Addition to the "Axis of Evil"?

[mindspell]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

 

[xfer]

about fucking time!

 

[xfer]

they should also add Syria.

 

[mindspell]

Syria is already there isn't it? I thought it was Syria, Iran, North Korea and ...

 

[xfer]

Iraq, Iran, DPRK.

 

[xfer]

Although I oppose publically creating an "axis of evil", I do think that, if they made one, it ought to include Syria. The only possible explanation of why it didn't, I think is:

Syria is being set up as a target for Israel, not the US. In the past few years, Israeli-Syrian relations have grown worse; the Isayeret has conducted targeted killings in Damascus, and the IAF even some months ago did a cross-border air raid on Syrian terror training camps.

Israel can handle Syria fine alone. The US knows Israel will handle Syria. The US does not, NOT want itself to be too closely associated with Israel in a public manner when the war comes.

"The US declared Syria an axis of evil country and Israel went right ahead and invaded it!"

 

[mindspell]

I agree with you on Syria, and with the creation of the axis. Israel can handle Syria fine. The problem is that Syria's influence on everybody in the region is growing everyday (noticed what they did in Lebanon recently? the parliament was already controlled by the Syrians but now this is getting ridiculous) and that might cause a little more trouble keeping Syrians scared of Israel, although it would probably end up just like the 6-day war....

 

[xfer]

huh, I see Syria moving away from control of Lebanon as pressure increases on it from the UN and even other Arab countries. they've managed to cultivate Hizbullah as their proxy and, over the past several years, boosted Hizbullah's power enough (including parliament seats) that they'll be able to keep Lebanon as an Israel-thorn even after making a big show of withdrawing Syrian troops.

I bet if Israel goes into Syria and starts trashing it, the part of Kurdistan within Syria's borders would declare independence (or defect to Iraq/Kurdistan). Which is, in theory, a good thing, but I think in practise may be awfully bloody.

 

[mindspell]

I meant Syrian influence not necessarily troops. Hizbullah and Syria are basically the same entity as far as I am concerned.

Kurdistan is a whole different ballgame. Turkey seem pretty set at not giving an inch of territory away whatever happens in Iraq. If a situation like you described happens there could a lot of blood spilled in Turkey , Syria and Iraq... It could be very ugly.

 

[xfer]

Oh, definitely, but here's what I see happening with Kurdistan:

1. Kirkuk--and possibly its surrounding province--joins the Kurdish Autonomous Area.

2. Iraq gets worse.

3. Invasion of Syria by Israel

4. Kurdish Autonomous Area leaves Iraq and becomes Kurdistan. Kurdish areas in Syria leave Syria and join Kurdistan.

5. Kurdish areas in Turkey are brutally suppressed by Turks. US sells Turkish Kurds out and helps Turkey.

6. Over next decade(s), Kurds in Turkey wage guerilla campaign to join Kurdistan, supported by Kurdistan from time to time, Turkey fucks them up, and at some point(s) comes to blows with Kurdistan, etc.

 

[mindspell]

Entirely possible scenario.

 

[minxnim]

in my axis of evil there are:

1. sensitive pony-tail men
2. people who say 'crippled' instead of handicapped
3. clowns (& mimes)

 

[xfer]

actually, I'm going to amend that.

5. Kurdish areas in Turkey are brutally suppressed by Turks. US sells Turkish Kurds out and stands by...at the request of the EU (led by France and Germany) who assists new member Turkey in brutal suppression of Turkish Kurds.

 

[lizard]

you guys do know that the Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Moon, right? you really can't rely on what they say.

 

[mindspell]

As usual UM crapped my response so here is the gist of it:

I know Lizard, I just found interesting to note that there are questions being asked about Russia now and wondered what would be the American response to it in the future. Is Russia too big a fish to go against or is it going to remain in good diplomatic terms whatever Russia does? I just wanted to throw a healthy debate out there. Of course the thread another tangent...

 

[xfer]

Putin is "our partner in the War on Terror" so he's going to get pretty much a pass as long as he refrains from combative anti-US rhetoric, I think.

 

[mindspell]

Let's just say that Putin's methods for the war on terror are just about as light-handed as Bush's so it makes sense that they are "good buddies"

 

[xfer]

no, Putin's are a lot more brutal. I think they're both in the same sport (crush terror with military power), but not the same ballpark.

Bush is also trying to scare/intimidate terror-supporting governments so they cut off support without needing military action. Putin doesn't give a shit about that. He just crushes the government.

 

[mindspell]

Bush has a bigger media to deal with, he would be just as brutal if in Putin's shoes.

Putin doesn't have the economic leverage that Bush has, so its no use even trying to do that. Same thing, just different envirronment

 

[xfer]

if, if, if. the fact remains that Bush (like everyone) operates within the structures presented to him and those structures do not allow a level of brutality anywhere close to Putin's.

Russians are also a lot more used to/tolerant of really fucked-up shit than Americans. understandably. but in forty years, that may no longer be true.