15-10-2003 00:06									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I just love it. Syria mobilizes for an attack on Israel, and the leftists here say "poor Syria." Syria is the aggressor here. They continue to wage war against Israel through terror. Now they are mobilizing.

	15-10-2003 00:10									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

why syria matters now to Israel

To recap - Israel, after the first intifida, determined that its best strategy was to withdraw from the territories (how much of the territories is a matter of controversy) and make peace with the Pals. the israeli govt in 2000 made an offer that almost all Israelis considered generous (some considered it too generous - probably a majority considered it just generous enough) Arafat not only rejected the offer, but launched a war (intifda 2) againt Israel (either cause he doesnt want peace at all, or wants it only as a result of victorious war, or cause he wants to use violence to improve the terms) This cause israel to turn away from the idea of negotiating with Arafat - the right and center to the idea that he can never be a partner for peace, and the left to the idea that a different partner would be preferable, if possible.

Now you dont have to agree with the above - many here do not - but that is largely the view of the most people in Israel.

Now since Abu Mazen was raised as a possible alternative leader. While views on him differed in Israel, from the far right opposing negotiating with him, to the right willing to negotiate but playing hardball, to the left eager to help him with concessions - all are agreed that he was unable to function because he was undercut by Arafat, Hamas and Islamic Jihad - apparently in concert. The same seems to be happening to Abu Ala.

Therefore, from the Israeli point of view, something needs to be done to weaken Arafat, Hamas, etc sufficiently to enable the peace process to take hold. The right would like to kill or expel arafat. The left would like to make unilateral concessions. The center position, holding the balance, is that neither of these are real options. (or at least that both have VERY substantial negatives) So how else can the Pal rejectionists be weakened? Well, it happens that Syria support Hamas and IJ - which increasingly cooperate with Syrian (and Iranian) backed Hezbollah. And presumably all are in league with Arafat. So the goal is to get Syria to stop supporting Hamas and IJ, and to at aleast reign in Hezbollah.

The military goal would therefore be to inflict enough pain on the Syrian state to get them to do this. Presumably ways can be found to do this that do NOT involve occupying any more of Syria. More likely aerial bombing of key targets. (Certainly any American who lived through the Clinton years of "pinprick aerial attacks" can understand the limitations of this strategy - Im not endorsing, just laying out the strategic rationale) The presumption is that SYRIA would attempt to make this a ground war, to counter the Israeli strategic bombing campaign - and would attack either in Golan, the Lebanese frontier, or both.

Given Israeli air superiority, and the demonstrated usefulness of tactical air power (for example in Operation Iraqi Freedom) its difficult to see how Syria could be militarily successful. Of course such a war would involve political costs for both the US and Israel - so the decision to launch it would depend on Syrian behavior, the course of events in the territories, Iraq, etc.

Given the currently VERY fluid nature of Palestinian politics, including the uncertainties surrounding Arafats physical health, it would seem foolish to launch such a war AT THIS TIME.

	15-10-2003 00:10									#63
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I dont think the report is real. If this was true, someone in the IDF would've leaked it already and the Israeli media would've done a huge mess out of it. Maybe there was some mobilization to anti-aircraft units, or unit "cores" in preparations for future escalations... but a 300,000 reserve mobilization cannot go unnoticed in Israel.

	15-10-2003 01:35									#64
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Are you guys suggesting that Israel will deliberately invoke a war with Syria by employing a sustained strategic bombing campaign?

What would be the targets?

So long as Israel attacks terrorist camps, bases and other assets, it maintains the high ground. If it begins to attack Sryian assets, it will lose the support of even the US.

	15-10-2003 01:39									#65
	Tired of ads?

quote: I just love it. Syria mobilizes for an attack on Israel, and the leftists here say "poor Syria." Syria is the aggressor here. They continue to wage war against Israel through terror. Now they are mobilizing.

I won't repeat that if you get bombed, the reasonable thing to do is fight back. My problem is that the United States are helping Israel to draw Syria into war. My problem is that the US are destabilising whole areas of the globe, just to prove to themselves that they are doing enough about their so-called "war on terrorism". My problem is that they are pushing Syria, Iran and Northern Korea into war, that they can't just let them be. My problem is all that unwarranted agression that is upsetting the balances of decades. My problem is all the nitwits that play with global politics just like kids play cowboys and indians.

