no. that's being effecient, not coward. Effeciency is achieving result with minimal losses. Military efficiency is inflicting maximal losses on enemy while taking minimal casualties. War is not a knightly tournament. Species develop the most effective tools of killing they can, - jaws, paws, or still better poison. It's not sport, it's evolution. Fittest survive.


that's aggressiveness, not cowardice. The strong take what they want. The victims should fight or shut up. Assad failed to respond to an overt act of war. He complied with the rules of games. He can forget the Golans now. If he won't fight for the Golans, Guatemals won't do that for him, and the UN won't do a thing because of the US veto.


The Gen Ass is known for being effective.


uniletarelly following the rules which everyone breaks is a sign of weakness or stupidity or incorruptible ethics. Assad is not the latter.


I'm against any war which is not necessitated by an impeding genocide or similar situation.  My point was that the Americans have made the world accustomed to the idea that the war will happen, and the world, unable to take a stance, will eventually say "do it now rather then later", and that is already happening in Europe. My preference is that Iran develops a nuclear deterrent before the US mounts an attack. As a former Soviet, I believe in nuclear deterrence.


years ago I expected the regimes to be deposed in case of the invasion of Iraq. U have a lofty opinion of Arabs. Never underestimate the proclivity of the Arab mass to submit to the daddy. The street will be stormy for a month, and then the US-paid security will use sticks and gas to disperse the crowds, and drive needles under the nails of the activists, as is constantly happening is Egypt, and things will return to status quo ante. Don't expect anyting from Arabs, Russia or China. There is only one recalcitrant of the world order. It's Iran against the world, - not the people of the world but the regimes of the world. Russia and China will submit meaningless protests, Europe will call to minimize civilian casualties, Arab regimes will secretly cooperate in the aggression. There is no single country standing by Iran. Everyone is against it. This makes Iran's victory inevitable.

.


I just hope Cedar stays safe too. Losing her would destroy me, as your presence in this world adds logic, beauty, and a genuine good person. 


Warmest regards
Terry

You are absolutely right Peisi, I couldn't have said it better myself. Like Hagana to MOSSAD mate!



Warmest regards Peisi
Terry

that the strong take what they want is no endorsement of any kind, but a constatation of a common phenomena. I had spent countless hours debating rights and entitlements over force. Didn't get the people I advocated anywhere. Still repressed and dispossessed. It's one of the two: either u can lobby, or u can fight. Either u fight with campaing donations and other lobbying techniques, or u fight with guns. After everything said and done, simple fact remains that rights need to be endorsed with force. If u dodge military confrontation and rely on the lefties to advocate your dispossessed ass in the world capitals, u need patience to wait for the Western housewives to pick interest in your case. Much patience. Chances are u won't live long enough to see the dawn of your justice. So no endorsement of "might=right" but a return to the reality. Aggression calls for military response, not another stream of complaints and baaing about international law. I frankly have no respect for the victims just because they are victims. I respect victims who fight back.

As more info comes to the surface, it seems you (Patton) had it basically right.

There certainly appears to be "a great deal more to this" than, many here would like to believe... Was "evil Israel" trying to provoke a war by violating Syrian airspace and randomly bombing an empty building just to piss the Arab/Muslim world off??  OF COURSE NOT... (though of course, MANY here would prefer to believe that)

Curious still (as you alluded to) to this day is the Syrian, and Arab/Muslim world reaction, or shall we say LACK OF reaction.  Sure, we had the general Muslim "sabre rattling" and idol threats/condemnation of Israel, but then they seemed to go quietly back to their status quo.

It seems Israel (and the US) caught Syria with their pants down, building a nuclear facility with North Korea's help... Also seems the U.N., the Arab/Muslims regular ally against Israel, is now seeking additional information about the reports... Could this explain why few of their neighbors are rallying the war-cry against Israel (any more than they usually do anyway  )

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxebURn-nwLmouyY2YyrZYBFpkzwD8S9NNO00

And what does the "violation of Syrian airspace" and bombing now appear to be about??:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/world/story.html?id=82e73612-9a01-4703-9233-e451ac381dd0

Who does/would a nuclear Syria benefit??  Syria has long been recognized as a state which actively sponsors terrorism.  Syria has actively supported organizations such as Hezbollah, HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine... and the list goes on.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/25778.htm

me. Palestinians. Iranians. Arabs. Syrians. What is the relevance of this question? Whom did nuclear India benefit? Pakistan? China? Dare I say, Israel? How about France? Seems like when the strong/well-connected build nuclear armaments, the question "whom does this benefit" never arises. They just do it, and everyone accepts.


No, it couldn't. Arab governments never "rally the war-cry against Israel". Never since the 1970s. ISrael was fighting a long war in Lebanon in the 80s, against the Lebanese, the Palestinians and the Syrians. How many Arab governments displayed enthusiasm about joining the fight? How about the recent war in the same country? I remember u making a thread called "Support fot Hezbollah weak". Now u can say "Support for Syria weak". Few years ago, it was "Support for Iraq weak". And on any given afternoon u can safely declare "Support for Palestinians weak". This all has nothing to do with nuclear issues or with the Sunni-Shiite schism. Arabs tolerate occupation of Sunni non-nuclear Palestine, cooperate in invasion of Sunni-controlled non-nuclear Iraq. Support is weak because Arab governments are weak. The "war rally against Israel" exists in your head. Not in the palaces of Arab rulers, and this has nothing to do with nukes.

And I still find it improbable that such a high value target as a nuclear facility would be target with a single strike, without a follow-up control raid. Syria would have burried her N-project deep in the ground, and it would require heavy bombardment to destroy it. The Korean connection is easily explainable by the arms trade existing between the two countries. Syria has been purchasing Korean missiles for years. Nothing nuclear in this domain. Though there is of course a possibility of some atomic facility involved; but it's unlikely.

interesting...any others sources?