Syria next?

  1. SYRIA COULD BE NEXT
    http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...935959,00.html

    Syria could be next, warns
    Washington

    Ed Vulliamy in Washington
    Sunday April 13, 2003
    The Observer

    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.
    (Link above to read entire article)
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Apr 18, '03
    •  
  2. 50 Comments

  3. by   gotosleep
    here we go again
  4. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y



    Israel to U.S.: Now deal with Syria and
    Iran


    By Aluf Benn


    Two of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior aides will go
    to Washington for separate talks this week. National
    Security Advisor Efraim Halevy will discuss the regional
    implications of the Iraq war and the fall of the Ba'ath
    regime, and the prime minister's bureau chief Dov
    Weisglass will bring the White House Israel's comments
    on the "road map" plan for a peace settlement.

    Israel will suggest that the United States also take care
    of Iran and Syria because of their support for terror and
    pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Israel will point
    out the support of Syria and Iran for Hezbollah, which the
    U.S. considers an important target in the war against
    international terrorism.
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Apr 13, '03
  5. by   SmilingBluEyes
    If we go after every state/country/ that sponsors terrorism or gives them safe haven, we are in for a long haul. But I think that is what is going to happen. I think the groundwork has been/is being laid now.
  6. by   sjoe
    "Thought I'd stop by while I was in the neighborhood." Something will have to be done about that country, though, sooner or later.
  7. by   Mkue
    They would probably fit into the Axis of Evil.

    I agree with Deb, we are in for a long haul.

    I agree with sjoe too.
  8. by   rncountry
    We are in for the long haul. The President made that clear when he said the War on Terrorism would take us many places and could go for a long time. Can't remember exactly how he phrased it.
    Will we attack Syria at some point? Maybe, maybe not. I would guess that depends much on what Syria does in terms of their continued support for terrorist activities. Don't forget Syria occupies part of Lebanon as well as actively supporting Hezbollah(can't decide just how that is spelled)
    I hope sincerely that Syria will back off of that support.
  9. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2926845.stm
    Analysis: Gearing up for the 'road map'

    By Barbara Plett
    BBC Middle East correspondent

    Both the Israelis and Palestinians are gearing up for the moment when
    attention shifts from Iraq back to them.

    From an Israeli point of view this involves efforts to change the terms of the
    much vaunted "road map" to peace, from a Palestinian point of view it involves
    making the most of a bad deal.

    The road map is a three phase diplomatic plan drawn up by the Americans,
    Europeans, Russians, and United Nations (the so called quartet) meant to lead
    to a full Israeli Palestinian peace treaty in three years.
    -----------------------
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2940081.stm
    What next for the Middle East?

    By Justin Webb
    BBC Washington correspondent

    US President George W Bush surprised everyone with his announcement
    just before the war that he was to push ahead with the long-planned Middle
    East road map.

    The British Government portrayed the statement as real progress - a sign that
    Mr Bush was on board.

    Now that the dust is settling in Iraq, is that pre-war assessment true?

    David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East
    Policy, said: "This administration really believes that after this war is over that
    this is going to be an area of focus.

    "So, in the near term I think the road map provides a political context for a
    reinvigorated Israeli-Palestinian dialogue.

    The neo-conservative view is that one should not expect concessions from Israel until such time as the situation on the Palestinian side - and perhaps more broadly in the Middle East starting with Iraq and continuing with Syria and Iran - has been cleansed of any threat to Israel's existence," he said.
    Arab Americans fear Mr Malley is right and not just because of the neo-conservatives.

    The Arab American Institute's Jean AbiNader says the famed Israeli lobby is already working hard to kick the road map - even when it is published - into the long grass.
  10. by   rncountry
    Is this really Sharon speaking? Could be a breathe of fresh air.

    Mideast - AFP

    Sharon sees deal with Palestinians "faster than people think"
    Sun Apr 13,11:02 AM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!



    JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) said that after the US-led war in Iraq (news - web sites) has shaken up the Middle East there was an opportunity for an agreement with the Palestinians sooner than expected.


    In an interview with the daily Haaretz, Sharon said that after the "shock" that had run through the region with the US take-over of Baghdad, "there is therefore a chance to reach an agreement faster than people think."


    "We face the possibility that a different period will begin here. The move carried out in Iraq generated a shock through the Middle East and it brings with it the prospect of great change," he told the newspaper.


