 |
| |
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
One thing I have noticed in following the news is that, since the fall of Baghdad, there has been a sharp increase in tensions between USA and Syria. In fact, the rhetoric that US leaders are using now make it completely clear that Syria is "next". In fact, I would even go so far as to say that rhetoric they are using nearly makes war unavoidable.
April 4th
Rumsfeld says that Syria had "better be careful", but when asked if he was threatening military action, he refused to answer
http://msnbc.com/news/895509.asp?0cv=CB10
April 8th
Top officials within Bush's administration hint that Syria is next in line for "regime change"
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...8/ixportal.html
April 9th
Rumsfeld offers a new warning to Syria, saying that they hold the supplies they send Iraq as "hostile acts" and that the Damascus government will be "held accountable".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2934287.stm
April 10th
Syria continues it's own tough talk, warning the Americans to end their occupation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2937749.stm
April 11th
In a remarkable statement, Powell warns Syria and Persia that they await the "lessons" learned in Iraq
http://7am.com/cgi-bin/catwire.cgi?..._2003041103.htm
Bush warns Syria that they must deny refuge to any loyalist elements of Sadaam's regime, or face consequences.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm...storyID=2552970
April 12th
Syria fires back by accusing Bush of waging an "aggressive war" on the "Iraqi people".
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../war_syria_iraq
April 13th
Here, point blank, Rumsfeld says that Iraqi leaders have fled to Syria. Which is something Bush strongly warned against two days before.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...us_military_659
Washington pledges that it's next target in the "war on terror" is an organization called Hizbollah, which, coincidentally, happens to be based in Syria.
http://www.observer.co.uk/internati...,935943,00.html
Syria offers it's strongest words to Washington yet, saying allegations of sending supplies or harboring Sadaam loyalists are "baseless", saying they are "victimized" by Bush and co.
http://english.aljazeera.net/topics...3&parent_id=258
(Thanks to Sloww for supplying this story in the news thread)
Bush tells the press today that he believes that "Syria possessed weapons of mass destruction". When asked point blank if he was threatening military force, Bush simply said that Syria "must cooperate".
Earlier today Rumsfeld say there was "no question" that top Saddam loyalists were in Syria and that Syria was making "a lot of bad decisions". Powell offered his own comments saying that "We have designated Syria for years as a state that sponsors terrorism"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945045.stm
-------------------------------------------
So are we seeing the seeds planted for a future conflict this year or next between Syria and America? Moreover, could such a conflict have grave consequences for an already troubled region? Could it even provide the catalyst for a "United Arabia" to form, in the name of staving off the infidel crusaders?
My opinion: All signs point to yes.
Interestingly, I had a dream a few days ago, where, among other things, I saw that there was a great falling out amongst countries once thought our allies sometime in mid-August, followed by a great economic collapse sometime around mid-October. If this dream turns out to be prophetic, this great "falling out" could be triggered by a war with Syria.
Last edited by monkspider on 14-04-2003 at 08:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
I don't believe in an upcoming war with Syria.
- The international opposition will be much more stiff, as even UK might be against such a war, and since it has no chance whatsoever to be approved by the UN. The "coalition-of-the-willing-against-Syria" will be Uganda and of course Israel.
- Militarily, Syria hasn't been ruined by a previous conflict and 12 years of sanctions. They are much weaker than the US, but they'll have some troops that'll put up a fight.
- On the domestic area, Syria is infinitely less oppressive than Iraq, and the power lies' on the population's apathy rather than the population's fear. Unlike Iraq, there won't be a hate of the government to counterbalance antiamericanism, so the Civilian population will be hostile to the invaders.
- In the current situation, it will be hard to justify a war against Syria to the Americans, because there has been no previous demonization campaign against Bachar.
Until know, the Bush admin has always been limited to some extent in its moronicness. It would be utter cretinism to attack Syria now, and I think even your admin is unable to do such a stupidity. It doen't mean the diplomatic barking will end up any soon though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Yikes, there couldn't possibly be a war, but Syria's a big supporter of terrorism, maybe they might get some UN sanctions.
Of course 2 years ago I was saying we're never going to attack afghanistan and then we're never going to attack Iraq, so who knows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I am marginally for the Iraq war
I would be deadset against (protesting against) any Syrian war
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Promethus
|
 |
Battle Creek, Michigan
Jan 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
FRom the NYT
Syria Fears the Unknown: What's Behind U.S. Threats
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
AMASCUS, Syria, April 14 Last week, Syria's main scientific research institute staged its first air-raid drill in recent memory.
Damascus residents, who just days ago were either bemoaning the humiliation of Baghdad's rapid collapse or whispering about the chances of it provoking change at home, now wonder aloud if the United States Army plans to march on their city.
The Syrian foreign minister, Farouk Al-Sharaa, in his sole news conference since the war began, expressed bewilderment this weekend over what, exactly, Washington wanted from its barrage of threats against his country.
These are unsettled days in Damascus, a city that has long prided itself as the capital not just of Syria, but of all things Arab. The government of the young president, Bashar al-Assad, gained widespread popular support for its heated oratory against the United States over the war against Iraq. Indeed, hundreds of Syrian and other Arab volunteers rushed to fight in Iraq's defense.
But now Syria finds itself caught between burnishing its pan-Arab credentials by criticizing America and facing a new, painful fact: the United States is now on Syria's doorstep, across the border in Iraq, and the American administration has already shown it is ready to flex its muscles again even before the battlefield smoke clears.
