Mulling over LEE LOFASO to STEVE ASHER 22 Feb 2005

>>> Continued from previous message

>LL>The vast majority of the population in Iran hates the mullahs who
>LL>run the country.  The vast majority of the population in Syria
>LL>hates the heretical sect of the heretical sect that runs the
>LL>country. Both populations would welcome regime change with open
>LL>arms.

SA>They may welcome regime change, but what flavor of regime would they
SA>welcome? I can't see them falling over for a USA-approved puppet, ala
SA>the Shah, anytime soon.

 LL> Syrians would like to put their own dictator in power, one who has
 LL> the support of the majority of the population.

I'm sure they would - "regime change" would ensure that they could get
the finest dictator money and influence could buy.

>SA>The US has also said both countries need to do more to prevent
>SA>insurgents from travelling to Iraq from their territory.

>LL>Such word games are just that.  Word games.  Everybody knows what
>LL>will happen once the word games end.

SA>The US, as an occupying power in Iraq, is apparently unable to secure
SA>Iraq's borders and prevent these "insurgents" from insurging. Russia
SA>had a similar problem in Afghanistan when it propped up a regime that
SA>the USA didn't agree with, & found itself up against a US-supported
SA>insurgency that included the likes of Osama bin-Laden.

 LL> You can't put the world in a straightjacket and expect everything
 LL> to remain the same.  The world does not work that way.  Never has. 
 LL> And never will.

Four years is a reasonably long time; I suspect there will be some
quite radical changes during that time - Syria & Iran may well have
been "dealt with", but China, and a re-militarised Japan will remain,
and are not going to roll over and lick the US Presiden't's cowboy
boot. Personally, I'd prefer to leave Iran, Iraq, Syria to get up
to whatever localised mischief they might try to get away with, but
a remilitarised Japan is a scarey though - it has form for attacking
both the USA and Oz, and if all the pushing NK to gain nuclear
weapons doesn't cause Japan to consider acquiring them, I'd be very
surprised. 

>SA>Iran's powerful former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking
>SA>after meeting Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Otari, said
>SA>strengthening relations between Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and
>SA>other Islamic states in the region was of great importance.

>LL>Syria is running Lebanon.  The U.S. is running Iraq.  Iran is stuck
>LL>between a rock and a hard place, knowing U.S. troops are stationed
>LL>in both Iraq and Afghanistan, sandwiching Iran in-between.  And the
>LL>Russians are not about to stop the U.S. from putting an end to the
>LL>problem in Chechnya, knowing where those Muslim terrorists are
>LL>coming from.  With regime change soon to take place in both Syria
>LL>and Iran, the Chechnyan problem will cease to be a problem, as
>LL>Russian troops take over the region in full force.

SA>When Russia(?), Iran, Syria etc attack Israel, the men of Israel will
SA>be kept busy marking & disposing of the dead, burning the weapons etc.

 LL> Egypt is the key to any possible future Arab-Israeli war.  Without
 LL> Egypt, the Arabs cannot win.  With Egypt, the Arabs cannot lose.
 LL> However, if you look at the history of past conflicts, Israel was
 LL> the aggressor.  Not the Arabs.

Hmmm... for Egypt to enter the war, there would need to be a good reason,
such as USA/UK/France seeking to seize the Suez Canal, as UK/France tried
once before.

>>> Continued to next message

Cheers, Steve..

---