Pakistan tested one of it's new missiles yesterday. It has a 700km range and is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would have tens of millions of casualties. Such a war came close to happening in 2002, because of Kashmir.

But who gives a damn? The real baddies are all hiding in Damascus.

	15-10-2003 01:41									#66
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: My problem is that they are pushing Syria, Iran and North Korea into war, that they can't just let them be.

How are we pushing any of these people to violent action?

	15-10-2003 01:49									#67
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Are you guys suggesting that Israel will deliberately invoke a war with Syria by employing a sustained strategic bombing campaign? What would be the targets? So long as Israel attacks terrorist camps, bases and other assets, it maintains the high ground. If it begins to attack Sryian assets, it will lose the support of even the US.

Im not suggesting that they would just go off like that. I am suggesting that they would raise the issue of Syrian support for Hamas, IJ, and Hezbollah with Syria, and with the US. And that a campaign starting with bombing terror camps might escalate. For example Israel has released a list of the homes and offices of the major terrorist leaders in Syria. All in central Damascus. I alsp assume that any such actions would not take place without consultation with the US.

	15-10-2003 01:54									#68
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by axi Pakistan tested one of it's new missiles yesterday. It has a 700km range and is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would have tens of millions of casualties. Such a war came close to happening in 2002, because of Kashmir. But who gives a damn? The real baddies are all hiding in Damascus.

Yes, and we will do what we can to encourage a peaceful settlement of Kashmir. What exactly would you have us do wrt to India/Pakistan that we arent already doing?

Ultimately its up to INDIA and PAKISTAN to solve the tensions on the subcontinent, NOT the US. The US's interest is to - get this - stop terrorists who would attack American interests abroad and on US soil. Like Al- qaeeda for example. Now how Syria, iran and n korea play into this is debatable, and has been debated here, including on this thread. But i dont see how the subcontinents problems trump these concerns.

	15-10-2003 01:58									#69
	Full PM-box? Change here!

[QUOTE] Originally posted by axi


I won't repeat that if you get bombed, the reasonable thing to do is fight back. /QUOTE]

yup. The US got bombed by AL qaeeda. The main opertional leadership of Al qaeeda is now operating in Iran, and is directing terrorist activities in Iraq. Iran AND Syria support Hezbollah, which (as shown in the Washington Post quote above) is working with Al Qaeeda. Syria supports Hamas and IJ, which are blocking Israeli/Pal peace, and thus preventing the one thing that could do the most to reconcile the Muslim world to the US. North Korea is developing nuclear bombs, which it might very well sell to anyone, including terrorists.

	15-10-2003 01:59									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would have tens of millions of casualties. Such a war came close to happening in 2002, because of Kashmir.

Bush was the one who talked both sides down, you dumb ass.

	15-10-2003 02:15									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap An Israeli land assult straight into Syria is very unlikely, as it runs right into the bulk of the Syrian army fortwhith. Certainyl an air campaing could do a lot of damague quickly, but the Israelis till have to absorb the Syria attack on the heights, and attacks from Lebanon. And the US would not be getting involved at all. Would Israel win? Ceartinly Would Israel win without significant cost to itself? NO. Becuase if the Israeli have nukes t keep the Arabs out of Tel Aviv, the Syrians have chemicals weapons waiting for anyone coming into Damascus. Lets put it this way: as much as people talk, the IDF is NOT as good as the US Army, and the Syrians are not as hapless as the Iraqis (at least they feed, clothe and arm their concripts).

Lets take as given that IDF doesnt match US armed forces, and that Syrian army is superior to Iraqi army. The Israelis wouldnt be planning on invading the country and taking the capital. They would have to "absorb the Syria attack on the heights, and attacks from Lebanon" as you correctly state. They would be fighting on the defensive, and Syria would have to attack, something which require both greater material advantage and greater initiative then defending. And they'd have to do this in the face of Israeli air superiority, both tactical and strategic. And while the US might not participate, its likely they would prevent any resupply for Syria via Iraq. Ditto for Turkey and Jordan. Syria is likely completly cut off from resupply.
Nah, the only deterrent is political. And that would, of course, depend on the circumstances.

