Syria Next?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Syria Next?
5
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 11:57am
Bush administration completes get-tough plan for Syria.

Apparently war with Iraq and Afghanistan is not enough. There are still a few dollars left in the entitlement budgets, if we reduce SS and DI and Medicare to zero then we have enough budget to start wars with Syria, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Venezuela, ... And apparently one new terrorist breeding ground, in Iraq, isn't enough for the Bush Leaguers, they're looking to create a second. Whoops-I forgot-the Syrians will welcome us with flowers and democracy will flow...

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Tuesday, September 28, 2004

The Bush administration has drafted contingency plans for bringing military and economic pressure against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Officials said the administration has determined that diplomacy has failed to resolve U.S. concerns that Syria has been working to destabilize the interim government in Iraq.

They said the Assad regime has been harboring senior operatives of Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, regarded as the most lethal insurgent in Iraq, aides to Saddam Hussein as well as Iraqi nuclear scientists as part of a Syrian policy coordinated with Iran.

On Monday, the State Department reiterated its criticism of Syria for its harboring groups deemed as terrorists, Middle East Newsline reported. The department refused to condemn the Sept. 26 assassination of a Hamas leader in Damascus in a car-bombing attributed to Israel.

"If Americans are dying in Iraq because of Syrian policies, then this is something we are not going to tolerate," a senior official said.

The official, who refused to be identified, did not report any progress in U.S. efforts to end Syria's support of the insurgency movement in Iraq or other issues in dispute between Damascus and Washington. Sept. 24: U.S. military intelligence: Saddam transferred WMD to Syria Officials warned that unless Syria changes its policy within the next few weeks, the administration would consider economic and military measures against Damascus that would intensify in 2005. They said the Defense Department has drafted a range of military options meant to put Damascus on the defensive and encourage insurrection within Syria.

Last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised Syria's redeployment of more than 3,000 troops in Lebanon and suggested the onset of a new atmosphere in relations.

"I can't go into details on this, but they gave me some information with respect to financial activities and how we can cooperate more fully on that," Powell said in a Sept. 24 meeting with the New York Times editorial board. "We're looking at ways to improve our intelligence exchange."

Two weeks ago, Syria and the United States met in Damascus in what officials termed was a hard-nosed review of bilateral relations that focused on the Assad regime's policy in Iraq.

The U.S. delegation, headed by Assistant Secretary of State William Burns contained members of the Pentagon, White House and National Security Council.

The talks reviewed Syrian WMD programs, support for the insurgency in Iraq and Syria's harboring of billions of dollars sent by the Saddam Hussein regime in 2002 and 2003.

"What we said in Damascus is that this has to stop," the senior official said. "Our message to Syria was a warning that this is very serious. Because this means Syria shares responsibility for the killing of Americans and Iraqis, and it has to stop."

At the meeting, Damascus agreed to participate in talks with Iraq and U.S. Central Command to launch cooperation that would halt the flow of insurgents and weapons from Syria, officials said. Officials said the Assad regime was warned that the failure of the military talks, which began on Tuesday in Damascus, could trigger what they termed a major deterioration in U.S. relations with Syria.

"Our job is to convince them that the risk of undermining us is much greater than the opposite," the senior official said.

During the September meeting in Damascus, officials said, the U.S. delegation presented the Assad regime with evidence of Syrian government aid to the insurgency movement in Iraq. The delegation argued that Syria has intensified its support of Al Zarqawi and pro-Saddam forces in an effort to torpedo Iraqi elections scheduled in January 2005.

"It's not just a question of border control," the senior official said. "Institutions within Syria are actively colluding with our enemies in Iraq."

"Terrorists and their supporters beget a cycle of violence that is best addressed through the end of support of terror," State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said. "We have made it clear that in numerous meetings with the Syrians that we think it's in their interests, in the interests of the region, to end support for terrorist organizations and terrorist individuals operating from their territory."

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
In reply to: dablacksox
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 3:42pm
I believe Clark, while pushing his book on "The Daily Show" mentioned that his informants in the Pentagon were suggesting that Iran would be next. When I told this to my neighbors from Iran, they said they had heard Syria. And of course there's North Korea...

