• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US weighs punishing Syria

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Link

US weighs punishing Syria
By JANINE ZACHARIA


WASHINGTON

Livid over Syria's sheltering of former Iraqi Baathists who are using Syrian territory to help organize the insurgency against US forces, Washington is contemplating a range of punitive measures to use against Damascus.

"It's clear we are heading into some kind of confrontation with Syria unless the Syrians reverse their policy," a senior government official told The Jerusalem Post.

The official, while not ruling out the possibility of military action, suggested that fresh sanctions could come first.

"Not all the sanctions have been imposed," the official said, referring to the Syria Accountability Act. In May, the US imposed bans on the export of military and dual-use items to Syria, on US exports other than food and medicine and on Syrian aircraft taking off or landing in the US.

Other sanctions available under the law are restrictions on Syrian diplomats operating in the US, a scaling-down of diplomatic contacts, and a total ban on US businesses operating in Syria, which already suffer severe limitations.

"Syria is becoming a sanctuary for hostile forces in Iraq ? Baathists, other kinds of terrorists, former regime elements. And they're using Syria to organize, train and do all sorts of things. This is not something that can continue without some major consequences in US-Syrian relations," the senior official said.

"It's not just about border control. It's about what the Syrian government is tolerating inside Syria," the official added.

The US has provided Syria with a list of people it would like to see detained who are either planning attacks against Americans in Iraq or raising money for the insurgency, but Syria has failed to honor Washington's request.

"We've given them a lot of specifics through different channels and we've made the general point that even if we given them a few names, it's about more than these names. Whatever specifics we give them does not exhaust their obligation to shut down all this activity," the senior government official said.

US officials have turned up the rhetorical heat on Syria in recent days, paying little attention to Syria's public declarations that it is committed to helping the interim Iraqi government succeed.

On Friday, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the US commander in Iraq, said the Iraqi insurgency was being run in part by former senior Iraqi Baath party officials who "are operating out of Syria with impunity and providing direction and financing for the insurgency." He acknowledged that Syria has increased its efforts to patrol its border with Iraq. "But they are not going after the big fish, which is really the people that we're interested in," he said.

You can talk to these fvckers until you are blue in the face. The only thing they will understand,,,,, is a bullet in the back of the head......
 
I think it was pretty obvious from the beginning that the Syrians were next on the Bush team's hit list.

Maybe the general public will be a little more leery of the Bush admins' distortions and innuendo this time around. Which is the totality of the linked article, anyway...

Probably not, though. The Admin has been entirely successful chumping the general public with their usual rhetoric, and judging from the results of the election, that's probably not changing anytime RSN...

 
Well we do already have the troops there. Itls kind of like we're already at the grocery store and the drug store we need to hit is right next door. You may we well go while you're right there and save yourself a trip back later.
 
Evildoers, here we come
Comment by Pepe Escobar

Asia Times

"Far more than the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the defeat of the mullahcracy and the triumph of freedom in Tehran would be a truly historic event."
- Michael Ledeen, neo-conservative and member of the American Enterprise Institute, June 2003

Iran is very much in the US spotlight at present over concerns that it is developing nuclear weapons, with much talk of "regime change". Over the next four years of the second George W Bush term, any of a number of countries could come into the crosshairs - Syria, Saudi Arabia and "axis of evil" original North Korea.

Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant-colonel responsible for "future warfare" at the Office of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and deputy chief of staff for intelligence before he retired, commented, "It's really difficult to exactly delineate who our enemies are, but they number in millions. They're Arab and Muslim ... Our enemy is the majority of the people who live in what we think of as the large Arab nations, plus certain other groups. Our enemy is concentrated in Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria, plus the Palestinians are part of it."

Bush has admitted on the record that the "minds" of his administration are "borrowed" from the right-wing think-tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which rents office space in Washington to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) - the people who conceived the Iraq war (see This war is brought to you by ... of March 20, 2003).

Vice President Dick Cheney's concentration of power under Bush II will be even more complete. Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld - despite Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the quagmire in Iraq - remains in place. The CIA under Porter Goss has been through a Soviet-style purge and is being turned into an ersatz Office of Special Plans (OSP), which everyone remembers was a Rumsfeld-sponsored operation that specialized in fabricating false pretexts for the invasion of Iraq. The OSP was directed by neo-conservative Douglas Feith (who now wants the US to attack Iran). The new CIA is Feith's OSP on steroids. Goss' job is to make sure the CIA agrees with everything Bush and the neo-conservatives say. Expect more wars.

