Is anyone else's bullshit detector going off about how much Syria has been in the news in the past few weeks? I mean Syria is a bad news country, with a really dirty government, and I'm starting to think that they are the next US target nation, and not Iran as everyone is fearing. I just am finding it very strange that Syria keeps ending up in the news getting blamed for everything in the past few weeks, and I just can't believe that the Syrian government would be so stupid as to actually be behind all of the things people are saying they are behind when they are in such a precarious position diplomatically right now.

First you have the assassination in Lebanon, which if it was orchestrated by Syria, has completely backfired against them. The Lebanese people are united against Syria in a way that the Lebanese people have not been united in two generations. Plus the US and everyone else is openly accusing Syria of being behind teh assassination. I get the impression that regardless of who was behind it, the US was going to blame Syria.

Most recently, there was this bombing of the club in Tel Aviv this weekend, and Israel is blaming not only the Palestinian militant groups (aka "the usual suspects"), but is also placing Syria prominently in their accusations, something that is new and kind of out of the blue.

So Syria has been scrambling. First they announce this alliance with Iran, a basically ineffective attempt to show some strength. Now they have turned over Saddam's half-brother to US authorities, because they "recently captured" him in Damascus. Uh huh. Let's see. Denial, anger, bargaining. What's next?

Pretty soon, they're going to just have to accept the fact that America's guns are now squarely aimed at them, and we're gonna pull the trigger. I don't know whether Syria has actually been behind these recent attacks, but it would sure be strange and inconsistent behavior if they were. Personally, I think that Syria is the next nation targeted for regime change, and the US and Israel are looking to cast any negative light on them that they can. I'm not saying we orchestrated the attacks, but I'd say that you'll probably be hearing Syria mentioned a lot more on the evening news in teh coming weeks and months. Every bombing in Israel will be blamed on terrorists funded by Syria. Every attack in Iraq will be blamed on insurgents with leaders operating from inside Syria. I mean, Syria is the bad guys, so who cares if we fluff the evidence a little?

--PunkDavid

Since when was it new that Syria backed and aided Palestinian terrorist groups?

*shrugs*

That's not my point. My point is that what is new is that Syria is now being specifically named with every new terrorist incident. Immediately, almost before it could really be known who was responsible. Whether they deserve it or not, I see Syria being painted as the new boogeyman in the Middle East.

--PunkDavid

I wouldn't be surprised if your theories were correct, D, but aren't you jumping the gun a little here? I mean, if you were to put up evidence that some anonymous person decided to write The Scotsman with, I'd think twice, but this isn't anything more than speculation.

Of course, that's why I labelled this a conspiracy theory. The best evidence I have is "something doesn't smell right". It just also seems vaguely familiar, and I wanted to be the first to say I saw it coming if we follow the Iraq pattern of demonizing followed by threats of force followed by military action. Personally, I don't think it will ever get that far because Syria will capitulate at threats of force if not sooner.

--PunkDavid

So the conspiracy is that the media is suddenly reporting accurately in regards to Syrian participation in terrorism? So what's been the deal for the past twenty years?

You really don't listen do you? The authorities, those whom the media get their stories from in the form of pre-printed press releases, have notably increased the frquency that they are mentioning Syria's complicity in terrorist activities. Everyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that Syria has sponsored terrorist groups for decades. Now those people who DON'T know anything about the Middle East (i.e. 80% of the American people) are being told over and over again that Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

I didn't say it wasn't true, I just find the timing and the intensity of the PR campaign suspicious. It's also a little bit disingenuous in that Syria's involvement in terrorism is nothing new, but the specific events for which they have been recently accused are not well substantiated. But it was a good time to blame Syria, and since they can't demonstrate their innocence in any way, we can't lose by blaming them.

--PunkDavid

Makes perfect sense to me, Dave.

Syria would be WAY easier to invade than Iran. Especially so now that we have presence in the center of the Middle East (which is the what I feel was the true intention of invading Iraq).

The Syrian gov't is definitely caught in between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully, it will be good news for Lebanon--I just hope it doesn't take more mass bloodshed.

I think this PR campaign may actually work this time. Look for major reforms in Syria in the next year, and I would bet against actual military action at this point.

--PunkDavid

Sounds good to me.

I guess this could be one of the benefits of the war in Iraq, but I don't think this would even come close to offsetting the detriments as yet.

I'm sure the Bush Adminstration would jump all over it if major reform does happen in Syria/Lebanon, however.

