TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › State sponsor of terror Syria back in good graces
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

State sponsor of terror Syria back in good graces

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...0115_02_09.asp

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/11/syr...ia_rosett.html

Not a good thing. The Country that's been on the list the longest (and for good reason) comes off the list.

I truly fear for Israel. They stand alone in the Middle East.
post #2 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...0115_02_09.asp

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/11/syr...ia_rosett.html

Not a good thing. The Country that's been on the list the longest (and for good reason) comes off the list.

I truly fear for Israel. They stand alone in the Middle East.
How exactly is selling Syria parts for a couple of aging Boeings going to create issues for Israel?
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
How exactly is selling Syria parts for a couple of aging Boeings going to create issues for Israel?
Read up. Then come back and we'll discuss the implications of a country that is already said to be building a nuclear reactor in cahoots with North Korea. That expands the nuclear threat to a whole new level.

The Lebanese elections coming up soon are critical. Syria has enough influence (read MONEY) to upset the moderate government in Lebanon, which could tilt the whole thing evern further against Israel.
post #4 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Read up. Then come back and we'll discuss the implications of a country that is already said to be building a nuclear reactor in cahoots with North Korea. That expands the nuclear threat to a whole new level.

The Lebanese elections coming up soon are critical. Syria has enough influence (read MONEY) to upset the moderate government in Lebanon, which could tilt the whole thing evern further against Israel.
"Can" does not equate to "will". Libya was also deeply involved in a WMD program and a State Sponsor of Terror. In fact, it was actual government operatives that conducted the Lockerbie attack. Yet the Bush Administration normalized relations with Libya and the result is quite impressive.
post #5 of 12
Khaffi is a goofball.

Bashad is not.

Libya was never much of a threat because of its location.

Syria is much more of a threat for the very same reason.

Libya is looking to be the North Africa Quatar, and its citizens will be rich.

Syria has problems with refugees and a large and poor underclass fomenting trouble, and no answers for them.

Germany and Italy meddled with Libya, not the U.S. and the U.K.

The U.S. and the U.K. (but not Germany and Italy) meddled about with Syria and roundabout countries.

---------------

I don't think Libya is a good test case for Syria.
post #6 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post

The U.S. and the U.K. (but not Germany and Italy) meddled about with Syria and roundabout countries.

So you're saying we started it! Oh gee, good for us.

All the more reason to talk to them
post #7 of 12
And they're going to believe us and trust us after all we've done to muck up things in that part of the world?

And knowing that, we'd be fools to trust them and take them at their word, too.

Remember, in Islam, lying to an infidel isn't a sin.
post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
And they're going to believe us and trust us after all we've done to muck up things in that part of the world?

And knowing that, we'd be fools to trust them and take them at their word, too.

Remember, in Islam, lying to an infidel isn't a sin.
I think it would be leaning toward foolish for either of us to actually trust the other. But I honestly the think "friends close and enemies closer..." is still a prudent course of action.
post #9 of 12
Ah, OK, coming from that viewpoint, I agree 100%
post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 
Not good news.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull



"Iran and Syria are secretly working on nuclear technology in a manner which risks peace in the region and the world, while bluntly ignoring their international obligations," a statement by the Foreign Ministry said Friday evening.
post #11 of 12
What exactly are their "international obligations"? And what obligates them? It's been posted on these forums dozens of times before that UN Resolutions are worthless, and the IAEA's "enforcement authority" consists of sending them a letter telling them how displeased the IAEA is with them.

Someone else thinking they should do something hardly obligates them to anything, unless they enter into actual agreements on such.
post #12 of 12
While that's true from a standpoint of international law and international obligations (treaties, agreements and such); from a standpoint of moral obligation (ie threatening their neighbors and developing technology to carry out those threats)
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
..... in a manner which risks peace in the region and the world,...
I think every nation has an obligation to be at peace with their neighbors and the world.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › State sponsor of terror Syria back in good graces