On to Syria and Iran!

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2003-04-04 06:51pm

Durran Korr wrote:
We didn't screwfuck Syria in the first place, we don't have the same obligations there that we do in Iraq.
This isn't about the people. This is about terror-funding and Syria aiding our enemy in a shooting war. Both of those are, to put it mildly, serious offenses. We can deal with Syria and Lebanon, and Syria can be rebuilt on the lines of Iraq. As for costs, the economic package proposed by the President, if passed, will provide the funds for additional reconstructions. It will, however, require strict budgetary discipline in Congress to minimize the pork spending which destroyed Reagan's similiar plan - Which means a Republican Congress, with the larger majority in the Senate the better, and of course the fewer Dixiecrats the better. We're headed towards that in 2004.

Mesopotamia and the Levantine States are the ones with the Civil Societies necessary for reconstruction into democracies. In the case of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the power, influence, and behaviour of the regimes requires direct action to cause democracy to grow. Winning the war on Islamic Terror is more than a matter of Iraq, Iran, and their arms dealer. It is every economic centre of the terror groups. They must be negated, each and every one.

What that means is that, ultimately, the question of cost becomes irrelevant. We must fight this war to win, and money is simply another weapon - Something to be spent in whatever amount is required so that we can win. Infinite money is the sinews of War; thus we have and so we shall use it.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast » 2003-04-04 07:28pm

We won't invade Iran inside of five years at the absolute best. Iraq is just too vulnerable at this point. Not to mention that the Iranians may produce their own democratic society - distanced from the fundamentalism of the current regimé - with another decade anyway.

Syria? Best handled via aggressive economic and political containment. We could knock them over fairly easily, though I wouldn't want to try at this moment, no. Just for the sake of practical concentraition. I doubt the U.S. government is going to go in anyway.

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote » 2003-04-04 10:36pm

Iran may well have its own revolution when we install our provisional government in Iraq. The people, who are pro-Western, hate the Ayatollah regime that has turned them into an international pariah state. Twenty years of Islamic revolution have brought them nothing but misery and war.

When the Iranians ralize that there is American-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq to either side of them-- and their hated government is continuing to fund terrorists and openly flaunt a nuclear program-- they may think that another revolution is better than an ass-kicking from the outside. The Persians are, at heart, a practical people.

If Iran goes into turmoil, with teh West helping the revolutionaries, then all that money flowing into Hezbollah and other groups will dry up. Hopefully, these groups will be forced to the bargaining table for a regional settlement with Israel.

Israel, of course, will have to be pressured/bought to give up something (most likely the Territories) so that everyone appears even (if the terrorists settle without Israel giving up something as well, then it looks like Israel 'won' which of course cannot be allowed to happen in order to keep long-term stability).

If people play their cards right, this could be the begining of the end of a grat deal of Middle East conflict. We'll still have to find a way to deal with Saudi Arbian bullshit, Libya exporting terror to Africa, and see what we can do to pressure Syria if they avoid conflict with us... but if we can force an agreement between the Israelis and their neighbors, then the world can breathe a sigh of relief after all this and say it was worth it.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2003-04-04 11:08pm

Axis Kast wrote:We won't invade Iran inside of five years at the absolute best. Iraq is just too vulnerable at this point. Not to mention that the Iranians may produce their own democratic society - distanced from the fundamentalism of the current regimé - with another decade anyway.

Syria? Best handled via aggressive economic and political containment. We could knock them over fairly easily, though I wouldn't want to try at this moment, no. Just for the sake of practical concentraition. I doubt the U.S. government is going to go in anyway.
We're not going to be invading Iran right now, or at all - That regime is exceptionally unstable and won't bring about democracy within a decade, but rather democracy within a very short time, perhaps as soon as a year, and when democracy comes, we'll see the Ayatollahs suffer the fate of Rumania. As for Syria, since the KSA is adviseably a decade off, why not go after them? We can work to aide the internal forces in Iran and contain the DPRK while at the same time overthrowing the Syrian regime. That's well within our capabilities.

By the time we have to face the KSA, then, we'll have only the DPRK left intact, as Iran will have surely collapsed and been resurrected from the inside by then. And the DPRK can be permanently contained if necessary; it's not a paymaster but rather a warehouse, and once you remove the paymasters is worthless.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast » 2003-04-05 12:07am

I fully endorse this opinion and or product. See above.

User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey » 2003-04-05 02:50am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Let's vote Duchess in as Dictator of America. :D
That would be Queen of America, actually.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------

User avatar
Posbi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 248
Joined: 2003-01-21 12:58pm

Post by Posbi » 2003-04-05 04:15am

Well, she would have my vote.

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote » 2003-04-05 04:18am

I'll make a pact with the Duchess right now-- should one of us end up as supreme uberleader of the US, the other shall be appointed Minsiter of Defense forthwith.

I await the command to march, great leader-ette.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast » 2003-04-05 10:03am

I'll be the Party General Secretary - er, Minister of Intelligence... Oh boy, I guess you can see where this is going already...

User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator » 2003-04-05 10:27am

Considering the Duchess's historical preferences, wouldn't Imperatrix be more approppriate?
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues

The_Nice_Guy
Jedi Knight
Posts: 566
Joined: 2002-12-16 02:09pm
Location: Tinny Red Dot

Post by The_Nice_Guy » 2003-04-05 11:01am

Captain Lennox wrote:
The_Nice_Guy wrote:I think he'll go for Iran. If nothing else, to ensure another supply of oil.

That the Iran people would be liberated from the religious mullahs is simply a bonus.

The Nice Guy
Yeah, Iraq was defintely about the oil. Thats why it cost more to wage it then the profits of cutting off the oil supply. Yup, defintely about Iraqi oil. :roll:
I know. :wink:

But it's kinda fun to take the Bush-hating stance, even, and especially when it doesn't make sense.

The Nice Guy
The Laughing Man

Post Reply