NationStates Jolt Archive

Now the UN, US and UK is the lead at saying this is extremely serious problem. What do you think are possible outcomes to these findings if true? You think sanctions are going to prove a point. Or could this lead to an conflict with Syria being overrun by either UN, or coalition forces from Iraq and Lebanese military action. What is your opinions.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2A8346C7-5588-4E76-93CC-A61361F53B84.htm

Conflict with Syria with the coalition of forces taking them done.

Sanctions don't work as we have already seen and I don't think the UN has the balls for a stand up fight.

Conflict with Syria with the coalition of forces taking them done.

Oh, don't worry. They won't be going anywhere for a while- odds are they'll have to go back into Afghanistan to sort out the unfurling of stability there. And given the political climate in Britain at the moment- they won't be joining the USA any time soon.

What do you think are possible outcomes to these findings if true?
Honestly? Probably nothing. All bluster- a storm in a teacup.

I mean big deal! One country doesn't like anothers leaders so they help bump him off..... its not like THAT hasn't happened before- or at least tried...;)

At worst, some economic sanctions.
At best, nothing.

Most likely outcome: nothing. Some other country on the Security Council (i.e., any country that has been selling Syria weapons, or any country that Syria owes money to).

Syria purchased the bulk of its military equipment from Russia and China. It owes Russia at least 40 billion and already has trouble making payments.

Guess who would veto the sanctions.

Bush would like to add them to the "war on terror", but "mission acomplished" looks like 10 years away the way it is. You can bet that whatever Bush does will urinate off even more of the middle east and the rest of the world for that matter.

Syria purchased the bulk of its military equipment from Russia and China. It owes Russia at least 40 billion and already has trouble making payments.

Guess who would veto the sanctions.

Russia and China would veto sanctions against fellow terrorist state.

Conflict with Syria with the coalition of forces taking them done.

Sanctions don't work as we have already seen and I don't think the UN has the balls for a stand up fight.Course sanctions don't work. China didn't make improvements on its human rights record to buy European guns nor did Libya give up its nuclear program or pay ammends for Lockerby and LaBelle. It's all one big liberal lie!

Russia and China would veto sanctions against fellow terrorist state.Nah, they wouldn't stop sanctions against the US, judging from your definition of terrorist state.

Bush would like to add them to the "war on terror", but "mission acomplished" looks like 10 years away the way it is. You can bet that whatever Bush does will urinate off even more of the middle east and the rest of the world for that matter.

It wouldn't matter if Kerry had been elected and he converted to Islam.

The rest of the Middle East would have a large section of the population who would hate America no matter what we did - even if Bush had never been elected.

Case in point - the 9-11 attacks were planned years in advance. Well before Bush was elected. Even if Gore had been elected, the planes would have flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

They don't care about what we say or do anymore. They only want to kill us.

Got it?

Nah, they wouldn't stop sanctions against the US, judging from your definition of terrorist state.

The U.S. has indeed supported terrorist groups before, but not nearly as many as the Russians and Chinese have.

The U.S. has indeed supported terrorist groups before, but not nearly as many as the Russians and Chinese have.Well then, either we need to take the war on terror to the home front or rethink our definition of "terrorist state" then...

a) Syria is a poor country. Sanctions would not prove a point, sanctions would have kids starving in a month or two (depending on their severity obviously).

b) Their president seems to be a rational individual from the interviews I've read. He's been trying to reform the system, but I guess he lacks the sheer personal power and influence of his daddy, and so stuff isn't working as fast as it could.
Whether or not he had direct involvement in the assassination I don't know, but judging from the state of politics in Syria, I doubt that he was a central figure.

c) Syrians don't believe that their government did it. Even if Assad and company did it, any attempt to punish them is going to be misinterpreted on the streets.
Do we really want to turn one of the more liberal Middle Eastern societies into another failed state (which probably will make the place more religious too)?

d) As far as the Iraqi-Syrian border is concerned, it is thousands of kilometres of desert. How is anyone supposed to guard that? Syria is not a military superpower, and much of its armed forces are busy to the West where Lebanon and Israel (with which I think it still is in a formal state of war - or at least Israel is still holding on to the Golan Heights).
Syrian officials have repeatedly asked the Americans to help guard the border, and to share the burden. All they got for response were threats.

So rather than do anything rash here (motivated by a stupid speech about an "axis of evil"), maybe we should merely pressure the Syrian government into clearing it up, and help Assad on his quest to reform the place.
Our bitching is only get them to bitch even more.