The road to Damascus
The road to Damascus is the key node in the Bush/neo-con roadmap for a new Middle East. Some may think the road starts in Baghdad. Wrong. It starts, simultaneously, in Washington, Jerusalem and Beirut. And neo-con think-tanks, the Christian Right and ultra right-wing Zionists are busy mapping it. A key player to watch is neo-con David Wurmser, who has been a member of Cheney's staff since September 2003 and who has for years called for a strike against Syria.

Bush and the neo-cons must implicate Syria by all means available. This week Bush warned both Syria and Iran against "meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq" - as if Baghdad was the capital of Ohio. On a more serious note, Pentagon military intelligence officials suddenly discovered a few days ago that the Iraqi resistance "is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognized from Syria" and funded by "private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe".

The "evidence" was a global positioning system receiver found in a suspicious "bomb factory" in Fallujah with directions "originating in western Syria". This, Pentagon neo-cons say, proves that Syria hosts Iraqi "terrorists" - who are basically those same Ba'athist "remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime".

Jordan is not on the neo-con hit list. Of course not: Jordan is a neo-con ideal. The Hashemite monarchy is endlessly pliable; never emphasizes its Islamic credentials; has an acceptable degree of truculence (martial law has been in place for decades); has a very effective Mukhabarat (secret police); and never criticizes Israel's excesses in Palestine. King Abdullah is always a dependable propaganda asset: he has been insisting lately that "foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border [towards Iraq], they have been trained in Syria". The king also blamed Syria not long ago for being behind a huge al-Qaeda chemical weapons plot to bomb the US Embassy in Amman that, if successful, would have killed about 20,000 people. The US State Department was quick to add that the bombers were Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's people. So not only does Syria host Iraqi "terrorists", but it is also behind al-Qaeda.

King Abdullah also went on the record saying he does not welcome the inevitable Shi'ite government that will emerge from the Iraqi elections after January's elections, implying that a majority of Iraqis are Iranian agents. His father, King Hussein, would never be that sectarian. Of course it's a coincidence Abdullah said these words shortly after a meeting with Bush. The influential Hawza - the clerics at the Shi'ite "Vatican" in Najaf - responded in kind, basically accusing Abdullah and his family of always supporting Saddam and being submissive towards the Americans, adding sharply that the era of free oil from Iraq to Jordan (when Saddam was in power) is over.

Lebanon is often a neo-con target because of Hezbollah and because it's considered a Syrian satellite hostile to Israel. But now the Lebanese are taking matters in their own hands. All opposition forces are now united. Former president Amin Gemayel said this week the atmosphere was just like in 1943, "when all Lebanese fought side by side to get independence" from the French mandate. The leader of the socialist bloc, Walid Jumblatt, said he was "ready to go to Syria" to convey the message: the Lebanese want a "sovereign and independent state", which means a recognized political role for Hezbollah and no interference from Syria.

The neo-cons refuse to acknowledge the fact of a Sunni Iraqi war of national liberation. It's much easier to blame it all on elusive Syrians, evil Ba'athists still devoted to Saddam and Zarqawi - a renegade Jordanian. Ba'athists are only one component of the resistance, as they were the military establishment under Saddam. Moreover, the antagonism between Assad's and Saddam's Ba'athist regimes has always been visceral. Syria as a regime does not support the Iraqi resistance: a few individual Syrian jihadis do.

The road to Tehran
"Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the world's number one exporter of terror, hate and instability," Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told the United Nations General Assembly last September. This is Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the neo-con Likud agenda at work. One month later, Sharon said that "Iran is making every effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons, with ballistic means of delivery, and it is preparing an enormous terrorist network with Syria and Lebanon." This was, of course, the same Sharon who in February 2002 told the Rupert Murdoch-controlled London Times that "Iran is the center of 'world terror', and as soon as an Iraq conflict is concluded, I will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do list'."

