NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard Rumsfeld saying a rather disturbing thing on the news yesterday.

This is what he said:

Rumsfeld said he was referring to Syria's refusal to return Iraqi funds, housing of Baathists from Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and the flow of insurgents across the border. He said Syria was also "undoubtedly financing" some of the Iraqi insurgency.

"(Syria is) going to have to live in that neighborhood and Iraq doesn't like what Syria's doing," Rumsfeld said in a question-and-answer session following his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council at the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

"Iraq is going to be in that neighborhood for a very long time. It's a bigger country and a richer country and will be a more powerful country," he said. "(In my view) the Syrians are not behaving in a wise manner at the present time."

Ignoring completely why the war was started (that means you, Corneliu ;) ), what do you think?
Iraq will be rearmed at some point. And the US is tied in with it, no matter what you say. This Iraq is an American project, and the US has some responsibility for what happens next.

Is it a good idea to foster these animosities? Is it a good idea to give Iraq weapons to use against its neighbours, once again?
Certain Neocons might think so, but I certainly don't.

Is there a difference between an Iraqi attack against Kuwait or an Iraqi attack on Syria?

Not for a long time will the US consider going into Syria or anywhere else for that matter..... for one they've got to concoct a new set of reasons to wash in Congress, and then with the troop numbers and Rummy leading them..... ouch.

Would NOT like to be thinking of joining the US army anytime soon.

Too spread out as it is- maybe in 6/7 years maybe -but under what admin? R or D.

Yes, and that will be that Syria sucks.

Seriously, Iraq will want NOTHING to do with the US after this.

I am predicting Iraq may go to war with Syria in the future, and its army is growing at a good pace. So Syria better start talking.

-snip-
I'm not necessarily talking about a US attack on Syria though.

I'm afraid that they might try and use Iraq as their tool in the region to attack anyone who acts up. That can't be the point of this, can it?

I'm not necessarily talking about a US attack on Syria though.

I'm afraid that they might try and use Iraq as their tool in the region to attack anyone who acts up. That can't be the point of this, can it?


Keep an eye on Iran i suppose- but the religious divisions leave much to be desired from the US pov. At least Saddam kept it secular....

Maybe US trying to shift its influence away from a 'isle of democracy' that is Israel, further east, to a new base?

Seriously, Iraq will want NOTHING to do with the US after this.
Average Iraqis maybe. But their Government is quite happy to do the tough talking with Syria on command.

I am predicting Iraq may go to war with Syria in the future, and its army is growing at a good pace. So Syria better start talking.
That can't be desirable.
But tell me, what is so different about Syria, rather than Kuwait?

Maybe US trying to shift its influence away from a 'isle of democracy' that is Israel, further east, to a new base?
Afraid so. But why?

Syria is considered one of those on the list of states that sponsor terrorism.

You may want to keep in mind that Iraq may have entirely legitimate reasons of its own to settle accounts with Syria...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060702026.html

The fact that a good potion of what the Left calls the "Insurgency" was a Syrian enterprise from the getgo is pretty old news. So is the fact that these terrorists so beloved of the Left targeted Iraqi civilians rather than American soldiers because soldiers can shoot back. And the people of Iraq, unlike the Left, pretty much know who is who. Rumsfeld did not threaten, he merely gave a forecast that may or may not come to pass. But did you really think that those who supported the terrorists would not reap what they sow? o_O

Syria is considered one of those on the list of states that sponsor terrorism.
Of course. How could I forget.
The idea of crimes against peace, wars of aggression and so on only counts when it is against the other side.

Either you want a peaceful, democratic middle east, or you want an Iraqi Empire that imposes its rule on its neighbours. You can't have both.

You may want to keep in mind that Iraq may have entirely legitimate reasons of its own to settle accounts with Syria...
So did Iraq when it attacked Kuwait. It's a matter of interpretation.
Syria has repeatedly denied having anything to do with it, and asked for help to fortify the border. They've been refused by Iraq and by the US.

Of course. How could I forget.
The idea of crimes against peace, wars of aggression and so on only counts when it is against the other side.