I ask you, what's next? Are we going to take on China for being Communists or using too much Oil? How about India for stealing our jobs? Who knows, maybe Bush will invade Canada for infringing on our borders? Good Grief. Let's finish one mission before we start 10 more! I guess Iraq is going so badly Bush will invade any country until he looks like a great conquering war hero. Then may I suggest we invade Haiti? After the destruction from the hurricanes, we might stand a chance there.

Yeah, I feel safer with Mr. Half-cocked in office. Either he's wearing rose colored glasses or he's doing drugs again.

I'll pray this is all just rumor...

Avatar for momeebear
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: dablacksox
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 4:05pm
Can't take on China-----we owe them too much money!!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
In reply to: dablacksox
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 7:51pm
"I ask you, what's next?"

I am honestly at a loss to understand the thinking of these jackasses that run this country. Every argument that has been advanced as a cause to justify the war in Iraq could have been substituted for with a well-crafted surgical action. The infamous "terrorist training camp (that was in Kurdish territory and not under Baghdad's control)" could have been taken out with a well planned air strike (which it was, after they got the war they so desperately wanted).

So now we have Iraq, completely out of control, a breeding ground for terrorists, 1,054 dead American servicemen, and they want to do the same thing in Syria. Albert Einstein once said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

I'm going to preface this by saying I don't support either side, the Palestinians or the Israelis, or rather I support both sides, some way needs to be found for both sides to live in peace. But it seems to me that our government believes that we should be sacrificing American lives for Israel. And since Israel is already one of, if not THE, largest recipient of American foreign and military aid, I see no reason why we should be sending American men and women off to die for Israel. Which is what this war in Iraq and any war in Syria is REALLY all about.

The Middle East is very similiar to the Balkans. The carnage in Yugoslavia has it's roots in conflicts that are hundreds of years old (the old joke about the Balkans is that they have so much history they have no future). I really don't understand how either Israel or this country thinks they are going to win a pure military victory over the Intifada and the Palestinians.

The Republican party has 2 wings, and in this case I think they both coalesce. There is a libertarian wing of the party, and I wonder if they support this sort of military adventure because they are Social Darwinists, and as such secretly love chaos, because it weeds out the "inferior" and allows the "more highly evolved (socially)" to progress at a faster pace than they would have ordinarily. This is why they oppose social programs in this country, these programs interfere with the natural order of Social Darwinism, Dickens not withstanding.

The other wing is the religious right (Christian), and I frankly wonder if they support what is going on in, and what is proposed in, the Middle East because they believe it will hasten the Apocalypse, which they see as an overall positive event, because they believe they will be Raptured before the S*** really hits the fan.

Hopefully the mess in Iraq will give this administration pause to stop and think, but I doubt it. Just as they ignored reality in favor of everything they THOUGHT was going to happen in Iraq, as viewed through their rose colored glasses, I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that by taking out Syria or Iran, Iraq will be placated somehow. Just as was supposed to happen when Saddam was captured.

Of course, this is the same crowd who claimed that:

* The Iraqis would welcome us with flowers

* Democracy would flower in Iraq and spread throughout the Middle East

* The insurgancy would collapse once Saddam was captured

* The Palestinians would be so terrified of American resolve in Iraq they would sue Israel for peace.

and on and on. They were just so sure all this would happen, even though there was nothing to support any of this.

"Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind, but certainty is absurd."--- Voltaire

At this point I don't know WHAT will happen in Iraq, or what good will come out of it. In a sense the best thing that could happen to the right wing would be a Kerry victory, because by 2008 there would be thousands and thousands of right wing web sites claiming Kerry was the one who invaded Iraq, with reams of "proof".


Edited 9/29/2004 7:52 pm ET ET by dablacksox

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
In reply to: dablacksox
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 8:14pm
Oh and don't forget Mexico is right under us. ;) XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: dablacksox
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 10:17am
It seems to be a panic rumor being spread by the Kerry supporters to try to persuade people from voting for Bush.

Bush said in several interviews that he will exhaust all diplomatic opportunities with Iran and North Korea before thinking of any next step, which in my opinion is the right thing to do, and besides, with the nuclear power plant, I think Israel will take that out before we can even get our troops moving towards Iran.

He has not said anything on Syria yet, but I dont know if he has been asked about them.