First Libya, now Syria...who says it is not workin?

[fintstone]

Guess a position of strength does work better than one of weakness. First Libya gives up WMD and terrorism...now looks like Syria is looking for ways to do the same.

Syria seeks our help to woo US
By John Kerin
March 27, 2004
SYRIA has appealed to Australia to use its close ties with Washington to help the Arab nation shake off its reputation as a terrorist haven and repair its relations with the US.

Secret talks between the two nations have been under way for months but have become more urgent as rogue nations reconsider their role in allowing terrorists to thrive, in light of the US determination to take pre-emptive military action.

A Syrian embassy will be opened in Canberra in weeks and Australia is considering reopening its mission in Damascus.

Australia's close relationship with Washington, and its much higher profile in the Middle East, have prompted Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara'a and parliamentary speaker Mahmoud Al-Ibrache to appeal to Canberra to help bring their country back in from a US-imposed diplomatic freeze.

Syria has sent a delegation to Australia and has hosted a series of visits by Australian parliamentarians.

Drawing on the British-sponsored return of Libya to the international fold, Australia is demanding that Syria take a tougher role against terrorists, particularly those using the nation as a base for operations into Iraq.

Australia also has called on the former Soviet client state to abandon any pursuit of weapons of mass destruction before it returns to the fold.

Syria has supported the war on terror but the Bush administration has been sceptical about its commitment, fearing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were smuggled across the border before the US-led invasion last year.

In November, senior Syrian officials asked a bipartisan Australian delegation led by National Party senator Sandy Macdonald to use Australia's influence with the US to achieve a diplomatic rapprochement.

Senator Macdonald said yesterday: "Syria is a country that has been a bastard state for nearly 40 years. But the leaders we spoke to in Syria appear keen to make linkages with the West and it sees Australia as having influence in Washington."

The overtures to Syria are seen as a response to the West's determination to confront rogue nations that may either pose a threat themselves or pass on weapons to terrorists.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer last night welcomed Syria's commitment to broadening dialogue with the international community.

"We would like to see Syria follow Libya's example in making a genuine return to the international community," he said through a spokesman.

"But Syria must abandon any effort to attain weapons of mass destruction, act to control the flow of terrorists across its border with Iraq and step up support for the war on terror."

He said Australia was considering reopening an embassy in the Syrian capital, Damascus. The embassy was closed in 1999 because of cost-cutting.

Syria's Melbourne-based honorary consul, Antonios Zyrabi, confirmed to The Weekend Australian last night that Syria wanted Australia to help it come in from the diplomatic cold

[joeclarke]

I view this topic in the obverse.

Cultures will all eventually evolve to reflect the fundamental freedoms enjoyed in the "western societies". All you have to do is give people access to information (unavoidable these days - no leader can limit access to information anymore), some appropriate examples and soft incentives (trade, etc.) and the rest will happen of its own accord.

That's where the US can really shine - leading by example. Not by trying to bomb people into the age of democracy.

Never really fired a shot in anger at the USSR did we? Nor did we in any tangible way threaten them into a democratic epiphany - that being your obvious argument for the case of the new found tractability of Mr Khadafi.

[fintstone]

Nor did we in any tangible way threaten them into a democratic epiphany

I think that is exactly what we did. The Soviet Union failed after going broke trying to match our defense spending. Not because we were so nice to them!

[Overpaid Slacker]

Joe -
We never fired a shot in anger at the USSR? Well, literally, very few, but VietNam, Afghanistan (in the 70s and 80s), and to a lesser extent Korea were all clashes between the US and the Soviets.

"Bomb people into the age of democracy" -- I'll hand it to you, you've got the knee-jerk Liberal hymnal memorized. There is a fundamental difference between the "people" and the "regime" that oppresses them. We can remove the regime that keeps information/ideas/liberty from the people and then allow them to make their own decisions.

