Syria could be next, warns Washington

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
The United States has pledged to tackle the Syrian-backed Hizbollah group in the next phase of its 'war on terror' in a move which could threaten military action against President Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus.

The move is part of Washington's efforts to persuade Israel to support a new peace settlement with the Palestinians. Washington has promised Israel that it will take 'all effective action' to cut off Syria's support for Hizbollah - implying a military strike if necessary, sources in the Bush administration have told The Observer .

Hizbollah is a Shia Muslim organisation based in Lebanon, whose fighters have attacked northern Israeli settlements and harassed occupying Israeli troops to the point of forcing an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon three years ago.

The new US undertaking to Israel to deal with Hizbollah via its Syrian sponsors has been made over recent days during meetings between administration officials and Israeli diplomats in Washington, and Americans talking to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. It would be part of a deal designed to entice Israel into the so-called road map to peace package that would involve the Jewish state pulling out of the Palestinian West Bank, occupied since 1967.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has so far rejected the road map initiative - charted by the US with its ally, Britain - which also calls for mutual recognition between Israel and a new Palestinian state, structured according to US-backed reforms. The American guarantee would be to take armed action if necessary to cut off Syrian support for Hizbollah, and stop further sponsorship for the group by Iran.

'If you control Iraq, you can affect the Syrian and Iranian sponsorship of Hizbollah, both geographically and politically,' says Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution think-tank in Washington.

'The United States will make it very clear, quietly and publicly, that Baathist Syria may come to an end if it does not stop its support of Hizbollah.'

The undertaking dovetails conveniently into 'phase three' of what President George Bush calls the 'war on terror' and his pledge to go after all countries accused of harbouring terrorists.

It also fits into calls by hawks inside and aligned to the administration who believe that war in Iraq was first stage in a wider war for American control of the region. Threats against Syria come daily out of Washington.

Hawks in and close to the Bush White House have prepared the ground for an attack on Syria, raising the spectre of Hizbollah, of alleged Syrian plans to wel come refugees from Saddam Hussein's fallen regime, and of what the administration insists is Syrian support for Iraq during the war.

Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - regarded as the real architect of the Iraqi war and its aftermath - said on Thursday that 'the Syrians have been shipping killers into Iraq to try and kill Americans', adding: 'We need to think about what our policy is towards a country that harbours terrorists or harbours war criminals.

'There will have to be change in Syria, plainly,' said Wolfowitz.

Washingtom intelligence sources claim that weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was alleged to have possessed were shipped to Syria after inspectors were sent by the United Nations to find them.

One of the chief ideologists behind the war, Richard Perle, yesterday warned that the US would be compelled to act against Syria if it emerged that weapons of mass destruction had been moved there by Saddam's fallen Iraqi regime.


http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,935943,00.html
 
I can see why the US wants to invade Syria, it wants it huge reserves of Oil as usual:rolleyes:


Mideast-oil-map.jpg

Look at all this oil.
 
Syria would be a much different war than Iraq. They have 50x the hardware Iraq did. It's been the primary distribution point for hardware to the Palestinians where Iran has been key in the area of funds. If we actually take on Syria i have little doubt Lebanon and Egypt will be next. Why Egypt? Because the government will no longer be able to control the uprisings in that nation.
 
Syria? Resisting? No kidding, let us just ask the Israeli's and the Mossad and Syria and Damascus will be under Israeli control in 3 days flat.

The biggest irony of it all is that Syria is on the U.N.'s Security Council. Hmm, what happens if one SC member invades another SC member?

I can see why the US wants to invade Syria, it wants it huge reserves of Oil as usual :rolleyes:
Lol, of course, it *must* be the oil.
 
ol' man said:
I can see why the US wants to invade Syria, it wants it huge reserves of Oil as usual

We control Iraq & are allied with Saudi Arabia remember. We need to invade Syria for gypsum & salt.
 
US outlines litany of charges against Damascus, but skirts question of new war

President George W. Bush warned Syria on Sunday not to harbor Iraqi leaders and charged that Damascus has chemical weapons, but was careful not to threaten military action.

"They just need to cooperate," Bush said.

Bush sought to strike the kind of measured tone he has used when discussing the North Korea crisis.

"We expect cooperation, and I'm hopeful we'll receive cooperation," he told reporters after returning to the White House from Camp David.

However, some top administration officials made plain the administration is increasingly frustrated by Syria.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq were from Syria, brought in by the "busloads." On one bus, military authorities found leaflets that offered rewards for killing Americans, and several hundred thousand dollars, Rumsfeld said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

Rumsfeld also said top members of Saddam's government had fled to Syria.

US-led forces captured one of Saddam Hussein's half brothers in northern Iraq, and said he was planning to cross the border to Syria.

Rumsfeld last month warned Syria to stop sending military equipment - including night-vision goggles - to Iraqi forces, saying "We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments."

