WI Bush had invaded Syria?

Incognito

Banned
I asked for a source on "Putin made it clear to Bush during the Iraq War that regime cahnge in Syria is intolerable". Instead you provided me with discussions of the recent conflict and supposed a letter to Israel saying that Russia will continue selling AAA weapons to Syria.
 
I asked for a source on "Putin made it clear to Bush during the Iraq War that regime cahnge in Syria is intolerable". Instead you provided me with discussions of the recent conflict and supposed a letter to Israel saying that Russia will continue selling AAA weapons to Syria.

As I said before the source was from video of a news clip from a decade ago. I tried google searches using a few words I remembered from the clip and got nothing. But, if you want hundreds articles from the Bush years of Putin protecting Assad against even the threat of sanctions over tons of things like not cooperating with the murder of Lebanon's former PM that is easy to find.

Russia defends Syria against sanctions threat

MOSCOW - Russia sprang Wednesday to the defense of Syria by opposing a United States-led campaign to impose sanctions against Damascus.

As pressure mounted on Syria over its alleged failure to cooperate with a United Nations probe into the murder of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri, Moscow offered strong support.

"Russia will do everything necessary for there not to be attempts at declaring sanctions against Syria," a spokesman for Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying by Interfax during a visit to Tel Aviv.

Russian President Vladimir Putin told his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad of the "pressing need for balanced action from the international community so as not to allow new flashpoints of tension in the region."

Moscow's expression of support followed criticism by US President George W. Bush who said leaders in Damascus "must be held accountable for their continuing support of terrorism, including any involvement in the murder of Prime Minister Hariri."

"Syria is destabilizing Lebanon, permitting terrorists to use its territory to reach Iraq, and giving safe harbour to Palestinian terrorist groups," Bush said.

Analysts in Moscow said Russia was right to defend Syria against US-led pressure, arguing that punishing Damascus would create more instability in the Middle East where Russia traditionally supported Islamic governments to counter US-backed Israel.

http://www.lebanonwire.com/1005/05102627AFP.asp

Look for yourself over articles from the 2000s of Putin defending Assad against every threat no matter how big or small. I already spent a hour looking for the exact transcript you wanted so and am done, if you want to spend several hours taking up the mission or accuse me of being a liar that is fine with me, but I am not wasting any more of my time on this.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
Regarding WMD and Syria...Iraq moving them there. An Iraqi Air Force General who had become a dissident claimed that Iraqi materials and equipment were moved to Syria and in 2005 an Israeli air strike left a dirty patch in the middle of Syrian desert.
I would take such claims with a pinch of salt, a large one; the Syrian and Iraqi regimes fervently hated each other and had done nearly from the start of Saddam’s reign, throughout the First Gulf War (the one between Iran and Iraq) Syria was allied with Iran and during the 1991 Gulf War Syria sent a mechanised division to Saudi Arabia to take part in the liberation of Kuwait. If Saddam handed over chemical weapons to the Syrians it would have been with the knowledge that they were just as likely to be used by the Syrians against him as that the Syrians would return them peacefully someday.

Syria already had its own large and ongoing chemical weapons program, so had no need for Saddam’s and no reason to risk incurring American anger by accepting Saddam’s; if the Israeli’s hit a chemical weapons target in Syria it was most likely indigenous.

Then there is the question of what would they have transported? The completed, weaponised material? It is large and bulky and storage and transportation is hazardous and difficult, transporting more than just a small amount would be conspicuous.

The manufacturing facilities perhaps? They resemble the stainless steel vats from a dairy factory; it would be easier to simply destroy them entirely and just build afresh once sanctions were lifted than transport them across the border into hostile Syria.

But why would the Syrian air force general lie about a thing like this though? What possible motive would a dissident former air force general have for telling the C.I.A. that the things that they’d invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam to get their hands on were actually just over the border in Syria, now if they’d just be so kind as to invade Syria and topple Assad for him…
 
But why would the Syrian air force general lie about a thing like this though? What possible motive would a dissident former air force general have for telling the C.I.A. that the things that they’d invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam to get their hands on were actually just over the border in Syria, now if they’d just be so kind as to invade Syria and topple Assad for him…
Because said General was not Syrian, but Iraqi...and an evangelical Christian. There's no evidence for his claims to be true, since they were debunked before he made them by Duelfer, Kay and UNSCOM.
 
Well if Bush did invade Syria, I'm guessing that Bashar al-Assad would have met the same end as Saddam, possibly having an earlier Syrian Civil War. Only this time there won't be a 'Free Syrian Army' to combat the Ba'athist regime.
 
Well if Bush did invade Syria, I'm guessing that Bashar al-Assad would have met the same end as Saddam, possibly having an earlier Syrian Civil War. Only this time there won't be a 'Free Syrian Army' to combat the Ba'athist regime.

The lack of a Free Syrian Army is the main problem. Bush might and I say might be able to convince Putin to back regime change for keeping all of Syria's contracts with Russia as well as its Naval base... maybe, but only in a situation where there is a major international uproar because Assad is mass murdering his own people.

Taking down Assad would have effectively castrated al-Qaeda in Iraq and several other major Sunni insurgent factions based in Syria, but operating in Iraq.

If I was in charge I would actually merge the two states something planned a few decades ago, but nixed by Saddam who didn't want Assad sr. to be above him. Why would I mege the countries, because doing so creates a pretty good Sunni/Shia/Kurdish mix for a democratic state where no one sect can dominate and such a state would be powerful enough to stand up to Iran.
 