	15-10-2003 02:28									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Syria supports Hamas and IJ, which are blocking Israeli/Pal peace, and thus preventing the one thing that could do the most to reconcile the Muslim world to the US. North Korea is developing nuclear bombs, which it might very well sell to anyone, including terrorists.

Your reasoning is warped. A peace which would be humiliating to the Palestinians would not reconcile the Muslim world to whoever would enforce it. And I wonder how attacking yet another muslim country would be a reconciliatory move.

Regarding Korea: for all I know, the UK has nuclear weapons and would have about the same level of motivation as the DPRK to sell them to terrorists. Does this mean that I am justified to threaten them with war?

quote: Bush was the one who talked both sides down, you dumb ass.

Yet he is not so eager to enforce new sanctions against those countries, like he is with Cuba, Syria, Iran and the DPRK. Sanctions on Pakinstan were actually lifted prior to the |Afghanistan invasion, IIRC.

	15-10-2003 02:38									#73
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by axi Your reasoning is warped. A peace which would be humiliating to the Palestinians would not reconcile the Muslim world to whoever would enforce it. And I wonder how attacking yet another muslim country would be a reconciliatory move.

and presumably what abu mazen and Abu ala want to negotiate is not a humiliating peace, but one with mutual benefits. Of course if you think that that Arafat wanted to stop abu mazen from making a humiliating, unjust peace, and that Hamas and IJ and Syria were helping him to stop such humiliation, he can see why youd think attacking Syria would be a bad idea. I hope you can realize that Israel and the US dont share your point of view.

	15-10-2003 02:40									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Yet he is not so eager to enforce new sanctions against those countries, like he is with Cuba, Syria, Iran and the DPRK. Sanctions on Pakinstan were actually lifted prior to the |Afghanistan invasion, IIRC.

As they were with India. Would you have done otherwise?

	15-10-2003 02:42									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by axi . Regarding Korea: for all I know, the UK has nuclear weapons and would have about the same level of motivation as the DPRK to sell them to terrorists. Does this mean that I am justified to threaten them with war?

The US does have nuclear weapons. The UK does not share the motivations for sale, as the UK is not an economic basket case like North Korea. North Korea has attempted to ship long distance missiles to Iran, IIUC, and has attempted to ship illegal drugs overseas.

I was going to mention the sanity of the North Korean leadership, but then i might get snarky comments about Tony Blair and Dubya as a response.

You dont really want me to start posting statements from North Korea, now do you?

	15-10-2003 02:43									#76
	Support Apolyton

Israel is not going to launch any massive land attack on Syria. Assad's legitimacy depends upon the Arab world seeing him as being the only "strong" Arab leader who's willing to stand up to Israel. Since Assad knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in a war against Israel he will instead call up reserves, talk belligerently, and prognosticate about how evil Israel brutally attacked the poor innocent people of Syria.

That's about all he can do.

	15-10-2003 02:47									#77
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DanS As they were with India. Would you have done otherwise?

Of course he would have. Why did we need to lift sanctions against pakistan? Only to invade afghanistan, an imperialist war to build a natural gas pipeline from central asia. The way to deal with al qaeeda was a police matter, just call your local 911 service (hey, 911, ah) and get the coppers on it. so what if the coppers cant get into taliban ruled afghanistan? Just send a subpoena, right? Besides, its all OUR FAULT the taliban was even in power - ergo we had no right to overthrow them - 9/11 (and even worse followups) is our just desserts for overthrowing the progressive regime in afghanistan, and thereby bringing down the even more progressive regimes in eastern and central europe.

Why is this so hard to understand?

	15-10-2003 02:50									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

LotM: Sadly, many many people think like that.

People often see what they wish to see and not how things truly are.

	15-10-2003 02:53									#79
	Support Apolyton

quote: is our just desserts for overthrowing the progressive regime in afghanistan

justice? no. Something that you've screwed up, and then bit you back in the ass? yes.

	15-10-2003 03:00									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin LotM: Sadly, many many people think like that. People often see what they wish to see and not how things truly are.

And those people are called Americans.

	15-10-2003 03:09									#81
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Only to invade afghanistan, an imperialist war to build a natural gas pipeline from central asia.

So now Afghanistan was all about the oil?