Either you want a peaceful, democratic middle east, or you want an Iraqi Empire that imposes its rule on its neighbours. You can't have both.

You don't understand my beliefs.

Afraid so. But why?

I....dunno. I'd be leaping to great assumptions on this....

possibly control of the VAST oil sources scattered throughout the South West Asian basin- would also explain their cosying up to the -stans in recent times. Iraq --->Iran---->Afghanistan----->Tajik/Kyrg/Uzbek etc....

Maybe keep their hegemony intact given the rise of China in the East- prevent her from spreading West and shouldering out Russia from the North?? Far fetched though.

You don't understand my beliefs.
Sorry mate, but I don't.

So did Iraq when it attacked Kuwait. It's a matter of interpretation.

Naw. Kuwait was an attempted landgrab pure and simple. No different from the invasion of Poland in 1939.

Syria has repeatedly denied having anything to do with it,...

And you believe *everything* the Syrian government says? :rolleyes:

When did the liberals first lose their ability to question authority?

...and asked for help to fortify the border. They've been refused by Iraq and by the US.

Sure they have. Honest. You bet. Sorta like the "It wasn't me that hit you it was somebody else. I was only standing there." excuse that some halfwits would use on the playground as well. Are you saying that Syria is a failed nationstate along the lines of Haiti or Bosnia? o_O

Syria is considered one of those on the list of states that sponsor terrorism.

So is Saudi Arabia. Are you saying Iraq should go to war with them next?

Naw. Kuwait was an attempted landgrab pure and simple. No different from the invasion of Poland in 1939.



And you believe *everything* the Syrian government says? :rolleyes:



Kuwait used to be a province of iraq/Mesopotamia but the Brits cut the chunk off of it to give to a wealthy family...oh look, there's black stuff comin' outta that rock.....

I'd have a tendancy to believe the Syrians before the White House press officer...

Feh. I'd rather believe the BBC or Christian Science Monitor than both, but your choice.

Naw. Kuwait was an attempted landgrab pure and simple. No different from the invasion of Poland in 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slant_drilling

And you believe *everything* the Syrian government says?
I believe Syrian Politicians just as much as I believe any other Politicians. Syria doesn't have a reason to hurt Iraq, they've got enough trouble themselves, and the Lebanon issue isn't fully sorted out either.

When did the liberals first lose their ability to question authority?
Don't say "liberal". It sounds amateurish, you should know that Liberal is something completely different.

Sure they have. Honest. You bet. Sorta like the "It wasn't me that hit you it was somebody else. I was only standing there." excuse that some halfwits would use on the playground as well. Are you saying that Syria is a failed nationstate along the lines of Haiti or Bosnia? o_O
I say that there is a thousand kilometres of Desert between the countries, and that the Syrian army and police has better things to do.
They asked the US and Iraq to watch their side of the border, so that the two sides share the work. Why would you question me?
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG23Ak01.html

Kuwait used to be a province of iraq/Mesopotamia

Not entirely accurate.

I'd have a tendancy to believe the Syrians before the White House press officer...

We are in trouble.

I'm afraid that they might try and use Iraq as their tool in the region to attack anyone who acts up.

Am I the only one here with an overwhelming sense of deja vu here? I'm pretty darn certain that we've been here before...

I don't see it.

Not entirely accurate.



We are in trouble.

No, pretty sure it was a province...even the geog of the two states should confirm that- a nice straight line divving up the two. open to correction though.
:confused:

And, given the Rove issue- yeah, i'd believe the White House as much as any other govt. even the Syrians :p

No, pretty sure it was a province...even the geog of the two states should confirm that- a nice straight line divving up the two. open to correction though.
:confused:

I haven't seen anything about them being a former province. Not even mentioned as such on its wiki page.

And, given the Rove issue- yeah, i'd believe the White House as much as any other govt. even the Syrians :p

I think your delusional because of it but then, that is my opinion :D

No, pretty sure it was a province...even the geog of the two states should confirm that- a nice straight line divving up the two. open to correction though.
:confused:

Correct me if i'm wrong here (and I may very well be, using Wikipedia to fact check) but Kuwait declared independence from Iraq in 1961, and so the border isn't actually a result of British arbitrary decisions...

