bluelight

has now declared they are in on the Iraq ì side.Thousands of people have passed the Syrian borders to go to Bagdad to support Iraq.

And ...no....saying...we`ll nuke them...or similar...will not solve the situation....

Im sorry...


Bluelight

Falstaff

I know this sounds wierd, but people have been traveling to Syria all the time, thre press declared that young men from Syria, mainly displaced IRAQI's, and I say "so what". This operation in IRAQ is wrapping up now, their efforts will be futile. Perhaps they want to be there when Saddam's regime finally crumbles so they can rebuild as well, nothing new..

__________________

Falstaff

Iraq should be run by Iraqis' - PM 13:44, Apr 2 2003

Iraq should be run by Iraqi people as soon as possible after the war ends, the Prime Minister has insisted.

At Commons question time, Mr Blair said he favoured a "broadly representative" Iraqi government that protected human rights - rather than the country being run by the UN or the coalition.

Challenged by Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith about the post-conflict situation, he said, to murmurs of support from Labour backbenchers: "As soon as possible, Iraq should not be run either by the coalition or by the UN - it should be run by Iraqis.

"It should be run by Iraqi people on basis of a broadly representative government that protects human rights and that is committed to peace and stability in the region.

"I am quite sure that is what the vast majority of the Iraqi people want to see."

The Prime Minister said that people in southern Iraq were increasingly expressing their commitment to ousting Saddam Hussein as they became more confident that the allies were there to stay.

Mr Blair added that Britain had "absolutely no plans" to invade Syria or Iran in response to their alleged assistance of Baghdad.

FuNsTeR

aye and do you think his master Bush will listen to him .... 6 months after the war their will be more McDonalds/KFC franchises than any part of the world with a Disney world in Baghdad ana .... Iraq Will be run by a US puppet with yank military bases all over the place

__________________
"They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

merry

BBC News

This last one has a special meaning from a country who is at war with neighbouring Iraq...

The volunteers won't count, agreed, but the Syrian army?

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

JavaFox

I think you people are overreacting, just like many people do with North Korea. This is just sabre-rattling on Syria's part. Of course the Arab World wants to show its solidarity. I doubt that much will come of "Syria's support," though. It's kind of like how Saudia Arabia hasn't been saying much recently... but have been letting us use their airspace. "The Arab World" pretends to be unified, but in reality, they aren't

Falstaff

again, your are correct...someone else who reads the news,!!

__________________

bluelight

Well you are both.....wrong.....sorry.


Syria....is the only country that has actively and openly given support for Saddam in this very situation of war.


The rest of them....are mumbling their support foir Saddam very quietly since they are tied up between their own public opinion...and their tight ties to you...or out of fear of having the same treatment themselves.



No...it is not likely Syria will declare war against USA.But the opposite..wouldnt surprise me given what your goverment has declared to be their foreign politics and its goals.


Bluelight

Falstaff

Syria, isn't the melting pot of Muslim sentiment. In fact, if you pay your taxes and stay out of anyones way, you can harbour any fugitive you want...Weapons, young men and fundamentalist rhetoric has a habit of leaking out of the borders of Syria, regardless of what the moderate government says...money talks and moderate bull excrement walks....syria is not what it seems...

__________________

Falstaff

Contrary to other Arab countries who support terrorism and carry out attacks almost openly, for many years Syria has attempted to conceal its direct involvement in terrorism. The Syrians have, therefore, since the 1970s, prevented the staging of terrorist attacks against Israel from Syrian territory, and have preferred to act indirectly through Palestinian and other terrorist organizations. Despite Syria's "indirect involvement" strategy (and perhaps because of it), President Assad's operatives have had a hand in numerous terrorist attacks in the world, in general, and in the Middle East, in particular. Comparing Syrian strategy to that of Libya, former Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Levy said in May 1986: "Syria is more dominant, more sophisticated and less vociferous than Libya, but it is not less responsible than Libya for terrorism."