Some reflective souls still muse about the chances of change in Iraq rattling the Baath Party's iron grip here, but the debate on possible American military action garners more attention.
"Some might believe that Rambo can move in many directions at once, but this is incorrect," Imad Fawzi Shueibi, a Damascus University professor and analyst, said on television last week. "Damascus has grown accustomed to political pressure."
Such confidence began to fray under the daily threats from Washington, however.
The warnings issued by President Bush himself, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior advisers mostly seem to reflect American concerns that the Iraqi leadership might escape to Syria. But for good measure, the Bush administration is warning Damascus, in terms once reserved for Baghdad, against providing a place where groups the United States accuses of terrorism might find weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, the Bush administration has made clear it is not contemplating military action against Syria.
The United States issued no specific details about which senior Iraqi officials might have gone to Syria. Diplomats report no confirmation that any of the 55 most wanted members of Saddam Hussein's government, including Mr. Hussein himself, have entered the country. Rather, there is a sense that the repeated American warnings could be preemptive or could be based on information that rarely surfaces publicly.
There have been scattered press reports in Europe and the Middle East suggesting two possible scenarios. First, that the Russian diplomatic convoy that was fired on as it left Baghdad on April 6 actually smuggled out several senior Iraqis. Second, that Mr. Hussein's first wife, Sajida, traveled through Syria on her way to Moscow with several daughters, grandchildren and truckloads of goods.
Syria denies that senior Iraqis of any stripe have crossed the border. When American military officials noted that one of Mr. Hussein's half brothers was caught Sunday near the Syrian border, Buthaina Shaaban, the foreign ministry spokesman, noted drily that he was still in Iraq.
Damascus seems the most likely haven due to its broadsides against Washington over the war. But Syrian officials argue that senior Iraqis would not be welcome here.
First, the two countries have long been ruled by bitterly competitive branches of the Baath Party. Baghdad used to refer to the late President Hafez al-Assad as the "dwarf ruler" for joining the military coalition to evict Iraq from Kuwait, although trade relations have improved dramatically in recent years.
Continued
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Promethus
|
|
Battle Creek, Michigan
Jan 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
Syria Fears the Unknown: What's Behind U.S. Threats
(Page 2 of 2)
In addition, there has also been a marked public backlash against the tens of thousands of Iraqis living here, with Syrians cursing them in the street for failing to go back to fight for their country.
As to the other accusations, Syria denies facilitating the travel of any volunteer fighters across the border or allowing weapons across. Top American military officers have said they know of no official Syrian role in recruiting volunteer fighters, although Syrian identification papers have been found on some of the dead.
But there is a belief in Washington that Syrian businessmen made a lot of money procuring banned goods for the Iraqi military, like night vision goggles. That trade could not have proceeded without at least the tacit knowledge of the government.
The United States has long accused Syria of having chemical weapons and the Scud missiles to deliver them, charges that Syria has always strongly denied.
Such issues used to be buried in the background when the United States was seeking Arab-Israeli peace. But they have gained new prominence since the Bush administration began focusing on Iraq and the whole question of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. The United States has long accused Damascus of supporting groups it calls terrorists, especially Hezbollah. But analysts here note how fast Washington turned to Syria for help in fighting Al Qaeda and how positively Syria responded to those requests for assistance.
Indeed, governments in the Middle East and beyond say they are at a loss to explain why the United States is being quite so vociferous in comparing Syria to Iraq. The brewing crisis with Syria has already alarmed moderate Arab states worried that a prolonged American presence in Iraq would create greater regional instability.
Mr. Hussein, they point out, was a vicious ruler bent on dominating the region. They believe Syria's sole regional objective is to get back territory occupied by Israel since 1967.
"They just want to get back the Golan Heights, not fight the United States," said Mohamed Ismail, the Egyptian ambassador in Damascus.
Syrians believe that what seems like an orchestrated campaign from Washington is intended to thwart that very goal. Having weakened the Arabs by occupying Iraq, they think the United States wants to undermine Syria.
"I tell you frankly, sometimes they don't know what they want," Mr. Sharaa said in a news conference on Saturday, the only time a senior official responded. "Sometimes they say you have weapons of mass destruction smuggled from Iraq to Syria, the next day, in the Israeli press, they say the opposite."
Mr. Sharaa said Washington had yet to present any evidence.
Washington's pique likely also stems from its experience with Syria's past record of wily meddling, in Lebanon and Iraq. Syria denied pumping some 200,000 barrels of Iraqi oil during the past two years bargain-priced oil that kept its economy afloat but put money in Mr. Hussein's coffers.
With the war, Mr. Assad made some rather pointed remarks, expressing the wish that the United States would either be defeated militarily or forced to flee by internal resistance. His comments clearly had some resonance across the Arab world. At a demonstration at Al Azhar mosque in Cairo last Friday, the chant booming off the walls was "Bashar, Bashar, set the world on fire!"
Some analysts believe that such popular sentiment will help Syrians overlook the fact that the president has not delivered much by way of promised economic or political change in the nearly three years since he inherited the presidency from his late father. But it clearly also drew the ire of Washington.
One Western analyst expressed puzzlement as to "why senior Syrian leaders had gone far beyond what was necessary to satisfy regional public opinion in backing the dying regime of Saddam Hussein."
"It would seem to leave Syria in a very exposed position," he said.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-04-2003 07:49
If the U.S. invades one more Islamic country, the Middle East could easily explode into one big religious war.
|