In fundamentalist or statist countries (think the Mullahcracy in Iran, Taliban Afghanistan or Kim Jong Il's North Korean Peoples' Paradise) priority number one is keeping information from the outside world from getting to your people -- if not at all, then at least unfiltered. This not only allows them to indoctrinate their subjects with bilious hatred, baselessly blaming US and the West for the oppression the tyrants visit upon them ("The US wants to keep you down" "The US poisons our people" "Israelis make matzoh with blood", etc.), but prevents awareness that others have it better than they do (whether monetarily, in terms of freedom from governmental caprice, or just plain enjoying liberty), which leads to criticism of the regime and movement for change. All people know is what they're told (overstatement, but ride with it for a while); if all they're told is that their misery is the US' fault and not the result of a 12th century fundamentalist theocratic, anti-liberty, anti-innovation, anti-human rights regime, and they're forbidden on penalty of death from saying it's the regime's fault in public, then they're going to believe what they've heard over and over, which, coincidentally is the only thing they're allowed to believe. (whoa, long sentence). One final bit on this topic -- the fundamentalist Arab world and the North Koreas of the world are not "lacking" in rights, liberty, freedoms, etc., in the sense that there's a shortage that could be cured within the extant paradigm -- the regimes which govern these countries are actively opposed to such things and seek out and destroy them like an auto-immune system, aware of the toxicity such things visit upon tyranny.

So "all you have to do is give people access to..." means nothing. The tyrants whose very existence depends on depriving their subjects of access to the outside world are certainly not going to allow it. We can't "give" the subjects of these tyrants access to anything without being on the ground to do it. What do you suggest -- cargo drops of PCs w/ satellite uplinks over hostile territory so everybody in Iran/NK can get on the Internet and check out the world?

Look, people are fundamentally stupid animals. We've got this great self-image in the West about how we've put so much of our barbaric past behind us and can "solve" issues w/ words. I think this is hokum when dealing with the vast majority of rest of the world (witness the utter ineffectiveness of the UN or Clinton/Carter's "solving" the NK nuke situation w/ conferences). By design these other people remain backward and brutal - not unlike animals. They understand force and we've put a big fat head on a very tall spike in the heart of the Arab world. It's unsophisticated, it's not nuanced, but what it is is more important -- effective.

You wanna go hug a jihadist? Fine, we'll work in parallel.

JP

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by joeclarke
I view this topic in the obverse.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

Nor did we in any tangible way threaten them into a democratic epiphany

I'm not at all sure I agree with that. I have served on Ballistic Missile Submarines, and when in uniform, I wear the "Strategic Deterrent" pin with some measure of pride. My boat was capable of carrying 24 missiles, each of which was capable of carrying 7 warheads. Even against today's incredibly advanced sonar suites, my boat was a competent adversary. When we really wanted to disappear, there wasn't a thing they could do to find us. I'd suggest that perhaps the concept of 150 helpless targets makes for a pretty big stick. I'm sure that didn't help with the diplomacy any. I'm sure they didn't build up their arsenal in response to that, spending money they didn't have. I'm just as certain of that as I am that Arab world dictators today are coincidentally going anti-terror as a natural evolution of society, rather than as a response to our "head on a pike" in Iraq.


Dan

[fintstone]

Dan
Same here! I was sitting underground with another guy in a missle site in North Dakota controlling 150 nuclear warheads..pointing ????? when the Berlin Wall came down. Although I personally did not enjoy that duty and moved into another area after four years, I have always considered service like your's and mine to be instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union. Thanks for your service.

[joeclarke]

I'm sure that many of us here are very worldly in our travels and familiarity with different cultures. Go and have a chat with a grave digger in Syria or a prostitute in Prague or a student in Saudi Arabia, or a student anywhere in the world for that matter (they eclipse even the venerable baby boomers in the exchange of information). If you were to have those discussions fifteen or even ten years ago many of them would look very different than today. Such is the case in the emerged (vs emerging) information age.

I have had those kinds of conversations and am convinced that no one can control or significantly moderate the open flow of information anymore my learned friends. That truism kicks the slats out or your "evil tryants bottle feeding their people poison about the evil west" argument as a premise for the tenure of those tyrants or the successful fomenting of hatred toward the US or anyone else.

Those hawkish perspectives that those ill-informed peoples "hate the west because we're rich and they're poor or we're immoral and they're just" are also just as much bunk. Otherwise countless other countries other than USA would be the focused subject of their ire. The only reason anyone else is even on the terrorist "hit list" is the mirror image of the Whitehouse simplistic definition of its enemy. You know that whole the-friend-of-my-enemy-is-also-my-enemy mantra. I've tried to offer different possible reasons for some of the worldly angst toward the USA but those reasons are rejected here out of hand.