Syria, then, sees in the strategy of "indirect involvement" a convenient and preferred method of achieving its aims, both in the international and inter-Arab arena, and against Israel. Syria, thus, takes great care to avoid public exposure, and it strives in various ways to conceal its responsibility for terrorist attacks around the world. The main method Syria uses to achieve this end is the exploitation of terrorist organizations under its influence, Palestinian and other, for the actual execution of attacks. In this context, it is possible to distinguish between two types of organizations under Syrian control:

Palestinian terrorist organizations totally dependent upon Syria: These organizations receive heavy (and sometimes total) support from Syria and are incapable of acting independently. They depend on Syria in every way: economically, militarily and politically, and their operations are under constant Syrian scrutiny.
Palestinian and other terrorist organizations that benefit from Syrian aid: These organizations receive ad hoc military and financial assistance from Syria. Syria allows them to train in its territory and set up offices and bases in its towns. Such organizations, however, are not completely under Syrian control, and they may act independently.
Syrian occupation of most Lebanese territory, since the early 1970s, had enabled it to dictate to the many terrorist organizations there how and when to operate. The Syrian military presence in Lebanon has also made it possible for Syria to provide organizations under its influence with military and strategic backing; intervene in disputes between organizations; penalize organizations or leaders who have deviated from the standards set by Syria; and carry out terrorist attacks against Israel, not originating from the Israeli-Syrian border in the Golan Heights.

Though Syria's main involvement in terrorist activity around the world is allegedlly indirect, through numerous subordinate terrorist organizations, in some cases it is not averse to carrying out terrorist attacks directly, using Syrian operatives, military facilities and embassies throughout the world. To this end, and in order to better coordinate and direct the activities of satellite terrorist organizations, Syria has established a multi-faceted military and intelligence apparatus responsible for terrorist activity.

Syrian money and weapons and support is funneled through it's borders only find its place on the streets of Jeruselum, Lebanon, and in the hands of the Al Quida..

bluelight

I never sdaid Syria is moderate.

Syria is a dictatorship.

One of those you dont support.


Bluelight

Smoothdrive

I think most Arabs are caught between Supporting the US or supporting Saddam..while actually they hate both.

It's only human to support the underdog....the secret of the Rocky saga...during the first Gulf war i was tempted to be on Saddam's side..only reason being my youth and lack of knowledge about the dispute at the time...when you just watch the news and don't check a thing about the conflict i can see how one would support Saddam. So i Understand the common Arabs to be in favour of poor Saddam against the agressor..Like we support the US as best of 2 bads they support Saddam as best of 2 bads..It's up to the aggresor to proof them wrong when this war is over..failing to do so will cause more problems than leaving Saddam in his seat.

__________________
GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

bluelight

They do not support Saddam.The general feeling in muslims countries is....Saddam is a pig.

However they dislike the idea of having Usa rignht in the middle of them all writing the terms for them all which is what usa has declared they will do.


That is also thew reason why a UN led coalition (which would eventually have been built had it not been that Usa dictated the terms) would have been better.


A UN led coalition ...would have been accepyted better by both the Iraq`i people,the muslim nations and the major part of the rest of the globe.


Bluelight


Bluelight

Falstaff

has already proved that it is politically impotent

__________________

bluelight

The Un is always dependent on the will of each of its separate memebrs.

If...we restrict ourselves to Iraq...then the case is....Usa decided to attack Iraq long before they put the iisue on the table of the UN.

That means in reality....Usa did bypass the UN.

This is also how the issue is seen in practically the whole world.Also in most of the nations that are part of the current coalition.

Similar things were done by the Soviets before so you are not alone in "protecting your interests" by bypassing the UN.It is normal superpowwer behaviour.



Un becomes what one makes it.If the interests of one nation is in conflict with what the UN thinks...then one either..dumps the UN..oron compromises.

The question is...in the long run...which is best for the worlds deveklopment politically as a whole??


Bluey

Falstaff

The U.N. remains powerless

__________________

bluelight

At the moment as so often before...thanks to you.The UN does not support your ambitions to rule the world.

These ambitions are real and exists.