Asked Sunday whether Syria had heeded those demands, Rumsfeld said, "Not noticeably."
Bush and Rumsfeld were ambiguous about what price Syria might pay for defying the United States, but seemed eager to make sure that Damascus understood the message in the coalition's toppling of Saddam.

"People have got to know that we are serious about stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction," Bush said.

Noting during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Syria is on the State Department's list of countries that sponsor terrorism, Rumsfeld said: "Being on the terrorist list is not some place I'd want to be. The (Syrian) government's making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgments calls, in my view, and they're associating with the wrong people."

Following Rumsfeld on the NBC show, Syria's deputy ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said the administration's flurry of charges was a "campaign of misinformation and disinformation" meant to divert attention from the "human catastrophes" taking place in wartime Iraq.

Moustapha called the administration's charges "false accusations."

No member of the Iraqi leadership has fled into Syria, he said.

However, Iraq's UN ambassador, Mohammed Al-Douri, arrived in Syria Saturday, a day after leaving New York. It was not immediately clear when or whether he would return to Iraq.

Moustapha said Syria has a liberal immigration policy, and did not deny that Al-Douri was in Syria.

The deputy ambassador also invited international inspectors to scour his country, but seemed to tie the offer to similar inspections elsewhere in the region, including in Israel.

"Israel is the country that is stockpiling nuclear weapons," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1050200305457
 
“We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria,” Mr Bush said. “We expect co-operation and I’m hopeful that we will receive co-operation.”

He did not threaten Syria with military action, but told it, along with Iran and North Korea — who, with Iraq, form his “axis of evil” — that the example of Iraq shows “we’re serious about stopping weapons of mass destruction”.

General Tommy Franks, commander of coalition troops in Iraq, said that it could take a year to search every site in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction might be hidden. He said that up to 3,000 locations are earmarked for visits which are progressing at the rate of five to 15 a day. He added that Syrian fighters had joined Iraqi soldiers to fight inside Iraq.

US Intelligence has given warnings that Damascus has a nascent chemical and biological weapons programme, but the accusation has never before been made publicly by the Bush Administration.

Times
 
General Tommy Franks, commander of coalition troops in Iraq, said that it could take a year to search every site in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction might be hidden. He said that up to 3,000 locations are earmarked for visits which are progressing at the rate of five to 15 a day. He added that Syrian fighters had joined Iraqi soldiers to fight inside Iraq.

I guess this means all that intelligence that you were sure they had didn't really exist....and you promised it to us....

US Intelligence has given warnings that Damascus has a nascent chemical and biological weapons programme, but the accusation has never before been made publicly by the Bush Administration.

I hope this isn't more of that same intelligence......:retard:
 
Squiggy said:
it could take a year to search every site in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction might be hidden. He said that up to 3,000 locations are earmarked for visits which are progressing at the rate of five to 15 a day.

Where is the lack of intel...if they don't find any, then we'll know. Right now it a crap shoot for where.
 
Then it wasn't intel. It was a guess based on his attitude. You have always asserted that Bush had intel he wasn't going to tell us about and that was why you were willing to place your blind faith in him. Any idiot could've played the 'probably' game. Once again you are backtracking on the complete confidence you displayed before it started.
 
I'm convinced they are they. The problem is where are they hiding them (syria comes to mind) or any number of vast underground places we know & many yet to be discovered.
 
Think of the area littered by shuttle debris. It took how many people how long to find what percentage of the debris?Debris that, for the most part was just lying on top of the ground.

Now take the area of land occupied by Iraq. How many people searching? For disguised stuff, that's been expertly hidden, possibly for decades. A bunker in the desert would have been totally concealed within hours in a sandstorm. Not to mention that Saddam probably had his people playing shellgames for the past years. Look at how they're turning up canisters of ??? but surrounded by enviromental suits. The canisters may not have held WMDs, but the people handling them probably didn't know that.
 
Prof, Powell showed up at the UN touting photos of supposed permanent sites that we observed with satelites. We find 3 ships at sea with those same cameras and even track trucks through Iran. And suddenly we have no idea where we were speaking of?

Gonz, that sounds like another convenvient claim for plausible deniability. Are you going to make me search out the threads where you stated with complete confidence that Bush knew where these weapons were? Or would you just admit that you gave him more credit than he deserved?
 
And suddenly we have no idea where we were speaking of?

I'm not sure if your being fascisious or not. That they had photos, granted. That they know where the locations are? I'd imagine so. Do they have access to those sites yet? Beats me. That they suddenly can't locate those sites, geographically? Rediculous.

That the weapons they supposed were located in those sites aren't there? Well, if Saddam gets cable, I'd doubt seriously that they would be. The man may be a total nutter, but he's not an idiot.
 
True....he wouldn't even need cable. His ambassador could have snail mailed the photos to him quick enough. :retard:
 
Back
Top