Discussion:
US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria
(too old to reply)
torresD
2004-12-25 07:58:49 UTC
Permalink
US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria
Janine Zacharia, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 24, 2004

The US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory in an attempt
to kill or capture Iraqi Ba'athists who, it believes, are directing at
least part of the attacks against US targets in Iraq, a senior
administration official told The Jerusalem Post.

The official said that fresh sanctions are likely to be implemented,
but added that the US needs to be more "aggressive" after Tuesday's
deadly attack on a US base in Mosul. The comment suggested that the US
believes the attack on the mess tent, in which 22 people were killed,
may have been coordinated from inside Syrian territory.

"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the
Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take
cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In
other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when
you're being attacked from safe havens across the border - we've been
through this a lot of times before - we're just not going to sit
there.

"You get a tragedy [like the attack in Mosul] and it reminds people
that it is still a very serious problem. If I were Syria, I'd be
worried," the senior administration official said.

Another US official said that sentiment reflects a "growing level of
frustration" in Washington at Syria's reluctance to detain Ba'athists
and others who are organizing attacks from Syrian territory. The
official cautioned, however, that whether to take cross-border
military action is still a matter of discussion within the
administration and that a military incursion is still "premature."

The senior official said US anger increased substantially after a
prolonged incursion into Fallujah last month, which revealed "how much
of the insurgency is now being directed through Syria." The US has not
publicly detailed the evidence it has regarding the extent to which
attacks are being organized from within Syria. But a report in The
Times of London on Thursday suggested not only that Syria is becoming
a base for Iraqis to operate, but that Syrian officials are themselves
involved.

The newspaper said Iraq had confronted Syria with evidence that
included photographs of senior Syrian officials taken from Iraqi
fighters captured during the Fallujah offensive. It also said US
marines in Fallujah found a hand-held global-positioning system
receiver with waypoints originating in western Syria and the names of
four Syrians in a list of 27 fighters contained in a ledger.

On Sunday, the Post reported that the US had provided Syria with a
list of people it would like to see detained but that Syrian
authorities have so far been unresponsive. The Post quoted a senior
government official predicting a confrontation with Syria "unless the
Syrians reverse their policy." US forces already operate along the
Syrian border with Iraq, conducting air and mobile patrols.

This week, US President George W. Bush warned of possible new
sanctions on Syria. "We have tools at our disposal, a variety of tools
ranging from diplomatic tools to economic pressure. Nothing's taken
off the table," he said.

And in an interview with a Lebanese newspaper, Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage echoed the threat of new sanctions. In
particular, Armitage said Washington wanted action taken against
fugitive officials of the ousted regime, who remained at liberty in
Syria and who "seem to us to be responsible for funding anti-US
attacks in Iraq." "We want them to turn off this faucet," said
Armitage, according to the paper's Arabic translation of his remarks.

Syria says it is doing all it can to prevent insurgents from crossing
the Syrian border into Iraq and insists it would need more help to
confront the problem. It also says it is being unfairly singled out
whereas Ba'athists and others feeding the insurgency are hiding in
other countries in the region.
Sanders Kaufman
2004-12-25 14:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by torresD
US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria
Janine Zacharia, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 24, 2004
"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the
Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take
cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In
other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when
you're being attacked from safe havens across the border - we've been
through this a lot of times before - we're just not going to sit
there.
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
If he was *really* interested in the welfare of the soldiers, he'd quit
having them murder, rape, torture and maim innocent Iraqis.
Post by torresD
But a report in The
Times of London on Thursday suggested not only that Syria is becoming
a base for Iraqis to operate, but that Syrian officials are themselves
involved.
Of course, *every* MidEast offical (not just Syrians) are involved in the
Bush Oil Wars.
Post by torresD
This week, US President George W. Bush warned of possible new
sanctions on Syria. "We have tools at our disposal, a variety of tools
ranging from diplomatic tools to economic pressure. Nothing's taken
off the table," he said.
It's totally insane of Bush to think that starving the Syrians, the way his
family starved the Iraqis, is going to win their support.
Sam Stone
2004-12-25 19:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
Fuck you to HELL sandra you worthless leftist WHORE!
JB the 3rd
2004-12-26 16:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by torresD
US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria
Janine Zacharia, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 24, 2004
"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the
Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take
cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In
other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when
you're being attacked from safe havens across the border - we've been
through this a lot of times before - we're just not going to sit
there.
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
UNfortunately, he has shown that he can borrow (in our names) as much as he
wants to pursue his Crusade. We don't have the resources for the Iraq
invasion/occupation (without borrowing extreme amounts) and that didn't stop
him or even slow him down, unless you count providing armor for the troops.

jb3
Sanders Kaufman
2004-12-26 16:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JB the 3rd
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
UNfortunately, he has shown that he can borrow (in our names) as much as
he wants to pursue his Crusade. We don't have the resources for the Iraq
invasion/occupation (without borrowing extreme amounts) and that didn't
stop him or even slow him down, unless you count providing armor for the
troops.
Yeah, but he can't borrow enough to buy all the human beings he would need.
The cancerous mass of folks who support Bush, do so only as long as nothing
is asked of them.