I'm disappointed that JP and much of the rest of the hawkish element seems (frankly) uninterested in entertaining any different views on these subjects other than their own. I'm simply trying to provide a different take on the Iraq situation than the fearful pap, but many of you don't seem to want to consider anything outside of the content of Whitehouse press releases. Rather than engaging the subject in meaningful debate I see observations that are simply intended to minimalize either the credibility of the observer or otherwise devalue any contrary statements.

As an example - one doesn't have to even begin to argue the technical or philosophic merits of an opposing position if they simply reply with:

"I'll hand it to you, you've got the knee-jerk Liberal hymnal memorized. " A simple yet effective tactic that transcends further debate.

So be it. I'm not usually the martyrdom type- but you guys can go and stew in your own views. Slap those blinders up side your collective heads and continue to read Frum and those Whitehouse press releases to keep yourselves informed about the world. God help us all if the rest of the world conducted themselves that way. But thank God that that wont happen because the rest of the world is open minded enough to keep itself broadly informed. How's that for drama?

But that is probably the most important point in all this. The entire fawking world disagrees with the invasion of Iraq!!!!!!! Forget that certain countries joined the venture - the popular opinion polls in every country in the world except the USA were against the invasion. Not to mention that a sizeable chunk of Americans also did not support it. And that was at a time when people thought that there was at least a possibility that there were actually WMDs. I recently spent a bit of time in discussion with some students in Wien (look it up - not far from Munchen, I'm getting fiesty now) - the Whitehouse is a virtual laughing stock in it's continued attempts to substantiate the Iraq invasion now. (How about - At least have the gonads to admit that you screwed up big time and fess up that it really was about oil and take your lumps).

It boils down to something like 1% of the world on a head count basis that were behind the "war". I'm pretty much convinced that not counting Whitehouse personnel the majority of that 1% post here.

Does that overwhelming number count not mean anything to you hawkish elements or give you enough pause to give more consideration to the contrary view? Apparently not.

I have sighed my last sigh. I throw my hands up in exasperation.
I'll go argue with my wife instead. Thanks for indulging my final tirade on this subject.

Ciao

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by joeclarke
I have had those kinds of conversations and am convinced that no one can control or significantly moderate the open flow of information anymore my learned friends. That truism kicks the slats out or your "evil tryants bottle feeding their people poison about the evil west" argument as a premise for the tenure of those tyrants or the successful fomenting of hatred toward the US or anyone else.

Wonder why China censors google.com and Vietnam only broadcasts government-sponsored television? Sure sounds like control or moderation of the open flow of information.

The US government feeds us propaganda. Why do you assume such is not the case in other countries???
jürgen

[fintstone]

Those hawkish perspectives that those ill-informed peoples "hate the west because we're rich and they're poor or we're immoral and they're just" are also just as much bunk. Otherwise countless other countries other than USA would be the focused subject of their ire.

I don't really care if they hate us or even why. Only if they take action on that hate. If they attack Americans or our allies.....we should kill them. Otherwise, let them hate anyone they like.

[tabs]

Originally posted by joeclarke
the rest of the world is open minded enough to keep itself broadly informed.

Yeah Right! Now this is the typical repsonse of a Liberal....Americans are stupid while the rest of the world is enlightened...and we should follow their advice rather then our own good sense! If this is your last post...good luck to you, and hope your happy living in LALA land

[joeclarke]

aw shucks, relax now Mr. tabs.

Never my last post - just on this subject. There's simply too much good fun to be had around here to detach myself from these proceedings.

I'm sure lala land is probably as fine a place as bangbang land - maybe just a bit quieter. I'll enjoy mine - you should enjoy yours.

Joe

[Overpaid Slacker]

Christ, it looks like we could be responsible for Joe's marital strife... that is an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq, for sure.

It is possible, just possible, to consider the vast array of opinions and parallaxes out there and come to a conclusion, entirely of your own free will, that happens to parallel what's said in "Whitehouse press releases". It seems as though your implication is anyone believing things similar to whitehouse press releases -- who may very well have condsidered your pov in the past and rejected it in whole or in part -- is an unenlightened drone; a swine who turns their nose up at your pearls. But that's not intended to be an insult (to us).... OK. At the end of the day, if we're not fit to debate with you, then you're probably right to seek greener pastures.