Of course they would, and rightly so. This is exactly the kind of thing the Iraq war was designed to do, and even opponents of the war have to concede that it is a good effect.

I agree it is still not enough benefit to outweigh the costs.

--PunkDavid

You didn't answer my question David. If reporting accurate news is a part of a conspiracy theory, than what was not reporting it?

Also, you're kind of misrepresenting and rehashing the truth in regards to Syria in the news. Syria has been in the news since the war began. There was talk from the outset about Syria providing shelter to some of Husseins family members and Iraqi military leaders. Then there was endless talk about the weapons being exported from Iraq to SYRIA just prior to the war. Then there was plenty of news about Colin Powell's remarks to the UN about Syria and its hand in terrorism, and how the country needed to cooperate more. What were his words exactly?

Then you take a look at some of the events that have happened recently. I mean, ex-prime minister assassinations aren't a common occurence are they? And if you're government, or people from your nation happen to be a part of it, then your pretty much up a shit creek without a paddle.

But lets say your right. Let's say all this jargon is conspiracy theory in order to pressure Syria to cooperate with the US. And let's say you're right (and I believe you are) that bullets will not fly from US guns at Syria. Then...won't that be another positive to come out of the Iraq war? We'll have two democracies boardering Iran, a Democracy bordering Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria will be cooperating, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE are cooperating in our fight against terrorism. Seems like a lot of positives there buddy boy.

Iraq is clearly a quagmire. With the recent defensive pact between Syria and Iran's coming in place, I don't think any media conspiracy will drive opinion in such a way that there'll be broadbased support for military operations in all three countries. Now I don't have much faith in the average American's grasp of foreign affairs, but I do not think they're dumb enough to think that such a 3 prong situation would be at all manageable.

Not unless if you can get Russia and China to send along substantial troop numbers. But we've just seen Bush criticise Putin's anti-democratic moves and China's continued preoccupation with Taiwan and Japan.

Nothing is happening. Except for the fact that those people in Lebanon have succeeded in forcing out their government, the first time this has happened in Middle East history.

Look, there is reporting news, and then there is reporting statements made by government officials in press conferences. I recognize that most people can no longer tell the difference since for some reason it is now considered "news" when a press conference is held. Or maybe it's just the media reacting to the dollar and recognizing that it is cheaper to go to the news "feeding trough" of the press conference than to actually send reporters out into the field to find the stories themselves.

Either way, I'm not questioning the reporting of stories by the media, true or otherwise. What I am questioning is the notable increase in Syria's prominence in statements by the US and Israeli governments in the past few weeks. I want to draw this distinction clearly. When a representative of the State Department gives a news conference HE IS NOT REPORTING THE NEWS, he is making a political statement, and those who cannot tell the difference are doomed to be manipulated by their governments. But since those who are reporting the news merely repeat the political statements as if they are a legitimate story, most Americans can't tell the difference anymore.

As for the positive effects of our presence in Iraq, I'll be straight with you. I don't think there could ever be enough positive effects to convince me that ith war was a good idea or that it was a well executed idea. This is for several reasons. Firstly, I don't believe that this was the only path to these positive effects, so I won't give full credit to the Bush administration's policy for accomplishing them. Second, even if every goal of the war is eventually accomplished, and democracy flourishes in the Middle East (which may or may not be a direct effect of the war itself), I don't think that empowering the oppressed people of the Middle East will ever be worth the loss of moral authority that America has suffered in the eyes of the other nations of the world, or in the eyes of a very large percentage of our own people for the arrogant and deceitful manner by which this entire episode has been handled.

So I'll take the positive effects, because I recognized that once we started down this path two years ago, that the only thing to do was to hope for the best and hope for the ultimate success of the mission. I still think that even that ultimate success is worse than the possible future we could have created without this war in Iraq.

--PunkDavid

Considering the amount of money the US spends on its military, if we couldn't handle all three countries at once then I demand a refund. I mean jeebus, the Krauts took over more or less all of Europe. And you think that modern America can't handle selected portions of the Middle East? You sure don't think highly of Americans.

United States of America
Military expenditures $370.7 billion FY04 estimate (doesn't appear to include Iraq)

As percent of GDP 3.3%

Military manpower reaching military age anually: 2,124,164 (2004 est)



Iran
Military expenditures $4.3 billion (2003 est)

Percent of GDP 3.3%

Military manpower reaching military age anually: 912,569 (2004 est)



Syria
Military expenditures: $858 million (FY00 est); note - based on officlial budget data that might underestimate actual spending

Percent of GDP 5.9%

Military manpower reaching military age anually: 216,077 (2004 est)



Political will is lacking, but we spend almost 70 times as much as the two countries combined, and have approximately twice the potential cannon fodder availible. Certainly they aren't the French, but c'mon, we can take em.