.
Sam Stone
2004-12-26 17:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
The cancerous mass of folks who support Bush, do so only as long as nothing
is asked of them.
Whereas you commies have alist of demands.
grandwazoo
2004-12-27 05:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Stone
Post by Sanders Kaufman
The cancerous mass of folks who support Bush, do so only as long as
nothing is asked of them.
Whereas you commies have alist of demands.
At this point in history, only the fascist are making demands.
SMITH29
2004-12-27 02:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by JB the 3rd
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
UNfortunately, he has shown that he can borrow (in our names) as much as
he wants to pursue his Crusade. We don't have the resources for the Iraq
invasion/occupation (without borrowing extreme amounts) and that didn't
stop him or even slow him down, unless you count providing armor for the
troops.
Yeah, but he can't borrow enough to buy all the human beings he would need.
The cancerous mass of folks who support Bush, do so only as long as nothing
is asked of them.
..
xxxx

You silly :-)

29
Steven L.
2004-12-27 16:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by torresD
US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria
Janine Zacharia, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 24, 2004
"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the
Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take
cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In
other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when
you're being attacked from safe havens across the border - we've been
through this a lot of times before - we're just not going to sit
there.
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
The U.S. Air Force could launch a series of punishing air raids on
Syrian military installations.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Sanders Kaufman
2004-12-27 17:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
The U.S. Air Force could launch a series of punishing air raids on Syrian
military installations.
You make a good point.
He could *start* a war.

If he follows this Naziesque pattern of delcaring war against one country
after another (without provocation) nuclear bombs will start going off all
over the place.
The war against the People of Iraq was supposed to *prevent* such an
eventuality.

Meanwhile, Governor bin Laden of North Pakistan will find recruits for al
Quaeda even *easier* to find.
The war against Afghanistan was supposed to *prevent* just such a thing.
paul
2004-12-27 18:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
The war against Afghanistan was supposed to *prevent* just such a thing.
thank you for reminding me what a terrible failure Afghanistan has been...
what with the successful elections, and the peace and all.

what will you do when the Iraq elections come off well? heh!

paul
arizona
Sanders Kaufman
2004-12-27 19:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by paul
Post by Sanders Kaufman
The war against Afghanistan was supposed to *prevent* just such a thing.
thank you for reminding me what a terrible failure Afghanistan has been...
what with the successful elections, and the peace and all.
Unfortunately - the GOAL was to get the ones responsible for 9/11.

It's inuman to kill so many tens of dozens of thousands of innocent people
for these NEW reasons you Bush Loaylsits are coming up with.
In the old days, the winner of a war got to write the history books - and
you could have gotten away with that crap.

But your fundamental failure to acknowledge that we live in a global village
has left you vulnerable.
You don't seem to understand that the whole world is watching it live on TV.