Despite the vast bipartisan support for the war, and the fact that the people who bombed the WTC were being protected by the Taliban? Seriously, since when has the legitimacy of the Afghanistan war been questioned?

quote: overthrowing the progressive regime in afghanistan

WHAT?! You are really off your rocker if you call a totalitarian fanatical religious state "progressive".

	15-10-2003 03:15									#82
	Got spare money?

quote: WHAT?! You are really off your rocker if you call a totalitarian fanatical religious state "progressive".

I guess he was cynically referring to the pro-soviet regime there, which the americans helped to overthrow, by assisting religious drug trafficking warlords mujahedeen freedom fighters.

	15-10-2003 03:15									#83
	Suffering from ads?

quote: I hope you can realize that Israel and the US dont share your point of view.

As a matter of fact they don't share the point of view of the rest of the world.

quote: thereby bringing down the even more progressive regimes in eastern and central europe.

So you say Yeltsin was more progressive than Gorbatchev?

	15-10-2003 03:17									#84
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I guess he was cynically referring to the pro-soviet regime there, which the americans helped to overthrow, by assisting religious drug trafficking warlords mujahedeen freedom fighters.

Yep, the Soviets were such wonderful people, weren't they? What a paragon of freedom and democracy. Unlike the evil totalitarian US.

	15-10-2003 04:24									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: I guess he was cynically referring to the pro-soviet regime there, which the americans helped to overthrow, by assisting religious drug trafficking warlords mujahedeen freedom fighters. Yep, the Soviets were such wonderful people, weren't they? What a paragon of freedom and democracy. Unlike the evil totalitarian US.

So now you're telling me that the US wanted to establish a US style regime there?



Well, if those Warlords the US detests so much right now is your idea of freedom and democracy...

	15-10-2003 04:26									#86
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Not my point. You were praising the previous regime. Just because something is an alternative to something bad doesn't make it good - in fact, it could be worse.

	15-10-2003 06:23									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Were to start:

First things first: Israel would not Invade Syria, so any major groundwar would most likely be started by the Syrians, and they would have Lebanon on their side.

Yes, the Syrians would lose, but:
1.People overestimate the damage airpower would do to ground forces, just like people did in 1991. Most damage to the Syrians woiuld NOT come from the air, but the ground. Syria and Lebanon based forces can hit some orthern Israeli cities, like Haifa, and certainly most towns up there. They can also hit all of Israel with Ballistic missiles. So even if the military campaing were quick, lets say as quick as the Iraq war, that gives the Syrians at least 1 week to shell israel, and no, Israel could not retaliate to such attacks with WMD's: thus the cost to israel of any coming war with Syria would, in terms of human lossses, certainly overshadow the last 2 years of violence with the Pals, plus such violence with the pals would continue as the war went on.

2. Israel wouolpd have to at least occupy southern Lebanon again. And perhaps even Damascus for a short time. israel has a poor tract-record when it come to occupying lots of Arabs.


Everyone quickly went to recite military stats..but the one thing no one has said is: what happens the day after? LoTM seems to think the road to peace with the pals lies through Damascus (or at least thinks some Israelis see this as a serious arguement). Well, sorry, it doesn't. If anything, an israeli victory might bolster the islamist militants and make peace even harder to come. For the point I made that everyone ignored is that NONE of Israels military vicotires have actually imrpoved it's overall strategic position or brought peace. Only when an Arab neighbor felt they could move (like Egyp, with some pride restored after 1973) did peace come, and with a lot of US money. Victory over Syria again would not do it, for Israel could do nothing but return to its borders at the end (and if a democratic Syrian gov came into being, give up Golan Heights..) and none of the more fundamental underlying cuases would have shifted.

	15-10-2003 08:24									#88
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: People overestimate the damage airpower would do to ground forces, just like people did in 1991.

Dude, you're on crack! The Iraqis were drastically demoralized if not bloodied in '91 by airpower. They were broken by airpower.

	15-10-2003 08:28									#89
	Put an end to popups!

With complete air superiority and the concept of the "kill box", Syria's armour would be broken before contact with Israeli Armour. Israel appears to have the capacity of gaining total air auperiority within hours of the beginning of a conflict.

	15-10-2003 08:43									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Keep this thread going guys. It's good reading.
I'm not a betting man, but this time, I would go with Israel.