In August, incoming secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was already bombarding the European Union's dialogue with Iran, saying "the Iranians have been trouble for a very long time. And it's one reason that this regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote, 'engaged'." The same Rice on September 2002 alarmed the world about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, with her "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

It's the same old script, or excuse for war: first Iraq, now Iran. Last month, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell even alarmed the world by saying Iran was working on nuclear missiles. He was relying on a single walk-in source with unverified documents. European intelligence officials in Brussels are certain the source was an Iranian exile briefed by neo-cons Richard Perle and John Bolton.

It doesn't matter that Iran has agreed - at least temporarily - to stop enriching uranium, in exchange for security arrangements, trade, investment and support for World Trade Organization admission offered by the European "Big 3" of Germany, France and Britain. In the neo-con master plan, Iran is doomed to be "shocked and awed" by 2006. The chatter at the AEI, the PNAC and other think-tanks has been thunderous for quite some time: Iran could be bombed from American bases in Iraq, in Pakistan, or from warships in the Persian Gulf. There are no illusions about it at the European Union headquarters. According to a EU diplomat in Brussels, "This bitter controversy over the Iranian nuclear program works as a smokescreen. The neo-conservatives are obsessed with Iran as a fundamentalist Islamic regime bound on exterminating Israel." Another diplomat adds that the question is not Iran's virtual nukes, per se, but how to cripple Iran as a military power: "It's the same agenda for Israel, the Pentagon and the White House National Security Council."

Neo-cons privilege a pre-emptive strike with missiles fired from warships in the Gulf against the Natanz and Arak plants south of Tehran. European intelligence has also identified another huge underground complex "with 1,000 gas centrifuges and components for the manufacture of 50,000 further centrifuges". Russian engineers are helping to build a heavy water plant at Arak. Other plants are at Arkadan, east of Natanz, and near the beautiful, historic city of Isfahan. The leaders in Tehran swear the whole program is developed for civilian use.

In another striking parallel to Iraq, the CIA does not know much about the current status of Iran's nuclear program, certainly not as much as the Europeans. But it seems to have successfully penetrated the roughly 800,000-strong Iranian diaspora in southern California, to the extent that a coterie of wealthy Iranians are eagerly plotting their return home as "liberating" heroes.

One strident player to watch is neo-con Frank Gaffney, who wrote on the National Review online that "regime change - one way or another - in Iran and North Korea, [is] the only hope for preventing these remaining 'axis of evil' states from fully realizing their terrorist and nuclear ambitions".

etc.
 
good for syria! who freaking cares. can the U.S. jsut start WW4 and blow up the world so we wont have talk about this mess anymore.
 
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.
 
Originally posted by: conehead433
You can bet GW is itching to attack Iran and Syria. Go figure. As he has stated himself, he is the WAR President.

UHH we cannot attack Iran in any way. It is much too powerful and big for us at the moment.

It will take a few seconds to conquer Syria however
 
If Syria is harbouring insurgents, then I think it would be appropriate to impose multilateral sanctions, and I think that most developped and even many transitional countries would agree.

Now, if only we had some international institution with the legitimacy to impose such a scheme. . .oh wait, the last 20 years of US foreign policy has made sure that doesn't exist anymore.
 
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: conehead433
You can bet GW is itching to attack Iran and Syria. Go figure. As he has stated himself, he is the WAR President.

UHH we cannot attack Iran in any way. It is much too powerful and big for us at the moment.

It will take a few seconds to conquer Syria however

Riiiight. Just like Iraq will be a cakewalk....You might try reading the news once in a while. The U.S. is stretched to the limit now militarily. Oh and the whole 'DUH... TURN "EM INTO GLASS!" thing is just rhetoric you and your red state neighbors talk about while drinking your PBR. 😀

IronMentality
Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

An industrial base is not required. What do you think we're up against, the Red Coats in a front to front battle?
How much of an industrial base did the Viet Cong have? Remember, they kicked the crap out of the U.S. ? Ringing any bells?
 
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

Don't you mean there's only so much conflict and turmoil we can take?
 
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

Don't you mean there's only so much conflict and turmoil we can take?