Meanwhile, bin Laden is going to go to sleep tonight, unchallenged by his
victims in the US.
Tomorrow he'll wake up refreshed, planning *new* attacks against the US - as
Bush has repeatedly told us is inevetable.
Christo-Republicans seem to be fine with that.
Sam Stone
2004-12-28 01:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's inuman to kill so many tens of dozens of thousands of innocent people
...to liberate 25 million....
Sam Stone
2004-12-28 01:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
this Naziesque pattern
GODWIN'S lAW.
Wonko The Sane
2005-01-09 00:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by torresD
US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria
Janine Zacharia, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 24, 2004
"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the
Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take
cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In
other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when
you're being attacked from safe havens across the border - we've been
through this a lot of times before - we're just not going to sit
there.
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
If he was *really* interested in the welfare of the soldiers, he'd quit
having them murder, rape, torture and maim innocent Iraqis.
Yes we do. We just can't put any ground troops in.
We will have to settle for pounding the Syrians from the air.
Might convince them to round up those old Saddamies
and hand them over!
Sanders Kaufman
2005-01-09 04:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wonko The Sane
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
If he was *really* interested in the welfare of the soldiers, he'd quit
having them murder, rape, torture and maim innocent Iraqis.
Yes we do. We just can't put any ground troops in.
Good pointe. You Bush Loyalists can START lots of wars. You just can't
seem to win any of them.
grandwazoo
2005-01-09 09:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Wonko The Sane
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
If he was *really* interested in the welfare of the soldiers, he'd quit
having them murder, rape, torture and maim innocent Iraqis.
Yes we do. We just can't put any ground troops in.
Good pointe. You Bush Loyalists can START lots of wars. You just can't
seem to win any of them.
They already blew any chance of winning this thing. Setting aside the
lies that got us there and perverse philosophy of bringing about a
democracy by force, this administration has done everything to sabotage
any hope of success. We will be forced to end this thing without
accomplishing our goals beyond removing Saddam and Co. I would not be
surprised to see Saddam obtain 20% or 30% of a protest vote. I will also
say that we will see a changing goal post, as the public relation arms
of this administration tells us that we achieved the goals and we went
home victorious. This thing is a failure and need to be stopped. This
administration made sure we can't save it and there is nothing but
heartbreak ahead (the stupid mutherfuckers). It will just take some time
for US Americans to admit and demand we get out. And it will happen.
Wonko The Sane
2005-01-11 23:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Wonko The Sane
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
If he was *really* interested in the welfare of the soldiers, he'd quit
having them murder, rape, torture and maim innocent Iraqis.
Yes we do. We just can't put any ground troops in.
Good pointe. You Bush Loyalists can START lots of wars. You just can't
seem to win any of them.
They already blew any chance of winning this thing. Setting aside the lies
that got us there and perverse philosophy of bringing about a democracy by
force, this administration has done everything to sabotage any hope of
success.
The war started with Bush making it clear that we
were not doing any nation building. Some voices within
his own administration and in Iraq must have begged for
a chance at building democracy there.
I hope they make it, but its not really our call is it?
Keeping the terrorists busy on their turf instead of ours
is my definition of winning. Success in building a
democracy would be a win for Iraqis. I personally
don't think its wanted by a majority of them.
I think any one of the lot of them would happily
assume the role of pimp daddy supreme and to
hell with their 'countrymen'.
Steven L.
2005-01-12 00:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wonko The Sane
The war started with Bush making it clear that we
were not doing any nation building. Some voices within
his own administration and in Iraq must have begged for
a chance at building democracy there.
I hope they make it, but its not really our call is it?
Keeping the terrorists busy on their turf instead of ours
is my definition of winning. Success in building a
democracy would be a win for Iraqis. I personally
don't think its wanted by a majority of them.
I disagree. I think most Iraqis do want it. Since Saddam was deposed,
they have enjoyed the freedom to speak and run newspapers and TV
stations and I think they want to keep it that way.

The main problem that Iraq has, is that there is no such country as
"Iraq"! It was Mesopotamia, and what we call "Iraq" was the concoction
of European colonialists. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis don't fit
together naturally. Under Saddam who was Sunni, the Sunnis enjoyed a
privileged elite status. Now with a Shiite majority, that will be gone.
That's why the Sunni Triangle is a hotbed of violence. They have the
most to lose from a new Shiite-dominated government.

So in our "nation building," we're trying to maintain this artificial
concoction of "Iraq" that has no historical justification.

These kinds of artificial concoctions often fall apart when the threat
of brute force is removed. Just look at what happened to Yugoslavia.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
grandwazoo
2005-01-12 05:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wonko The Sane
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Wonko The Sane
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Fortunately for Americans, Bush doesn't have the resources to start
*another* war.
If he was *really* interested in the welfare of the soldiers, he'd quit
having them murder, rape, torture and maim innocent Iraqis.
Yes we do. We just can't put any ground troops in.
Good pointe. You Bush Loyalists can START lots of wars. You just can't
seem to win any of them.
They already blew any chance of winning this thing. Setting aside the lies
that got us there and perverse philosophy of bringing about a democracy by
force, this administration has done everything to sabotage any hope of
success.
The war started with Bush making it clear that we
were not doing any nation building.
The nation building comment was during the 2000 Campaign. Since, Bush
has made other claims for his purpose, such as bringing freedom and
democracy.
Some voices within
Post by Wonko The Sane
his own administration and in Iraq must have begged for
a chance at building democracy there.
I hope they make it, but its not really our call is it?
Absolutely it is our call, unfortunately the majority voted Bush.
Post by Wonko The Sane
Keeping the terrorists busy on their turf instead of ours
is my definition of winning.
Sorry, a roach-motel for terrorist was never a stated goal. Although if
the intention is to maintain chaos, they are a success. The ambassador
from Israel to the US, Mr. Pinkus(sp) when confronted with the idea of
chaos for Iraq, said something to that effect. What's wrong with that?