Ah, and "disappointment," another crooked arrow in the Liberal quiver; but one which I thought had gone out of style after Daschle used it for the billion-and-first time a few months ago. We're not kindergarteners to be chastened by the rapproach of the school marm or guilted into contrition b/c we've let you, whose esteem is expected to mean so much to us, down. You'll get much more esteem while you're fighting the good fight than when you lay down your toys in a huff and sulk off.

One simply can't argue the merits of such a vapid statement ("Bomb people into the age of democracy") so instead, hide behind my barb, throw a bunch of ink the water and scoot off? C'mon. You've got to know that that kind of crap is fit for bumper stickers and protest placards carried surrounded by the like-minded, but in here it's going to get scorched and called what it is. Liberal tripe; a snappy substitute for thought. If you want to make the principled argument that I assume that sentence is supposed to be capturing, by all means, go right ahead -- there is definitely some merit to the claim that you can't coerce virtue and some people/cultures are immiscible (for at least stages of their development) with western liberalism and democracy.

I know everything I write is potentially subject to the scrutiny of many people with views antagonistic to my own whose stock-in-trade is ad hominem attacks. I like to think I throw my barbs with a bit more discretion, and at those I expect will be able to take them in the spirit intended.

I maintain, from my experiences living in South Africa (1 year), the Netherlands (6 months), Japan (1 month), visiting most of Europe for significant stretches at a time, and friends that are from and travel back to Arab and other oppressive regimes that governments can still very effectively control access to information. Certainly not as effectively as even 5 years ago, but part of the efficacy of the control is the severity of the punishment if you're caught outside government-approved lines.
Witness the Palestinians, who are taught from toddlers to hate the US and Israel and whose "Authority" feeds them a constant stream of hate-laced untruths. How do they find out the "Truth" -- do they even want to, after their indoctrination from birth.

I think many of the other, poorer countries (and most countries are relatively "poorer" than the United States) that don't hate us are not subject to the tyrannies many Arab countries are, and some of them actually have hope and opportunity (look at Eastern Europe, who freaking loves us). If you've got something to do to better yourself, to take care of your family and to look forward to, you're probably too busy getting on with your own ***** to hate the US or anybody else (except France...I can do that in my sleep). EDIT -- missed a segue here, while typing too fast for my thoughts, so I added the following ... Most Arabs suffering under their theocracies DO NOT have opportunities -- b/c of their own freaking governments -- and are therefore much more ripe for the "it's not our fault, it's America's fault you're poor" argument, even though the Arab world is, by design, without innovation. As I said in another thread, if you take away oil, the entire Arab world's aggregate GDP is less than Spain's. Think about that. That's the US' fault? So it's OK to hate us? Ridiculous.

And as far as the hyperbole of EVERYbody else not wanting this war, I don't give a *****, and you shouldn't either. F*ck 'em. They've been freeriding on our largess, blood and treasure for sixty years. We've gotta do something for ourselves that won't hurt them (well, except for France and Russia who were making BILLIONS off the blood of Iraqis) and they get all b!tchy about it, TFB. The US is upset with (or, even better "disappointed" with {snort}) many countries for the things they do and more often than not we're told to GFO. That's life in international politics. The fact that Schoder or Chirac or Prodi can make you personally feel guilty about the US taking care of its interests is kind of a strange "desire to be loved" thing, no? Especially when they'll do in the future, and have done in the past, whatever they believe is in the best interests of their respective constituents w/o UN approval and in spite of US opinion.

JP

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Christ, it looks like we could be responsible for Joe's marital strife... that is an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq, for sure.

unintended? Surely you jest...and clearly you righties don't fully comprehend the depth of the G.W. McCheney conspiracy. Plumbing the depths of the American bedroom and marital relations is all part of the CIA's plan to subvert the dominant paradigmatic obfuscational alerts to previously unheard of levels. This combined with planting bots in low places and strategic reserves of essence combine to create a concubinary of epic proportions.

Laugh now rightie...but your wife is next.

[joeclarke]

Thanks for that JP - most entertaining read of the day.

I could almost feel your diastolic hitting new heights as the key strokes fell heavier and heavier in concert with your growing indignation. Nothing else salves righteousness so well as a good rant.