We can "take" anyone, and probably a bunch of them at once. But unless our goal is to wipe them off the face of the planet, the part after their government falls and the country is thrown into chaos is the hard part. It's on TV every night.

--PunkDavid

What PD said.

Taking them is easy. You wouldn't even need all that many troops. A few guys to load them nukes onto a few Stealth Bombers will do. And yeah, you'll need an aircraft carrier, but isn't Lincoln there in the Gulf already? As for Syria, I'm sure Israel's more than happy to let US use its airspace.

The offensive isn't the problem. It's what happens afterwards. Remember that old phrase, winning the hearts and minds? That's the big issue.

Excellent. So Syria has been a terrorist sponsor state for decades now. Especially in regards to terrorism against the Jews. You know this is fact,l pure truth. Yet, when Powell announces this as a political statement, the truth behind the matter, to you, is somehow muddled, and this simple fact is somehow clouded to the masses. Despite the accuracy of the statement and Powells attempt at educating the general public, you reject this, and make the acute remark that so long as people believe such truthful statements are doomed to be manupilated by the government.

Look, let's putt all the bullshit aside, please. just for a minute. What matters more, your ridiculous ideologies, or the pure and simple truth of the matter. That truth being that Syria has been in the news and in the public eye since the beginning of the war, and that the news in whatever manner or form has portrayed, stated, and reported the truth. Syria is full of scumbags.

What does the notable increase have to do with ANYTHING! Of all people, you should be proclaiming and demanding the accurate reporting of news. Instead of praising the media for actually doing their job properly, in painting an accurate picture of Syria, you sit here saying that its somehow coupled to a vast conspiracy for Dubya to start another war or some crazy horse shit. It's crazy. Why do you make such a concerted effort at burying good solid truth, favor of unending pessimism, just because of who happens to be in the white house. You're almost as bad as IEB.

This is also an example of your statements in the third paragraph. Let's put this in perspective. What matters to you isn't universities in Iraq. It's not the children, the free people, new schools, new hospitals, new infrastructure. In fact, what is important to you isn't the fact that Libya has been scared straight into cooperating with us, nor that Syria is on the same road. You don't care that two functioning democracies lie on either side of Iran, nor do you care that The House of Saude has some serious pressure on it. You don't care about the 1500 coalition lives that have been lost, nor the thousands more that have been injured. What matters most to you is not the 15000 innocent Iraqi's that have perished in this great struggle. What matters the most to you, what makes you think that there could never be enough positive effects to convince you that the war was a good idea and well executed, is the loss of moral authority that America has suffered in the eyes of other nations in the world.

See, that right there, was so easily mined out of you. It perfectly defines your lack of character and your viewpoints on earth, America, war, our present government, and everything else for that matter. You erase all the immense good, the freedom of millions upon millions of people, and the loss of all that precious life, and you put in front of it the arrogant selfish opinions of old Europe. Bravo.

What's funny, is that you know, you my friend KNOW the motivations behind China's, Frances, Germany's, and Russia's, stance against the war. You know their motivations were selfish and curropt in nature. You know they sided with a murderous dictator. You know about the scandals that have fallen out in the past year or so. Yet, you still put their opinions ahead of all the people effected by this action.


It took Germany 8 years to finally get its feet. Twice as many people died in one day on the beaches of Omaha, over ten times as many on Iwo Jima, yet the ends are not worth means today? Crazy.

A Quagmire? Two IED's a day in Iraq constitutes a quagmire? Crazy.

I think the government is definetly using the media to send a clear message to Syria and Iran both. Syria does appear to be the next in the pecking order, and I think the reasons should be pretty obvious.

We have been building a case for Syria since the begining of the war, it is just picking up speed now because Iraq is finally seeing a little bit of potential on the horizon for positive change. If we had gone in with the arguement that we were going to take down each fundamentalist country one by one, then it would have been percieved definetly as a war on the Middle East and Islam. I think the adminstrations strategy was to use Iraq as the example, just to show we mean business. Now they are targeting their words at the next two countries to see if Iraq taught them anything. I don't think they want another conflict, and this will be resolved without an invasion.