Assad given weapons ultimatum

[Skunk]

Setting aside the palestinian issue for a moment, one should not forget that Israel is currently occupying a part of Syria too (an area that was never granted under the 1948 UN resolution). Add this to the border attacks (not to mention the recent air-raid deep into Syrian territory), it's hardly surprising that Syria is unwilling to unilaterally disarm itself.

From Israel's point of view, Syria is a belligerent neighbour that is responsible for suicide attacks (or at least supports them) on its soil.

In either case, it is wholly UNREASONABLE to ask one side to disarm unilaterally. Either both do or neither do. It's that simple.

[Timber Loftis]

Skunk, I still think you are wrong regarding disarmament, not only on the "this country vs. that country" issue, but also on the fact that we are discussing very different WMD-style disarmaments. I still feel Israel is responsible, where as Syria is not.

However, I wholly agree that if Israel occupies parts of Syria (I admit I have not seen or investigated whether or not this is true) it needs to GET OUT, just as it needs to get out of occupied territories in Palestinian lands.

[Timber Loftis]

Memsie, please hold off for un momento, por favor, to see if we can work this out as humans/adults/IWF citizens.

Oh, and if Sultan requests I delete posts, I will not only oblige him, I will also ask you to delete your quoting of said posts.

Skunk and Sultan, I SINCERELY apologize if I have gotten your posts and /or positions confuzzled. I do not mean to group you together, though I admit that at this point you sometimes confuse me.

[ 01-09-2004, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Skippy1]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I didn't mean to imply Syrians weren't smart. I meant to point out that they couldn't miss the fact that it ain't gonna happen because they surely are smart. This is possibly a political ploy to garner discussion of the issue, as you point out. However, it is also possibly, and more likely, a lame-ass excuse to not do away with their chemical weapons. And, since it's an ulitmatum, I'm sure that's what it is. Which is problematical, because Syria cannot be trusted with chemical WMD. It is simply too likely that it will use them in the near or distant future. Not because the current leaders are bad, but because it has a lot of extremist groups inside the country who have a great deal of popularity and may come to power. Many Syrians verbally yell about how great killing Jews is. If the right combination of these people came into power, well... it wouldn't be pretty. SCUDS will reach Israel from Syria for sure. As well, chemical WMD are not as destructive as nukes and do not cause permanent damage -- so they can be used without as big a threat of retaliation or of permanently damaging the earth; look at what Saddam did to 40 Kurdish villages with mustard gas bombs and other lovely treats. I see this as a poker game. The world is looking to Syria to end its chemical WMD program. Syria in turn is looking across the table at Israel and saying "only if Israel folds too." Israel's response, whether directly or impliedly, will be quite simple: "You got a pair of Jacks -- bully for you. We still got a full house, which beats your measley Jacks anyday. Ante up."

Giday Timber,

The bit about Syrian intelligence I put in simply to get a response. I seem to have taken up the role of thread stopper here. Call me paranoid, but I've posted on a few threads in here and seen it stop dead in it's tracks. But I'm not paranoid, it's them! Not me!

I hear what your saying with respect to the "jacks" and the "fullhouse" but if they didn't have the chips(Chemical weapons) they wouldn't be allowed in the game at all.

The Syrians have proved themselves to be fairly restrained if you ask me. They were also respected members of the coalition in Gulf War 1. Strange how they now have fallen out of favour as soon as they mention disarming Israel of their WMD when referring to their own disarmerment. To my mind this is a entirely reasonable request.

You mention extremists. I don't think there is a country in the world without their extremist elements. Just the degree varies and the issues they feel strongly about. Syria has been the brunt of Israels incursions for a long time now and have managed to be amazingly restrained in its responses to date. I can not remember an incident where they have felt compelled to use their Chemical Weapons. And this after years of provocation. Lebanon is a point in fact, a place that seems to have been forgotten for the time being.

Please don't take me as being pro-Arab or for that matter pro Israeli in this issue. I am firmly on the side of whoever advocates a peaceful Middle East. I simply feel that the Israeli's must make concessions as well if the problem can be sorted. At the moment they are not, and it would seem that the US and the UK are happy to back their position.

I'm 41 in February. All my life there has been conflict in this part of the world. How tired must a 40 year old Israeli or Palestinian feel?

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Skunk, I still think you are wrong regarding disarmament, not only on the "this country vs. that country" issue, but also on the fact that we are discussing very different WMD-style disarmaments. I still feel Israel is responsible, where as Syria is not. However, I wholly agree that if Israel occupies parts of Syria (I admit I have not seen or investigated whether or not this is true) it needs to GET OUT, just as it needs to get out of occupied territories in Palestinian lands.

No problem - I'm trying very hard to be as impartial as I can in this thread.
I looked for a map of the Syrian land that Israel is currently occupying that did not carry any political baggage and found one on a travel site here:

http://www.1uptravel.com/worldmaps/israel12.html

The occupation was a result of the 1967 war and I don't want to get into that because the important issue is the here and now and how it affects relations.

No matter how responsible Israel is or whether it is indeed the original injured party, the occupation of the land will always be a source of anger (and fear for national survival) to Syrians - even if one is to accept that they were the guilty party in the original dispute that led to the occupation.

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oh, and if Sultan requests I delete posts, I will not only oblige him, I will also ask you to delete your quoting of said posts.

Already done.

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks for the map Skunk. Of course I knew the Golan Heights was one of the 3 occupied territories, and I have even seen some beautiful pictures from there looking down onto the Sea of Galilee. My middle east geography is just off at the moment, as I think it's been over a year since I perused a map of the area, and I did not realize that they were part of Syria. Thanks.

[johnny]

To make a long story short.... they're ALL completely nuts in that region, each and everyone of em.

*goes back to drinking beer*

[Timber Loftis]

Skippy1, I wanted to mention I reread your post and appreciate it. You make some good points to counter my Syrian "trustworthiness" argument. I still feel there are extremist groups which could come to power -- and Syria's history of "reasonableness" could suddenly change. But, thanks for the input.

Oh, and I thought the "smart" comment might be a bait, but hey I'm easily baited.

[Black Baron]

The problem with asad that he is a dictator.
In Israel, we have opposition, and a change could be made. In syria the only change will come when asad will die.

The question of disarmament is a rather problematic. iran is not knowed for peacefull realtionships. While we have good army, if we will be attacked by syria and iran we can suistain too heavy damage for us to exist.
Our area is small. you do not need a nuke to wip it off. merely a few hundreds of good rockets.
Gee, what iran has?
Out nukes are the only option of keeping the mad ayatollah at bay forever. He can shout what he wishes but he knows that we have the big club.

We can get rid of our nuclear weapons, provided that the un wil oblidge to obliterate the country that will attack us.
plus we must sign these peace treaties.
that will never happen.