Man this board is fun.

And that nostatic guy just kills me with his unrelenting stoicism/sense of humor.

[CamB]

JP - you make it sound like the US can exist in this world without anyone else, and the need for the US by the rest of the world far outweighs any benefit provided back to the US.

Which is pretty much wrong.

[john70t]

O.S. is probably one of the most learned, and certainly one one of the best typists on the board, and I've learned much from his posts though I can't always agree with(or even understand) some of the points.

Some societys are linear, untill they come to a brick wall.....

[350HP930]

If Pakistan,Syria and Libia are the examples of how this admistration plans on turning around rogue states (lip service and billions of dollars in US aid to saddam like regimes) then I say we go back to the old method of containment.

[joeclarke]

O.S. is probably one of the most learned, and certainly one one of the best typists on the board, and I've learned much from his posts though I can't always agree

...amen to that - all of it. And...

It's not about Iraq so I can respond to this:

Wonder why China censors google.com...Sure sounds like control or moderation of the open flow of information.

They HAVE THE INTERNET or there wouldn't even be an attempt at censorship, shmuck! I rest my case. (Insert image of Joe spiking football here)

Seriously, turbo6bar (I know you can take a shot) - you're just helping to make my case. Sure, we censor the internet in our offices with fancy filters - but damn if those young folk don't seem to keep finding a way to get those lottery numbers and soap updates somehow anyway. Also seems like we still have to can the odd idiot for surfing porn. Do you suspect that the youth of China are equally resourceful? And what about all those TV and news satellite signals bouncing all over the globe - do those somehow skip over China?

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by joeclarke
[BSeriously, turbo6bar (I know you can take a shot) - you're just helping to make my case. Sure, we censor the internet in our offices with fancy filters - but damn if those young folk don't seem to keep finding a way to get those lottery numbers and soap updates somehow anyway. Also seems like we still have to can the odd idiot for surfing porn. Do you suspect that the youth of China are equally resourceful? And what about all those TV and news satellite signals bouncing all over the globe - do those somehow skip over China? [/B]

Yeah, I bet those prostitutes, gravediggers and students all have satellite dishes in their backyards. Just because American kids can afford that crap doesn't mean the average Joe in China or Vietnam can. So when was your last trip to a Communist country, eh?

I'm not saying they are ignorant of world events, but they definitely do not have a free exchange of information. I think the real environment is somewhere between our interpretations.

I'm not taking a shot at you. I reserve my puny wit for guys like speeder. (Yo speeder, where are you?)

I've been to Vietnam, and it ain't no Shangra La.
regards, jürgen

[yellow911turbo]

joeclarke, you would tell me that the Saudi student is as informed of the world as you and I are? I'd say that you don't know what you're talking about. In Iraq, the text books didn't have world maps until the final years of high school. If the news and/or agencies doesn't please the Shieks in ANY muslim nation then it is either a lie or Western propaganda. It's all about controlling the mob. Except for the case of Iraq I'd say that most of the Mid-East countries the government fears the mob and the mob is controled by the religious leaders. In the Muslim world if you aren't an extremist then you're a traitor. Mid-East Islam is a business. You and others keep talking about the oil. (Oh yes, it's in great demand around the world. The U.S. is not the only country that buys oil. Remember China?) Someone is getting mighty rich and it is definately not the common man. The people don't see any of the profits but somebody does... The same Shieks that you see on posters during the protests against the U.S.

Those of you that have never lived in a communist nation and/or under a dictator may have a slight understanding of the issues at hand but they don't know what it feels like to be paranoid and scared of the government. I grew up in communism and even though I was younger I can still remember the propaganda. I follow eastern European developments and almost 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union the government still owns and/or controls most of the media.

Let's also not forget the Palestenian families of the martyrs who kill Israelis because Allah wishes. They recieved $15-20k checks as a gift from Saddam and he would pay more to see Americans die. It's people like you who very quickly forget the thousands that died in 9/11. I just got back from a deployment to Iraq and I don't regret one second of it. I know that the few people that are free thinkers in Iraq and around the world understand the price we have paid for their freedom and they will not forget.

Last thing, I didn't intend this to be a personal attack on joeclarke and I apologize because I know it sounded like it. Instead I want it to be an attack on the leftists in general.

Cheers,
Serge