How many people feel threatened by Syria's chemical weapons stockpile?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

...because that's what Geoff Hoon are the reprehensible Mike O'Brien are gently trying to suggest in a press conference on Radio 5 Live. Apparently it has been 'a concern for some time'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/

― Gatinha (rwillmsen), Monday, 14 April 2003 09:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Meta-Question: How many people feel threatened by the US's "foreign policy" right now?

― kate, Monday, 14 April 2003 09:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm more worried about MechaGodzilla

― DG (D_To_The_G), Monday, 14 April 2003 09:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't worry, the REAL Godzilla will turn up to put things right!!

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 14 April 2003 09:41 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.onlyinternet.net/awinterrowd/kaiju/gallery/smg.jpg

Fucking hell, so am I now.

― Gatinha (rwillmsen), Monday, 14 April 2003 09:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Attack, Mechagodzilla, attack!!!

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0107/bush.720/gallery.bush.blair.jpg

― Gatinha (rwillmsen), Monday, 14 April 2003 09:47 (twenty-two years ago)

of course we've been supplying syria with arms for years etc etc

sorry I just thought I'd be the first to point out the obvious like it's some incredible insight

― j0e (j0e), Monday, 14 April 2003 09:53 (twenty-two years ago)

as long as they haven't been supplied with MechaGodzilla, that's all that matters

― DG (D_To_The_G), Monday, 14 April 2003 09:57 (twenty-two years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1630000/images/_1631733_blair_syriapa300.jpg

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 14 April 2003 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Can we all attack america for stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and having a reprehnsible human rights record? (Can we patronise the catholic and other 'minorities' to rise up up and support out invasion?)

― Ed (dali), Monday, 14 April 2003 11:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Looks like Straw's backing off from this one

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 14 April 2003 11:22 (twenty-two years ago)

am i the only one who feels like a gaul ca rome ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 14 April 2003 11:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Does that mean that we can then offer political asylum to my mates who want to leave the US and move here?

― kate, Monday, 14 April 2003 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

haha, only if they swap with me;)

― gareth (gareth), Monday, 14 April 2003 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Depends how persecuted they feel.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 14 April 2003 12:02 (twenty-two years ago)

heh, kate, "offer asylum," heh.

(seriously we might take you up on that)

― hstencil, Monday, 14 April 2003 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Gareth, swap with my sister! Honestly! Why can't they do citizenship exchanges where two people who want to swap nationality are able to do so legally?

― kate, Monday, 14 April 2003 12:21 (twenty-two years ago)

of course we've been supplying syria with arms for years etc etc

I don't think Syria gets any arms from the west. Having seen Syrian army units in the flesh, their equipment looks very former Soviet bloc.

that said, invading Syria would be an entirely represhensible act. Syria is not a democratic state, but it has never used NBC weapons on anyone. Any chemical arsenal it has would be entirely dwarfed by the nuclear stockpile of another neighbouring state.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 14 April 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

my syrian-american b/f has a weapon in his pants.

― teeny (teeny), Monday, 14 April 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

hahaha, that would be a biological weapon of mass destruction?

DV, the hawks' reasons for invading Syria would be the "harboring and sponsoring terrorism" deal, not the "weapons of mass destruction" deal. The former has been Syria's forte for a number of years.

― hstencil, Monday, 14 April 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

If you count Hezbollah as terrorists, perhaps so.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 14 April 2003 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)

actually, I remember some incidents where Syrian agents were trying to smuggle bombs on planes and stuff in the '80s.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 14 April 2003 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

DV, it's quite well-reported that the UK has sold arms to Syria. A quick google brought up this recent article. There was also an interesting article about it in a recent edition of Private Eye.

― j0e (j0e), Monday, 14 April 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

DV, the hawks' reasons for invading Syria would be the "harboring and sponsoring terrorism" deal, not the "weapons of mass destruction" deal. The former has been Syria's forte for a number of years.

I think it'd be more along the lines of, "Why not, we're already here."

― cprek (cprek), Monday, 14 April 2003 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Then explain France.

― Stuart (Stuart), Monday, 14 April 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Rummy's thinking 'them fuckers totally took my bait'. Iran's playing it smart.

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 14 April 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

j0e , I stand corrected.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 14 April 2003 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Comming soon to a congress near you, 'The Syria Accountability Act'. The sponsor was just on the radio saying that hezbollah are the worst terrorist organisation in the world, yesterday it was al Quaeda. Call me cynical but if an attack on syria goes ahead, is this Sharon's price for a palestinian state?

― Ed (dali), Monday, 14 April 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess Dubya still has two years left in which to have lots of fun...

― ChristineSH (chrissie1068), Monday, 14 April 2003 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

One year, nine months, six days. To be exact.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 14 April 2003 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Unfortunately that's only part of it

― Gatinha (rwillmsen), Monday, 14 April 2003 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

betcha ten dollars Syria= the new Iran, instead of Syria= the new Iraq

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 14 April 2003 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

elucidate

― Ed (dali), Monday, 14 April 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

ie. sanctions, harumphing instead of invasion. Rummy played up the 'warnings' to Syria not to 'get involved', and Syria took the bait, ie 'got involved', or at least involved enough to be spun as such. North Korea's blinking at the moment (although this has alot more to with China applying pressure than any 'awe' at the ease of victory in Iraq, the 'awe' is a factor nonetheless), Iran's giving (probably token) gestures of wanting to reexamine it's, er, relationship with the US in the wake of Iraq, meanwhile Syria's huffing puffing playing right into Rummy's hands. That said, without any actual future action from Syria (extremely unlikely) or Hezbollah (not as unlikely - their Western Hemisphere presence is at least as large as Al Qaeda's ever was, larger now considering the state of disarray Al Qaeda's in - but still not likely - Hezbollah's war has always been with Israel, Al Qaeda's was, um, is with America, Israel didn't enter their picture till post 9/11, and even then it was strictly as good pr) invading Syria's a hardsell - there's no element of 'finishing the job', most American's couldn't tell you who the Syrian head of state is whereas Saddam Hussein was on t-shirts, and even the element of 'they helped/are helping the Iraqis' would require action sooner rather than later, not likely with two carrier groups being sent home. End result - lotta loud rhetoric, and maybe (probably) sanctions and pressure on allies to do the same (which will go nowhere). The irony being that sanctions are pretty much the opposite of what you want to do to democratize a country, but hey, gotta act tough (but not too tough, at least not this time).

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 14 April 2003 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

James OTM, not to mention the fact that 'stabilizing' -- however described -- Iraq first would have to happen first, and that could take a little while or a lot. Assuming that the US is somehow immediately going to drive to Damascus is an incredibly poor read of the current situation.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 14 April 2003 19:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I was mainly probing for what '=iran' meant to james.

Iran is an interesting case in itself. It has a reformist government and a very young population (something like 65% are from the post iran-iraq war generation), against that is the supreme council, holding things back and trying to keep more islamic and less republic. Iran needs to be anganged with, as britain was trying to before during and after the afghan war. Iran is of course not clean but it is cleaning up its act and needs encouragement and support. Iran could be a model of islamic democracy. Attacking Iran or even applying too much of the wrong sort of pressure would just push a young population into the hands of the radical Ayatollahs.

In the case of syria. Basha Assad is not Saddam, or even his dad and might be persuaded to reform, in the early months of his reign and he might be persuaded to go further down that route, but who knows about the workings of the Syrian Ba'ath party.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I pretty much agree with you re: Iran there, Ed. There is hope.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Good thing we didn't piss off Iran by like, oh i don't know, calling them evil or something.

― oops (Oops), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Quite so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 14 April 2003 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.