joespaniel: I have repeatedly read that Syria (while shmoozing with the US) has given up the bio weapens for US assurances that Israel will not use WMD
According to your post, Syria would had provide much more help to Al-quaida type of organisation then Irak. And Syria represent a much greater threat to Isreal than Irak was.
So why the preventive strike on Irak, insteed of Syria?
Well, one reason for the initial salvo being directed at Iraq could be to lend legitimacy to our efforts elsewhere. The US had a basis for the attack in Iraq from UNSCRs, and the war against Iraq has been an unbridled success so far. This success, coupled with the jubilation seen by the Iraqi people, will not go unnoticed by the world community - the US has proven that their war was for the greater good of mankind in general, and the Iraqi people in particular.
The images from this war will make the next one a good deal easier to wage, especially since it was done without the UN. Now an attack on Syria or Iran will be a much easier sell. Think about it - the world starts asking questions and voicing disapproval, and Bush just says, look at Iraq. We went in there without the support of many key UN allies, and we did a great service to the Iraqi people in liberating them. Our goals in Syria are the same. And, if WMD's are found in Iraq, Bush will have all the justification he needs to try to root out WMD's in other countries.
Originally posted by Darkness I think it's a toss-up beteen Libya and North Korea, as they're a bit more dangerous than Syria... And Lybia supporting terrorists is no secret...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.