Correct me if i'm wrong here (and I may very well be, using Wikipedia to fact check) but Kuwait declared independence from Iraq in 1961, and so the border isn't actually a result of British arbitrary decisions...

I have never seen Kuwait as part of Iraq.

"Kuwait, having amassed great wealth, was the first of the Persian Gulf-Arab states to declare independence on June 19, 1961." Wikipedia. Iraq did challenge it but it was not part of Iraq but thanks to the Egyptians, Iraq backed down.

I haven't seen anything about them being a former province. Not even mentioned as such on its wiki page.


Well its a grey area...obviously... but here....

Ottoman maps from the late 1800s showed Kuwait as part of the province of Basra in southern Iraq. Kuwait had been ruled since 1756 by the al-Sabah tribe.

After World War I, the British partitioned Kuwait (Treaty of Uqayr). Seven thousand square miles of the territory became Kuwait as it appears on the map today, and the remainder was divided between Iraq and Saudi Arabia

From:http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm

But there are others that dispute historical claims...for obvious reasons... :rolleyes:

I have never seen Kuwait as part of Iraq.

"Kuwait, having amassed great wealth, was the first of the Persian Gulf-Arab states to declare independence on June 19, 1961." Wikipedia. Iraq did challenge it but it was not part of Iraq but thanks to the Egyptians, Iraq backed down.

Yeah: same source I was using there, it appears to be referring to Kuwait declarin independence from the British Empire, rather than the relatively recently indepedent state of Iraq.

Hey, at least, I stated that I could very well be wrong on this...

bump

(Syria is) going to have to live in that neighborhood and Iraq doesn't like what Syria's doing
Very interesting... so we have three countries, and a minister of the first country tells to the whole world what the second country thinks about the third.

Very interesting... so we have three countries, and a minister of the first country tells to the whole world what the second country thinks about the third.
Indeed.
But I somehow think that a future Iraq (democratic or not) would very much do what is being asked of it.
So it really defeats the purpose of creating a free and democratic Iraq, if that spreading democracy they were talking about comes through force of arms.

Indeed.
But I somehow think that a future Iraq (democratic or not) would very much do what is being asked of it.
Certainly.

So it really defeats the purpose of creating a free and democratic Iraq, if that spreading democracy they were talking about comes through force of arms.
I'm not sure that a free and democratic Iraq has been feasible even in theory, or will be in the near future... time will tell, of course.

I'm not sure that a free and democratic Iraq has been feasible even in theory, or will be in the near future... time will tell, of course.
I'd like to think that it is possible. But it would look very different from what they try to implement now. Most likely it would be three countries...

I'm not necessarily talking about a US attack on Syria though.

I'm afraid that they might try and use Iraq as their tool in the region to attack anyone who acts up. That can't be the point of this, can it?

Are you seriously meaning to imply that the US is not really setting up a true democracy where the people decide thier fate, and rather that we are propping up another puppet who will do our bidding no matter how bad that puppet is to his people?? If that is what you are suggesting, then sir, I dare say that I am shocked! ;)

Iraq was a secular, sunni dominated country. Its more dangerous neighbouring enemy (Iran) is a Shiite, religious dominated country. Now, the US as changed the balance of power in that area. Iraq is now a shiite dominated country, with a strong influence of religious powers.

See a match here? Two of the largest countries in the area have stopped from being natural enemies, to become natural partners. Yea, syria should be worried. And kuwait. And saudi Arabia.. and so on..

I'm not sure that a free and democratic Iraq has been feasible even in theory, or will be in the near future... time will tell, of course.

The question isnt just if it is feasable: Even if it becomes a democratic state, that doesnt mean anything: Iran is a democracy, whatever we like it or not. And their "voter's values" just elected a zealot to be their leader. What stops Iraquis from democraticaly elect a freak, anti west zealot?

What stops Iraquis from democraticaly elect a freak, anti west zealot?
At any rate, Iraq is going to be armed by American weapons, and thus it's gonna have a stronger military than its neighbours.
This does worry me just a bit.