Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room The Bush Doctrine Applied

Now, if I understand the Bush Doctrine as it is being played out by the Administration the following is an acceptable scenario for the conduct of foreign affairs.

Syria decides that it is possible Israel may attack them sometime in the future as it has in the past. Syria states it has the right to mount a premptive strike against Israel because Israel might, someday, attack and Syria knows Israel has weapons of mass destruction and is getting stronger all the time.

To support its position, Syria also takes a humanitarian tack and states that Israel has committed acts of violence against the Palestinians and the world should do something about it.

Syria also pionts out that Israel is in violation of many UN Resolutions and has been for over twenty years -- since it started the settlements -- and that Israel is ignoring the clear will of the world as expressed in these resolutions.

Syria goes to the UN Security Council, outlines all of the Security Council resolutions Israel had ignored for the past 20 years and informs the Security Council they have an obligation to force Israel to comply.

The Security Council hedges, so Syria says that if the UN does not act, then they will form a Coalition of the Willing and act outside of the UN to redress the wrongs done by Israel against the Palestinians and to eliminate Israel as a possible threat to Syria.

The Security Council wants to use diplomacy to bring Israel into compliance.

Syria says they can use diplomacy, but they only have so much time because Syria intends to act with the Coalition of the Willing if the Security Council does not act fast enough.

Syria begins to put together their coalition and brings in several Arab States, several Asian Moslem states and all of their oil wealth that comes with it. It uses some of the Coalition's oil wealth to buy the support of some non-aligned nations with strong militaries by promising oil imports at far below the world market as well as payments to help their economy. More countries become "willing."

Syria builds up the Coalition's military might along Israel's borders, masses weapons, develops battle plans, demands that Israel meet the UN Resolutions and, because Israel's current leaders are now walling the Palestinians into ghettoes, informs Israel that a regime change to Syria's liking is required as well as compliance with all of the UN resolutions.

The Security Council continues to push for diplomacy, but Syria keeps their feet to the fire, demanding action within a few days or else the UN will be left behind and will become irrelevant.

Syria continues to build up the forces, gives the UN a timetable by which it must act and, gives Israel a timetable by which it must act.

Israel says no. Syria says yes -- and it will impose what it believes is the proper solution whether or not the UN authorizes Syria to act.

More troops are built up on Israel's border. tensions mount. The UN tries desperately to stop an upcoming war but Syria makes it very clear they are simply following the doctrine laid down by the United States of America for how one country can undertake such actions against another country.

Because, after all, preemptive strikes without UN approval against a country which might attack sometime in the future, which has violated human rights and which has ignored UN resolutions is now an accepted means of carrying out foreign policy in the world -- or so says the Bush Doctrine which is now the formal policy of the United states of America and therefore acceptable for any other country.

Of course, no one knows yet knows how this will end, but it seems pretty clear that Syria intends to attack Israel and force a regime change -- no matter what the price to world peace and stability, the Isreali people, how long or bloody the war may be, what the cost of the ensuring the peace will be what the impact on diplomacy is or anything else -- as long as Syria can disarm a potential aggressor and force a regime change in Israel.

After all, Syria is only following the path laid down by George W. Bush in his dealings with Iraq.

What do I care about Syria. My only interest is to slake my thirst for blood.

Those notions are absurd but I like the title.

"Bush Doctrine".

Me too.......

What'dya say we put together a coalition of the willing and shoot the leftist fanatics?

(just TEASING!...... with a camera.....smile!)

Yes except in the case of Syria, it wouldn't work because it has a ludicrous weight in the UN. The UN is a nice tool that only powerful nations can use to push less powerful nations to do what they want. Ever since you are a child you are taught that the UN protects piece and justice in the world. What you are not taught is that the UN is a business that claims it is trying to help solve problems in underdevelopped countries, when in fact it is run by the same bureaucrats that run the same powernations that have the same greed. They do it in an anonymous way. The UN has everyone's name on it. When a mistake is made by the UN it is the fault of the less powerful countries that didn't comply to the "rules".
I hope more kids in the future will ask their parents and teachers to tell them why a nation can be United to others in the name of peace, while using its military and economic power to feed its own ends. ??

Naw, it won't work against Israel.

Israel is special.

Not when Syria is finished. Israel will be no more. But why point out these minor differences in this reducto ad absurdum. Why respond seriously at all, in fact.

I am lost here. Would you expand on it?

Well, nice of you to try and understand "the Bush Doctrine," but your analogy is so full of holes, you could drive a proverbial truck through them.

Let me see if I can fix the scenario to the point where a Bush Doctrine could be considered a legitimate argument. . .

Israel, instead of being a democracy, would have to be run by a despot dictator, who personally enjoys torturing and murdering individuals (and family members), uses his resources to build and hide WMD, and uses these weapons on the people of Israel as well as other countries. Israel's dictator would need a history of killing, raping, and in general, genocide, regardless of world opinion.

The dictator of Israel would have to give tacet approval to a "Jihad" against Syria specifically, and the rest of the Muslim world. All Syrians should be killed because they are Syrian and Muslim, and Rabbis around the world would be given tacet and overt support in their goal of eliminating the infidels (Muslims).

In the forseeable future, Israel would have such quantites of weapons and WMD that the obvious purpose would be seen by Syria to be a take-over of the region, where the Israeli dictator would rule all. It would also be logical to assume that Israel would secretly supply Rabbis living in Syria or elsewhere in the Muslim world with chemical or biological weapons.

Israel would have to be sitting on or near oil reserves which could be used to destroy Syria and all Moslem countries economically, by eventual annexation of tangent countries.

Syria would have a benighted and shallow-thinking populace to protest actions their own government is deciding to take against the Israeli dictator and his current and forseeable plans. These actions by protesters would contribute to the endless talk and delay by the consortium of countries discussing Syria's desire to take action, leading to the Syrian governments decision to attack under "the Bush Doctrine."

Syria would need to be under a system of government where individual liberty and religious freedom is honored, morally opposed to the ruthless Israeli dictator and his tribe of criminals. Syria would also need a history of helping other countries in need, handing out billions of $ in aid yearly as part of their responsibility to the world community, which would give credence to their concern over Israel's potential for destroying if not the entire world population, a large portion of it.

So. . . make the potential scenario more accurate, and you're quite right: a "Bush Doctrine" could be a premise for a preemptive strike on Israel by Syria, as Syria finally ignores the years of delay and non-action by the U.N.

My apologies. A clarification is in order here. It would be Syria's intent that Israel would be no more. Syria (and other Arab countries) would not stop until all traces of Israel or Israelis were expunged from the face of the earth. However, realistically, we have no reason to believe that they would be any more successful than the last three times they (and other Arab countries) have tried it.

This is just one of the many parallels in this piece that falls apart under scrutiny. RVaga has done a good job of pointing out many of the others. I really can't waste my time attempting to discuss issues with one who obviously has nothing but contempt for those with opposing viewpoints. Fair enough, however, since I really don't have a high regard for one who could so casually draw such equivalencies to make a point.

Where in the Bush Doctrine of preemptive unilateral strikes without the sanction of the UN, is any of the additional criteria you have laid out expressed?

You have given a lot of reasons why you would not support Syria in attacking Israel under this Doctrine, but once the United States has espoused and acted on the Doctrine as Mr. Bush has laid it out, it will be seen as a valid and legitimate course of action by other nations wishing to solve what they perceive to be the same type of problem.

You might disagree with its application in any given circumstance, just as most of the world disagrees with Mr. Bush's use of it in Iraq. But that does not mean that other countries will not use it as the basis to attack the countries they want to attack -- and in their own minds be just as justified in launching a unilateral full scale war, with a "coalition of the willing," as Mr. Bush believes the United States has the right to do.

Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!

That was the application you were talking about, wasn't it?

Perhaps Baghdad will bloom as the rose of the desert, again. Blood is a marvelous fertilizer, you know, and I heartily recommend it!

Jolly

I truly hope that this was said tongue-in-cheek. But somehow, even if you said it that way, I fear there is part of you that truly believes this.

This is lazy thinking. If you can't or won't draw a distinction between the two scenarios, you can't draw a distinction between anything. From what I have seen, people that think this way remain frozen in indecision, unable to act one way or the other. Eventually it catches up with them, and if they do finally act, it is often too little and too late and ultimately ineffective. I think its root is in an overwhelming fear of being wrong.

This is not true. A simple majority, perhaps. But most? I don't believe that. Unless you are throwing the people who don't care on the side of those that disagree.

Ryan

Of course part of what I said was true.

Back when I had hair( ), and was a young lad roaming the halls of the hospital, my supervisor routinely would collect the expired units of blood from the blood bank, along with a transfusion set, and take them home.

She had the most lovely rose garden in town, and I don't know if she ever told the local garden club her secret.

Your problem is that you believe any who support the President are all crazed, blood-lusting savages (sorry for the use of the word savage, Mr. Fletcher ).

I would much rather not invade Iraq. Yet, even as the world's eyes focus upon him, Sadaam was handing out checks yesterday to terrorists, including 25K to the family of an Arab suicide bomber.

The spring winds started to blow through Iraq yesterday. That means the U.S. has about a 6 week period to either go to war, or fight in 130 degree heat, or put this off until next year.

If you'll read in another current thread on the board right now, many Iraqis are actually betting on the benfits of invasion!

There comes a time where you either resign yourself to cutting bait, or fish. We've cut enough bait, it's time to fish.

Jolly,

Hmm... As morbidly comic as that is - if it is indeed true, I must say I am quite appalled. Not by the contravention of any laws that prohibit such antics, but by the sheer stupidity of the individual in taking home infectious waste.

David

Jolly

I have never considered looking to business speculators as worthwhile advisors on whether to wage full scale war -- whether they are Iraqi, American or any other nationality.

I am surprised that you would see such speculators' desire to make money as justification for sending American troops into harm's way.

Grasping at straws, aren't we?

The fact that real estate prices are rising in Bagdhad, and their stock market is starting to rise, mirrors the same reasons as any economy when those things happen, namely investor confidence.

Now if the people of Iraq think that regime change is going to be a favorable event, don't you think they are perhaps the folks most "in the know".

That is not a justification for going to war, but it is a pretty good mirror into what the Iraqi people think the outcome will be, good, or bad.

On another subject:

Depends upon what your definition of infectious waste is, doesn't it? Are you aware that most medical waste, in the form of infected body fluids, or feces, is "sinked" anyway?

And I assure you it happened, I used to watch her carry the units out quite often.

Serves the same purpose a good blood meal fertilizer. Blood is very high in both protein, and iron, both of which are conducive to growing nice roses!

The possibility of children playing in or near this garden is what disturbed me the most. Having said that, I suppose it is probably much less dangerous than a sewage outlet near a beach.

David