Bluelight

Falstaff

Ruling the world? no way, we would be hard pressed to improve our international standing among nations in the "FREE" world. After IRAQ, and this will be soon, we will surely attempt to eliminate other threats, hopefully more covertly rather than invading a country. I believe that after our demonstration of resolve, perhaps other nations may curry favor with the Coalition. It is a well know fact that many countries that "barely tolerate" our prescence, would surely not turn away our investments and support should they be threatened. I know it's been said that we are trying to remake the U.N. in a new image, but the world is rapidly changing and the potentiol for it careen headlong into another third world war is fairly great in my opinion. I still remember Bush seniors "thousand points of light" and his speech on a new world order. We might even use the Reagan model, That scares me, but it helped bring down the Berlin Wall..

__________________

bluelight

Well i dont see it as if you brought down the Berlin wall.

It pretty much crumbled by itself since it was constructed by plaster and not concrete.

Claiming Reagan won some sort of war against Soviet is not true.

The Soviet system was bankrupt long before Reagan came into office.It was just a matter of time before it fell.....and it did.

It didnt fall due to competuition in arms race with Reagan.They never even tried to follow his lead...there was..no capability to follow so how could they even try??

The system was rotten and it would have fallen anyway.

Bluelight

Falstaff

But it fell during Reagans administration, and is considered an aspect of his legacy. He addressed the world with a speech about it, and it is often used as a sound bite here, I know it was going to fall anyway, but former residents of East Germany that I have met remark postively about the fact that Reagan played a role, albiet, not as a conqueror, but as a supporter for peace, especially between the Russian government and the U.S., It may contradict statements he made about Soviet Russia being an evil empiore, but things have surely changed, now Moscow, despite its history, has become very much like any western city in many respects...times sure have changed since I was a young man...

__________________

Falstaff

now that Russia and the U.S. see eye to eye on many foreign and domestic issues, that somehow, many Arab countries feel disenfranchised somehow, having to get weapons from their neighbors or N.Korea or even former soviet satellites, Syria surely must be purchasing thier weapons from a variety of sources..

__________________

Falstaff

Syrian WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION
Syria Presses Chemical Weapons, Expresses Interest In Bio Warfare

Contact: Mark Schoeff Jr. 202-775-3242, Anthony Cordesman 202-775-3270


Report now available on the CSIS Web site (www.csis.org) under "Strategic Assessment" projects

Syria and Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/
reports/syriaWMD.pdf

Anthony Cordesman
CSIS Burke Chair in Strategy

Washington, July 11, 2000 — Syria possesses chemical weapons and has expressed interest in biological warfare, according to a new CSIS report. Syria has improved its radar and targeting capabilities and has developed a significant long-range air strike capability, all of which pose a significant threat to Israel, Anthony Cordesman, CSIS Burke Chair in Strategy, writes in his report. It can be accessed at www.csis.org.

Cordesman includes in his report an article about biological warfare written by Syrian defense minister General Mustafa Tlas that recently appeared in an Iranian journal. “Syria has a major interest in biological warfare, and the fact that [Gen. Tlas’s] article first appeared in public in an Iranian journal may not entirely be a coincidence,” Cordesman writes.

“A new North Korean missile gives Syria the capability to strike at any part of Israel as well as its other neighbors, and Syria has long-range drones that can assist in targeting such missiles. It can cover all 11 of Israel’s air bases, all of the 15-odd main armories for Israel’s armored forces, and all major reserve force assembly areas,” Cordesman writes. “The new missiles have better range payload, reliability, and accuracy than the extended-range Scuds that Saddam Hussein used in the Gulf War. Most experts believe that these missiles are armed with VX nerve gas warheads -- joining the large number of sheltered Scud missiles with nerve gas warheads that Syria already deploys. They may well use bomblets to deliver such gas over a wider area. The possibility of biological warheads cannot be dismissed, although Syria is more likely to use the latter weapons in bombs or a covert delivery system.”

Cordesman is an adjunct professor of national security studies at Georgetown University and was the national security assistant to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He has served in senior positions in the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy and in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.