weapons, and has a leadership that daily becomes more bizarre. I'm wondering if you have your threats properly categorized.....

Regards,
M. Graham

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books.
For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring,
but to him they are but toys of the moment,
to be overturned with the flick of a finger. -- Gordon R.Dickson

Edited by: Murray Graham at: 2/19/05 6:39 am

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

Syria has actively support terrorism and is now vowing to join forces with Iran. Isn't this enough?

Chris

Murray Graham · Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

Quote:
Syria has actively support terrorism and is now vowing to join forces with Iran.

Let's take that in two parts, first:

Syria has actively support terrorism

By which we can say that it(Syria) has given support to individuals and groups that have political aims sympathetic to its own. Not unlike supporting, say, Contras, is it? Or supporting a Cuban invasion, perhaps?

Second:
now vowing to join forces with Iran

So what? They have the right as any other countries do to form alliances. The fact of the matter is that the openly interventionist policies of the current administration of the US have pushed these two "rogue" states together in what they see as a life and death struggle for survival.

Regards,
M. Graham

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books.
For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring,
but to him they are but toys of the moment,
to be overturned with the flick of a finger. -- Gordon R.Dickson

jjacobs43 · Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

Quote:
What would you suggest in particular?

I think there is a general consensus that we have made a huge mistake in the last few years by not being actively engaged with various countries. North Korea in particular. We threaten them and then refuse to directly negotiate with them creating a situation where they have no recourse but to try to gain leverage in order to tie our hands. So, as a liberal minded individual, I am hoping for a more diplomatic effort to solve the looming world problems. As much as it sucks to negotiate with countries like North Korea, I think that our problems in Iraq right now demonstrate that this is the necessary solution.

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

jjacobs43: I think there is a general consensus that we have made a huge mistake in the last few years by not being actively engaged with various countries.

Consensus doesn't interest me, as I've seen numerous examples of cases in which the majority view was wrong.

We threaten them and then refuse to directly negotiate with them creating a situation where they have no recourse but to try to gain leverage in order to tie our hands.

Those are two distinct problems. Threats do not exactly qualify as diplomacy. And our refusal to negotiate is predicated on N. Korea's desire to enter into unilateral talks. But for the life of me, I have a difficult time imagining why the U.S. would insist on multilateral talks to the point of preferring antagonism to compromise. The entire strategy of multilateral talks seems to me little more than a method of applying pressure through unequal representation. The problem, to my mind, is not that we've been too uninvolved -- generally speaking, we've almost always erred on the side of being overinvolved -- but rather that we've been obstinate in defining the terms of involvement, and when obstinance fails, our plan b always seems to bear some resemblence to a John Ford film.

jjacobs43 · Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

Quote:
Consensus doesn't interest me, as I've seen numerous examples of cases in which the majority view was wrong.

Well, when I say consensus I am referring to a few "experts" I've heard talk about the situation - not a majority of Americans. Most Americans, and especially conservatives, will say cut off all talks and say screw North Korea. But that doesn't sound like a very good idea to me at this point.

Quote:
Those are two distinct problems. Threats do not exactly qualify as diplomacy.

I'm not sure if you're thinking I was calling that diplomacy myself. That's not the case. I mean dimplocy in that we make some sacrifices and give North Korea some sense of assurance that we will not take them out. Otherwise, we leave them with no choice but to make preparations for the worse which can lead to irrational decisions.

Quote:
The problem, to my mind, is not that we've been too uninvolved -- generally speaking, we've almost always erred on the side of being overinvolved -- but rather that we've been obstinate in defining the terms of involvement, and when obstinance fails, our plan b always seems to bear some resemblence to a John Ford film.

Yes - I can buy that. It's going to take a little more sacrificing on our part and following up on our promises. Apparently, we didn't do very well at this with our last treaty with them.

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:35 am Post subject: Re: What about Syria?

It's going to take a little more sacrificing on our part and following up on our promises. Apparently, we didn't do very well at this with our last treaty with them.

One of the drawbacks of our system, it would seem, is that by replacing our president every four years we change the terms of all extant treaties and alliances. On the other hand, the change of command also opens up avenues of diplomacy that may not have been previously available. You could probably even devise a means of evaluating the ideology and tendencies of a serving president according to what other countries are willing or even eager to work with them.

pctacitus · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:06 am Post subject: Re: N KOREA & DIPLOMACY

I am not saying we should end the ceasefire that has been in place since 1953 (note: the war in Korea is not over). What I am saying is that pressure needs to be put on Kim Il Sung because he won't change otherwise. If he smells weakness, he will try to take advantage. I think the current policy of six-party talks (US, both Koreas, China, Japan and Russia) is a sensible one.

…[T]o ignore the classics is ultimately to weaken the very foundations of our society. - James Atlas, Book Wars: What it Takes to be Educated in America


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT