Democrats helping the neocons start another war again!

[Classical_Liberal]

US imposes sanctions on Syria



US imposes sanctions on Syria

The United States' House of Representatives has passed legislation to impose sanctions on Syria for alleged ties to terrorist groups and attempts to obtain nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

The legislation also calls on Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon.

The bill was passed 398 to four.

Last week, President George W Bush ended two years of opposition to the legislation and has indicated he will sign the bill.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s968105.htm

[DarkPhenyx]

1. If they voted against the sanctions...

...they would appear weak on Homeland Security and Defense. They would then lose reelection. Unfortunately they are politicians. Their sole focus in life is ensuring their own job security.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. Bullhockey

Syria isn't a threat to America and never will be. It has been more helpful than any other country in our hunt for Al Qaeda. It is the next target of the PNAC though.

[bryant69]

3. How do you respond to the argument . . .

That they are a state that supports terrorism? As we've already seen, it doesn't take a powerful military to kill thousands of Americans.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Classical_Liberal]

4. They support Hezbolla, who haven't targeted civilians

so far as I know. Hezbolla just kicked Israel out of Lebanon. Israel didn't belong in Lebanon, and it is actually in our interest that they not be in Lebanon. Futhermore there are many terrorist organizations that American has no interest in persuing, Tamal rebels, Chechnyans. Hezbolla is one of them, even presuming it is terrorist. This contributes nothing to the protection of Americans.

[cap]

8. yeah... but do they support terrorism against Americans...

we can't get involved in every third party conflict that involves terrorism. Israeli-Palestinian-Muslim terrorism is a fight best left to those already involved in it.

Funny thing is that I thought relations with Syria would have improved under Assad's son. He seemed to want to modernize his country ... but I guess we're already headed down the path the Israelis are down.

If we follow this policy we are headed for the 5 nation multi-year conflict foretold by Wesley Clark. I don't think we want to do this.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. It isn't bull hockey

Your statement in no way negates the validity of mine. Reality has absolutely nothing to do with American Politics or the public perception there-of.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. The public wasn't clamoring for this bill

since we have already persued a stupid war based on phoney claims.

[DarkPhenyx]

11. Mmmmmm, since Vietnam?

We don't ahve to go back that far. Let's look at the Invasion of Iraq. Completely trumped up charges that the majority of the American Public believed and that our elected representatives voted to send us into.

Remember...it isn't the reality but the perception of that reality. We still have large numbers of people in the US who believe there was a link between Saddam and OBL and that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks on 9/11. You seriously think it would be hard to make anyone voting against this as being soft on National Defense?

<on edit>

OK, misread part of your post. Yes, even after we waged a war on trumped up charges I think it is possible for the same reasons I mentioned above.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. I didn't mention Viet Nam

but that just adds to the litany of problems. There would have been no political consequences for a no vote, and any democrat who believes their would needs to fire their advisors for dementia.

[DarkPhenyx]

16. I refer back to the statistics.

Ignorant masses will vote in stupid ways. Believing that they won't ignores the recent election in California. Fear makes people seak protection. Bush is offering that, or so they would have us believe. Until we are able to convience the people otherwise we will lose on this issue.

Do I thkn our reps should ahve supported this simply to stay in power? No. I don't. However, that is the one driving goal. To stay in pwer. TO get re-elected. THey are politicians. It's what they do.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. I don't think the vote in California offered a critical choice

between the two candidates, further more the loser didn't make clear what the critical choices were other than calling Arnold Hitler and a groper. No one has pressed charges yet on the groping. I am not holding that one against the people.

Having said that I maintain that there would be no consequences to voting against this, and I don't believe this was particularly important to any ordinary person I know.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. I'll hold it against them.

They voted for someone based upon their celebrity status. He had no plan, no platform, and nothing to offer. Yet he was still elected. California let their state get bought by a rich Republican.

It isn't that this issue is important to them, it would be that someone would "make it" important to them. We know they lied about the reaasons for going into Iraq, and they are still making it unpatriotic to not support the invasion. You think this would end up being any different? No, it wouldn't be a deal breaker, but it would hurt their chances.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. Any dem that could not expose how unimportant the issue

is. Actually it is important that we don't have sanctions so I shouldn't say that, isn't really worth a shit in my opinion.

Anrold didn't have a platform but neither did Grey other than running on Arnold is a groper and a nazi.

[NNN0LHI]

7. I'm sure that their help against terrorists will get big play by our media

I have a bridge for sale too.

Don

[Classical_Liberal]

9. The media are irresponsible when it comes to middle east reporting

but they weren't pushing this bill either. So why vote for the damn thing.

[Tinoire]

12. Great- Let's just blow up the entire world and get it over with

so that we look REALLY strong on Homeland Security and Defense. Bush and Sharon against the world!

Can't wait for our streets to look like Tel Aviv's!

[Aidoneus]

10. there's a few differences here

aside from the Aounists (recently before Congress pratically begging for the bombs to drop), there's no stomach for war in Lebanon. The real base of support and propaganda for this measure is from well-placed tools like Daniel Pipes (part of the "Department of Peace" for fucks sake!) and other radical Zionists. It's not at all strictly "BFEE" behind this with the Democrats hanging on out of "political pragmatism" as party loyalists will try to spin--one of the main people pushing this measure is Democratic representative Eliot Engel--, but even notorious Washington lackeys like Britain ("Airstrip One") are opposed to this approach. What's interesting is that the very same rhetoric and mechanisms we were bombarded with before the criminal invasion/occupation of Iraq are just being recycled verbatim on this.

It's really sadistic of these creeps to turn up the heat again just as Lebanon has finally seen relative peace after decades of war (aside from the constant Israeli threats and provocations, but they have their own defenses against them).

On the side, Syria's relationship with Hizbullah is better described as "tolerates", imo, for they are mainly supported by Lebanese people themselves. The early history of the movement involved a tense situation with the Syrians/Syrian allies in Lebanon like AMAL, it's more a pseudo-marriage of convenience than reliance.

a backgrounder I ran across recently on who/what processes are quietly moving forward without any resistance--
pt1-- http://www.lebanonwire.com/0310/03101422DS.asp
pt2-- http://www.lebanonwire.com/0310/03101527DS.asp

[Brian Sweat]

14. Condemning terrorism and imposing sanctions is nothing like

starting a war. The premise of your topic is dishonest.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. No it isn't. The neocons created these same kind of benchmarks

for the war with Iraq. The used resolutions and directives claiming Iraq was a threat that were made by the Dems under Clinton to justify the invasion after 9/11. The only reason I can possibly think that they would do this is because Israel wants to make war on Syria, and wants America to back them up if something goes wrong like it obviously did in Lebanon. You have to be completely Ignorant of the PNAC to think that. The act doesn't condemn terrorism. There is not much proof Syria supports it. The act also tells Syria to get out of Lebanon, when it is actually in our interest that the stay there to keep Israel out. Israel has pulled America into a quaigmire in Lebanon before. I don't want Israel to do that again.

[ShimokitaJer]

17. The difference is...

that the Bush administration believed it was politically expedient to attack Iraq, and the resolutions they proposed were merely a way to move that agenda forward. If anyone thinks starting another war right now is politically wise, they have their heads up their asses.

These proposed sanctions are just that: sanctions.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. We didn't need to apply sanctions

so I don't believe that. The pnac are just biding their time for another state of frenzy to exploit.

[drdigi420]

29. no one is denying

that the neocons have their heads up their asses

[Dhalgren]

18. Perhaps not at this stage,

but this appears to be another effort at "ground breaking". First you have to trump up an offense that the object (Syria) is guilty of; then you scream about it and pass legislation against these abominations; get UN sanctions and plenty good world press; then...well you see how it goes. I have seen no creditable evidence that Syria is either a "terrorist" threat to US or that it is trying to obtain WMD beyond what any state might try in a defensive sort of way. Our government has no business picking out countries at random (or perhaps not so randomly)and instigating a break in relations - no good will come of it.

[Jacobin]

19. And Dems wonder why Greens don't support all Dems

There is nothing but token resistance to the neo-con's policies.

All is lost. We are screwed.

Get ready for WWIII or four or whatever.......

[Classical_Liberal]

22. I think Dean has developed a way to punish these dems

without green nihilism, and I think it will be used to great effect in the future.

[mmonk]

23. Forget it,

looks like we've chosen sides and have decided to be combatants in the middle east and their wars. Its time for leadership from another country to seek solutions for middle east peace.

[morebunk]

24. Is there legislation that calls for Israel to end its occupation?

If there was legilation who do you imagine would vote for it?

[neebob]

26. That's why I love this forum

I didn't know about the Syria Accountability Act ... or is it the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act? Which Chimpy conveniently opposed until when - last week? What a coincidence the House should vote on this the day Americans get killed in Israel, or perhaps I should say what a coincidence Americans get killed in Israel the day the House votes on it. I'm guessing the Senate has already passed it? Either way, it's good to know the basics of another march to war are already in place, should the PNACracy decide to test their limits.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army right next door in Iraq, and the Senate has tacked a line about Israel and America being safer onto the Iraq appropriations bill. Watch them trace the roots of yesterday's attack to Damascus.

The only question in my mind is whether we'll invade Syria and free the Lebanese people before or after next year's election.

[MrPrax]

28. Usually pattern...sanctions...then war

There seems to be this pattern in US foreign policy that either a decision is made for attacking outright in the case of a weak and unstable government- Panama, Grenada or issue sanctions in order to weaken it's military strength...all the ducks are sanctioned
Increased sanctions on Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea and all are 'problems' for the Washington...in fact in all cases they are problems for a non-partisan Washington--dems and GOPers are the same on the specifics...

[Flying_Pig]

30. The Dems who voted for this have helped ......

the Bush regime, PNAC, and their friend and ally, Ariel Sharon. Their votes will also help Bush's "re-election" chances, by allowing him further tools to engage in still more wars.

Why are Dems doing this? Answer: Israel, plain and simple. Dems damned well better start voting the interests of THIS country, as they swore to do, instead of an outside nation hell bent on controlling our foreign and military policies, and interfering in our political processes!

Given the lopsided vote, we can see the power Israel, vis-a-vis their powerful PACs, like AIPAC, have on our government. Still, the Dems who voted for this, are shooting themselves, and our nation, in the foot.

I have been sending out letters demanding my congressional reps STOP doing ANYTHING that might help G.W. Bush and his neocon cabal, and this includes suporting the current government of Israel. Sharon and Likud love Bush, and plan to do everything they can to help him retain office. They have many friends and allies in our press and media, and they will try to use this influence to control the outcome of the election (as they have been doing for Bush, since 1999). We must put a stop to this unconstitutional intrusion by a foreign nation into our affairs. It is illegal, immoral, and traitorous.

[CWebster]

31. Who were the four nay votes?

And Kucinich?