    "I think opportunities have currently been created that did not exist before. The Arab world in general and the Palestinians have been shaken, he said.


    "One has to view things realistically," said the 75-year-old former general, in his first major interview since the Iraq war began. "Eventually there will be a Palestinian state ... I do not think we have to rule over another people and run their lives."


    Sharon refused to give details of whether he was planning to evacuate specific Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, but reiterated that he was ready to make "painful concessions."


    "We are talking about the cradle of Jewish civilisation. Our whole history is bound up with these places. Bethlehem, Shiloh and Beit El," he said, referring to the reoccupied Palestinian self-rule town south of Jerusalem and two West Bank settlements.


    "And I know we will have to part with some of these places. There will be a parting from places that are connected to the whole course of our history. As a Jew, this agonises me," he said.


    Sharon has long been a champion of the settlement movement, but earned the wrath of Jewish settlers in the Sinai when he oversaw the uprooting of fledgling communities there after the signing of a peace accord with Egypt in 1979.


    And in his latest interview, he stressed a number of conditions, including an end to anti-Israeli attacks by Palestinians, as a precursor to an agreement.


    He said he had informed US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) that he would make no concessions regarding Israel's security.


    "We will be the ones who in the end decide what is dangerous for Israel and what is not dangerous for Israel."


    Sharon was guarded in praise for moderate new Palestinian prime minister Mahmud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, who has called for a suspension of attacks on Israel by armed Palestinian factions.


    "Abu Mazen understands that it is impossible to vanquish Israel by means of terrorism," he said.


    He stressed that for any agreement to come between the two sides, who have been fighting for two and half years with more than 3,000, mostly Palestinians, killed, the Palestinians would have to carry out sweeping reforms, curb "terrorism," and stop all incitement to violence.


    But he said he was determined to "to make a real effort to reach a real agreement."


    Sharon's new foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, was headed for Turkey, another important US ally in the region, to discuss the possible fall-out of the war in Iraq, which ended the regime of President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).





    With coalition troops almost entirely in control of Iraq, Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz on Sunday ordered the army to lower its level of high alert against a possible missile attack.

    In Ramallah in the West Bank, officials said that Abbas had presented a first draft of his new cabinet to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites), who was said to be "not happy" with some of the names.

    One official said that former Gaza preventive security chief Colonel Mohammad Dahlan, with whom Arafat had a falling out last year before he left his post, was tipped as heading the internal security forces that would crack down on militant groups.

    A number of Arafat loyalists had been reshuffled but could remain in the cabinet, which was to be presented to Fatah (news - web sites)'s Central committee later Sunday.

    "Arafat will make a big fuss but in the end he will agree," said one official who asked not to be named.

    Bush has promised to publish a long-delayed international peace "roadmap," setting out the steps to Palestinian statehood, once the new cabinet is formed.
  11. by   Disablednurse
    What I said in another post is the truth. Bush wants to be ruler of the world. We have gone to war with Iraq under the premise that they had Weapons of mass destruction, got started and it was changed to Iraqi Freedom. Now he is threatening Syria with war on the grounds that he knows they have weapons of mass destruction. Maybe he needs to find them in Iraq before he starts another war with someone else. He has taken 115 children from people in our great USA, is that not enough? We still have MIAs and only by the grace of God got our POWs back. Bush needs to give it a rest. He is not "boss of the world", even though he wants to be.
  12. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by rncountry
    I hope sincerely that Syria will back off of that support.
    Ditto Helen.
  13. by   gotosleep
    Originally posted by mkue
    They would probably fit into the Axis of Evil.

    I agree with Deb, we are in for a long haul.

    I agree with sjoe too.
    I'm fairly sure that this phrase "Axis of Evil" may be one of the stupidest comments made by GWB in the last 3 years. It has sent us back diplomatically about 20 years.
  14. by   molecule
    no sense in sending troops home while Syria is just next door to Iraq, especially since we stlll need to find the materials President Bush specified in his State of the Union address: 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and nerve gas. maybe it has all been moved to Syria.
    who knows, perhaps even OBL is hiding out there in Syria! we have already angered and alienated most of the world, and although we said we wouldn't we've hired back 2,000 police to keep order in Iraq, the statues are are toppled, contracts have been promised, oil fields are secure, our work is done so let's keep rolling, let's get our focus somewhere else, let's keep singing "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.."

close