The lack of a Free Syrian Army is the main problem. Bush might and I say might be able to convince Putin to back regime change for keeping all of Syria's contracts with Russia as well as its Naval base... maybe, but only in a situation where there is a major international uproar because Assad is mass murdering his own people.

Taking down Assad would have effectively castrated al-Qaeda in Iraq and several other major Sunni insurgent factions based in Syria, but operating in Iraq.

If I was in charge I would actually merge the two states something planned a few decades ago, but nixed by Saddam who didn't want Assad sr. to be above him. Why would I mege the countries, because doing so creates a pretty good Sunni/Shia/Kurdish mix for a democratic state where no one sect can dominate and such a state would be powerful enough to stand up to Iran.

Yeah, but it won't be called a 'United Arab Republic' anymore with the Kurds actually in place.
 
Regarding the British position, I don't think there's been a military intervention Tony Blair didn't support. His party would have been up in arms, of course, and likely there would be a major revolt. It's almost impossible to replace a sitting Labour Prime Minister. The most likely result would be a no confidence vote in parliament, which would probably have seen a huge result for the Lib Dems, but FPTP and a split left wing vote getting Howard's Tories back in, who would have probably backed Bush.
 

Incognito

Banned
As I said before the source was from video of a news clip from a decade ago. I tried google searches using a few words I remembered from the clip and got nothing. But, if you want hundreds articles from the Bush years of Putin protecting Assad against even the threat of sanctions over tons of things like not cooperating with the murder of Lebanon's former PM that is easy to find.

Look for yourself over articles from the 2000s of Putin defending Assad against every threat no matter how big or small. I already spent a hour looking for the exact transcript you wanted so and am done, if you want to spend several hours taking up the mission or accuse me of being a liar that is fine with me, but I am not wasting any more of my time on this.
In debates, when you make a statement you should be prepared to back it up. I for one am not convinced by your arguments. Russia provides aid and support to many nations and not only Syria. You also provided 0 evidence that Putin warned Bush that invading Syria would spark Russian involvement. And do you really think Russia, in 2003 with its army still modernizing, economy at nearly 1/2 of the GDP (PPP) of what it will be in 2011 and an ongoing conflict with Islamists in Chechnya, would back al-Qaeda factions in Syria against the USA which would undoubtedly spark a US response?
The lack of a Free Syrian Army is the main problem. Bush might and I say might be able to convince Putin to back regime change for keeping all of Syria's contracts with Russia as well as its Naval base...
Not sure what contracts existed between Syria and Russia, but until very recently the naval base was only a resupply base and was in a state of disuse and disrepair. The reason it was upgraded & refurbished in late 2000s was IIRC because the Russian contract with Ukraine for stationing the Russian Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol was running out (set to have expired in 2017, contract extended in 2010 though the deal is controversial in Ukraine). People need to remember that things were different in 2003 than they are in 2013. Is that too much to ask from a website dedicated to history?
 
In debates, when you make a statement you should be prepared to back it up. I for one am not convinced by your arguments. Russia provides aid and support to many nations and not only Syria. You also provided 0 evidence that Putin warned Bush that invading Syria would spark Russian involvement. And do you really think Russia, in 2003 with its army still modernizing, economy at nearly 1/2 of the GDP (PPP) of what it will be in 2011 and an ongoing conflict with Islamists in Chechnya, would back al-Qaeda factions in Syria against the USA which would undoubtedly spark a US response? Not sure what contracts existed between Syria and Russia, but until very recently the naval base was only a resupply base and was in a state of disuse and disrepair. The reason it was upgraded & refurbished in late 2000s was IIRC because the Russian contract with Ukraine for stationing the Russian Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol was running out (set to have expired in 2017, contract extended in 2010 though the deal is controversial in Ukraine). People need to remember that things were different in 2003 than they are in 2013. Is that too much to ask from a website dedicated to history?

If Putin wouldn't support even the threat of sanctions against Assad in 2005 before this after stonewalling the UN and refusing to allow some of his buddies be questioned by the UN probe into killing the former PM of Lebanon then Putin was so deeply in bed with Assad already and only huge worldwide international condemnation could have gotten have gotten him to back a UN supported no fly zone back then.

And, that was well before the offical agreement to forgive Syria's debt and expand the Russian naval facility, but the facility was already there and I will bet it was a long term plan of Moscows on the backburner to expand Russia's presence in the Mediterranean. Assad was going to allow that to happen and did which is the main reason why I believe the two have been so very close.

Since Russia forgave Syria of three quarters, or $9.6 billion, of its $13.4 billion Soviet-era debt and became its main arms supplier in 2006, it has been reported that Russia and Syria have conducted talks about allowing Russia to develop and enlarge its naval facility, so that Russia can strengthen its naval presence in the Mediterranean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_base_in_Tartus
 

Incognito

Banned
And, that was well before the offical agreement to forgive Syria's debt and expand the Russian naval facility, but the facility was already there and I will bet it was a long term plan of Moscows on the backburner to expand Russia's presence in the Mediterranean. Assad was going to allow that to happen and did which is the main reason why I believe the two have been so very close.
And the talks to expand the Tartus base had nothing to do with a pro-Western Yushchenko being the president of Ukraine (you know, the guy under whom Ukraine said the leas of the Sevastopol’s naval facilities to Russia will not be renewed)? Clearly this is merely a coincidence and in reality Tartus plays a crucial role in Kane's...er, sorry, Putin's nefarious plans.
 
Top