Success in building a
Post by Wonko The Sane
democracy would be a win for Iraqis. I personally
don't think its wanted by a majority of them.
I think any one of the lot of them would happily
assume the role of pimp daddy supreme and to
hell with their 'countrymen'.
That appears to be where it will head. I believe there is democratic
movement there with the unifying theme of opposing the occupation. We
have used the term insurgency, that underestimates the problem.
Sanders Kaufman
2005-01-12 09:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wonko The Sane
Post by grandwazoo
They already blew any chance of winning this thing. Setting aside the
lies that got us there and perverse philosophy of bringing about a
democracy by force, this administration has done everything to sabotage
any hope of success.
I hope they make it, but its not really our call is it?
Keeping the terrorists busy on their turf instead of ours
is my definition of winning. Success in building a
That's an cowardly and evil way to address terrorism.
Iraq was not "their turf" until Bush made it so.

It's reprehensible that Americans drew al Quaeda down upon the Iraqis.
bin Laden didn't decide to send terrorists into Iraq - the Americans did.
Every Muslim knows this to be true.

paul
2004-12-25 15:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Merry Christmas TorresD. May Gods blessings find you and warm your heart
this holy day season.

paul
arizona
Post by torresD
US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria
Janine Zacharia, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 24, 2004
The US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory in an attempt
to kill or capture Iraqi Ba'athists who, it believes, are directing at
least part of the attacks against US targets in Iraq, a senior
administration official told The Jerusalem Post.
The official said that fresh sanctions are likely to be implemented,
but added that the US needs to be more "aggressive" after Tuesday's
deadly attack on a US base in Mosul. The comment suggested that the US
believes the attack on the mess tent, in which 22 people were killed,
may have been coordinated from inside Syrian territory.
"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the
Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take
cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In
other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when
you're being attacked from safe havens across the border - we've been
through this a lot of times before - we're just not going to sit
there.
"You get a tragedy [like the attack in Mosul] and it reminds people
that it is still a very serious problem. If I were Syria, I'd be
worried," the senior administration official said.
Another US official said that sentiment reflects a "growing level of
frustration" in Washington at Syria's reluctance to detain Ba'athists
and others who are organizing attacks from Syrian territory. The
official cautioned, however, that whether to take cross-border
military action is still a matter of discussion within the
administration and that a military incursion is still "premature."
The senior official said US anger increased substantially after a
prolonged incursion into Fallujah last month, which revealed "how much
of the insurgency is now being directed through Syria." The US has not
publicly detailed the evidence it has regarding the extent to which
attacks are being organized from within Syria. But a report in The
Times of London on Thursday suggested not only that Syria is becoming
a base for Iraqis to operate, but that Syrian officials are themselves
involved.
The newspaper said Iraq had confronted Syria with evidence that
included photographs of senior Syrian officials taken from Iraqi
fighters captured during the Fallujah offensive. It also said US
marines in Fallujah found a hand-held global-positioning system
receiver with waypoints originating in western Syria and the names of
four Syrians in a list of 27 fighters contained in a ledger.
On Sunday, the Post reported that the US had provided Syria with a
list of people it would like to see detained but that Syrian
authorities have so far been unresponsive. The Post quoted a senior
government official predicting a confrontation with Syria "unless the
Syrians reverse their policy." US forces already operate along the
Syrian border with Iraq, conducting air and mobile patrols.
This week, US President George W. Bush warned of possible new
sanctions on Syria. "We have tools at our disposal, a variety of tools
ranging from diplomatic tools to economic pressure. Nothing's taken
off the table," he said.
And in an interview with a Lebanese newspaper, Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage echoed the threat of new sanctions. In
particular, Armitage said Washington wanted action taken against
fugitive officials of the ousted regime, who remained at liberty in
Syria and who "seem to us to be responsible for funding anti-US
attacks in Iraq." "We want them to turn off this faucet," said
Armitage, according to the paper's Arabic translation of his remarks.
Syria says it is doing all it can to prevent insurgents from crossing
the Syrian border into Iraq and insists it would need more help to
confront the problem. It also says it is being unfairly singled out
whereas Ba'athists and others feeding the insurgency are hiding in
other countries in the region.
justme
2004-12-26 02:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Great! Maybe they can take out a few mosques on the way in.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...