Bush is one extremist with an industrial base supplying him with weapons. His unprovoked aggression against Iraq is 21 months old today, yet the situation in Iraq is worse and worsening every day. But Bush isn't affected by the conflict and turmoil. As in the 60s he is quite safely removed from the effects of U.S. aggression. Even though, this time, it's his own.

Mission accomplished.

Bring 'em on.

What a disgrace.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

Don't you mean there's only so much conflict and turmoil we can take?

Bush is one extremist with an industrial base supplying him with weapons. His unprovoked aggression against Iraq is 21 months old today, yet the situation in Iraq is worse and worsening every day. But Bush isn't affected by the conflict and turmoil. As in the 60s he is quite safely removed from the effects of U.S. aggression. Even though, this time, it's his own.

Mission accomplished.

Bring 'em on.

What a disgrace.
When do you leave for Iraq to join the insurgency?
 
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

Don't you mean there's only so much conflict and turmoil we can take?

Exactly. The Iraqi resistance has nothing to lose. Why should they not blow up all the pipelines in Iraq since they are not benefiting from their oil anyway? Why should the Iraqi people let American extremists and imperialists control their country?

The Saudis have a saying: "My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son rides in a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."





 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

Don't you mean there's only so much conflict and turmoil we can take?

Bush is one extremist with an industrial base supplying him with weapons. His unprovoked aggression against Iraq is 21 months old today, yet the situation in Iraq is worse and worsening every day. But Bush isn't affected by the conflict and turmoil. As in the 60s he is quite safely removed from the effects of U.S. aggression. Even though, this time, it's his own.

Mission accomplished.

Bring 'em on.

What a disgrace.
When do you leave for Iraq to join the insurgency?


That's BS. A :cookie: for you. Just because people are against the Bush warmongering agenda, doesn't mean that they are anti US. Some of us didn't support this adventure before it started, during it's action, and would just as soon as hell get out and tell them to stick it up their @ss.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

Don't you mean there's only so much conflict and turmoil we can take?

Bush is one extremist with an industrial base supplying him with weapons. His unprovoked aggression against Iraq is 21 months old today, yet the situation in Iraq is worse and worsening every day. But Bush isn't affected by the conflict and turmoil. As in the 60s he is quite safely removed from the effects of U.S. aggression. Even though, this time, it's his own.

Mission accomplished.

Bring 'em on.

What a disgrace.
When do you leave for Iraq to join the insurgency?


That's BS. A :cookie: for you. Just because people are against the Bush warmongering agenda, doesn't mean that they are anti US. Some of us didn't support this adventure before it started, during it's action, and would just as soon as hell get out and tell them to stick it up their @ss.
What is the goal of the Iraqi Insurgency, Engineer?

And you know what to do with the :cookie: 😉
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
The Bush administration just doesn't seem to realize that the current situation with terrorism is not one where you deal with it by going balls out and throwing our weight around. This is not the standard "war" and the enemy will go for the nut-shot if given the chance. Extremists feed off conflict and turmoil, and we are giving it to him. Bush think's he's a cowboy, and the terrorists think they're Indians. Attacking Syria is just playing the game.

Extremists with there conflict and turmoil don't have an industrial base this time around supplying them with weapons, and there's only so much conflict and turmoil they can take before they there nuisance is reduced to a very minimal minimum.

Don't you mean there's only so much conflict and turmoil we can take?

Bush is one extremist with an industrial base supplying him with weapons. His unprovoked aggression against Iraq is 21 months old today, yet the situation in Iraq is worse and worsening every day. But Bush isn't affected by the conflict and turmoil. As in the 60s he is quite safely removed from the effects of U.S. aggression. Even though, this time, it's his own.

Mission accomplished.

Bring 'em on.

What a disgrace.
When do you leave for Iraq to join the insurgency?


That's BS. A :cookie: for you. Just because people are against the Bush warmongering agenda, doesn't mean that they are anti US. Some of us didn't support this adventure before it started, during it's action, and would just as soon as hell get out and tell them to stick it up their @ss.

Ozoned has asked me that question on several occassions. He's trying to get me to react to his inflammatory gargabe, but my only reaction is amazement at his ignorance. He ignores the fact that the only people truly responsible for U.S. troops deaths in Iraq are the liars that sent them over there in the first place and the idiots who continue to support those liars.

 
Back
Top