[luke warm]

assad is quoted as saying that if u.n. peacekeepers are deployed along the syria/lebanon border, this would be considered a hostile act... why would he say that? article is here

Quote

Syrian President Bashar Assad was quoted as saying he would consider such a deployment along the Lebanon-Syria border a "hostile" move toward his country.

"First, this means creating a hostile condition between Syria and Lebanon," Assad told Dubai Television, according to excerpts released by the TV station ahead of the broadcast. "Second, it is a hostile move toward Syria and naturally it will create problems."

Assad did not elaborate on that point in the excerpts. But Finland's foreign minister, after meeting with his Syrian counterpart, said Damascus threatened to close the frontier with Lebanon if U.N. peacekeepers were deployed there.

"They will close their borders for all traffic in case U.N. troops will be deployed along the Lebanon-Syria border," Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said after meeting Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem in Helsinki.

[pigpenz]

from what i have read in the past Syria does not like the idea of having an army especiallly an Israeli one anywhere near their border. So any army with ties to Israel is considered a threat to them.

[whereagles]

Luke: Syria is just putting pressure and taking a stand. It's politics, nothing else.

[Al_U_Card]

HHMMMNNN Let's see. Syria is a secular arab state stuck more-or-less between Israel (a sworn-to-the-death enemy) and Iran (an "ally" that if you do not do as they expect......you might just find yourself on the wrong end of Shia fundamentalist uprising....). I think that anyone BREATHING in their vicinity would be considered a hostile act (especially with the breath that some of those mid-eastern dishes can give you....lol).

A century ago it was the Balkans, 2 centuries ago it was North America next century it may well be South America...who knows but it will definitely be somewhere.

[luke warm]

i must be too naive... i figured they just didn't want any witnesses when they started rearming hezbollah

[mike777]

I thought most people in Syria and Lebanon supported Hezebollah and their having arms? Who cares about witnesses?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Aug 24 2006, 03:59 PM, said:

I thought most people in Syria and Lebanon supported Hezebollah and their having arms? Who cares about witnesses?

the u.n.? after all, they did pass a resolution calling for their (hezbollah's) disarming...

[mike777]

I see and the UN is going to do what if they really care? Or are you saying they do not care that much?

In any event how do you stop a billion people from not sending arms? If a billion is too big a number pick a number you feel do support them? I guess 400 French guys are going to stop them? Or are countries that send peacekeepers but did not consider Israel a legit country going to stop them?

Or is all of this just an excuse to rearm so the next round in even more bloody. It seems Lebanon is more than willing to support Hez....and blame someone other than themselves.

It was some sight to see the Druids, Chistians and other groups drinking a beer at the local bar across the Green Line and sticking their heads in the sand hoping it all goes away and it never does.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 23 2006, 11:16 PM, said:

assad is quoted as saying that if u.n. peacekeepers are deployed along the syria/lebanon border, this would be considered a hostile act... why would he say that?

Lebanon shares a land border with two countries: Israel and Syria. There is no trade going across the border with Israel and the Israeli's are trying to enforce a naval blockade. If Syria closes its borders with Lebanon, Lebanon won't have any trading partners.

This immediately suggests one of three different possibilities:

1. Assad doesn't want to see UN peacekeepers deployed on the border and thinks that this is a viable threat that can be used deter the UN force securing the border. (Equally significant historically UN peacekeeping forces are only deployed if both sides in a conflict are in agreement). The Syrians could simply be stating (strongly) that they don't consent to a UN military force on their border.

2. If this primitive type of deterrence fails and UN troops are deployed, a trade blockade would be expected to further destabilize Lebanon. Its possible that the Syrians view Lebanon as a buffer between them and the Israelis. Fomenting instablity in Lebanon could help deter military action aimed at regime change in Syria. In particular, if Assad believes that he "just" needs to last until the 2008 elections, focusing on the short term might make a lot of sense

3. If the Syrians were to officially close the borders itwould immediately create a massive incentive for clandestine smuggling. In turn, this would accomplish two ends: First, large amounts of clandestine smuggling would create a lot of "noise" and make it much more difficult to find weapons shipments. Second, this type of smuggling might help create plausible deniability if a weapons shipment was intercepted.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Aug 24 2006, 04:04 PM, said:

I see and the UN is going to do what if they really care? Or are you saying they do not care that much?

i don't know mike, that seems pretty cynical to me... the u.n. did pass a resolution calling for a ceasefire in this latest conflict, eh? and voila, we have a ceasefire... i'm sure if they were on the syria/lebanon border they'd completely halt all illicit arms shipments to hezbollah

you speak as if the u.n. is a paper tiger, as if countries like singapore and malaysia won't fight and die to keep hezbollah from once again attacking israel... why are they even members of the u.n. if not because of the 'bigger picture'

Quote

Lebanon shares a land border with two countries: Israel and Syria. There is no trade going across the border with Israel and the Israeli's are trying to enforce a naval blockade. If Syria closes its borders with Lebanon, Lebanon won't have any trading partners.

yes, but that still doesn't explain why syria considers u.n. peacekeepers in lebanon to be provocative... what are they afraid of and why would it be considered "a hostile move" toward syria?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 25 2006, 02:57 AM, said:

yes, but that still doesn't explain why syria considers u.n. peacekeepers in lebanon to be provocative... what are they afraid of and why would it be considered "a hostile move" toward syria?

I never claimed that the Syrians were necessarily afraid of anything. Its entirely possible that the Syrian government believes that a weak Lebanese state provides a better buffer than a strong/centralized Lebanese government.

Personally, I do worry much about specific verbiage, especially given that I don't read Arabic and need to rely on third party translations. I don't trust the way my own country spins press releases, let alone the Syrians...

[luke warm]

on a somewhat related front, i just saw where russia blocked u.n. sanctions against iran's nuclear program... does that give haliburton, er bush, the right to go ahead and start bombing?

[mike777]

It does seem Russia and China feel that their long run interests are best served with Iran having the bomb. That surprises me a bit. With their large Muslim populations this will only spur Iran on to contact those population areas.

I guess they will just drag this whole issue out for years until Iran has the bomb and we will have one less way to restrain Iran from spreading their agenda around the world.

This may force the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and Egypt to get the bomb also.

I keep reading how Japan could make the bomb in 30 days or less. It seems to be just a case of spending the money. I assume you can buy all the stuff you need in any country.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Aug 25 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

I keep reading how Japan could make the bomb in 30 days or less. It seems to be just a case of spending the money. I assume you can buy all the stuff you need in any country.

sure, you can get most everything needed on ebay for about $39.95 plus shipping... nuclear physicist not included... and good point about egypt et al... the chinese curse, may you live in interesting times, seems apropos

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Aug 24 2006, 05:05 PM, said:

Lebanon shares a land border with two countries: Israel and Syria. There is no trade going across the border with Israel and the Israeli's are trying to enforce a naval blockade. If Syria closes its borders with Lebanon, Lebanon won't have any trading partners.

How many land borders does Syria have? Iraq, where the border's been pretty much shut down by U.S. troops, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan. Both Jordan and Turkey have repeatedly shown themselves vulnerable to U.S. pressure.

The conspiracy theorists have been claiming that this was a preliminary test for war vs. Iran, but what if it was the other direction? What if this whole thing was preliminary to invading Syria? It would explain a lot of things that can't be explained otherwise, like bombing the Lebanese oil terminal, which prevented a great deal of Syrian exports. Syria is far more vulnerable than Iran, its leadership less beloved, and it would shut down the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Oh, and Damascus is what, 40 miles from the Lebanese border or something?

Not saying I know any secret info, but food for thought, eh?