Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WAR: USA to Impose Sanctions on Syria

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
America has for the first time come forward to say that they will impose sanctions on Syria in the near future. Syria who was ordered by the US to remove all Palestenian terrorist leaders and Hizbullah members has yet to do so. "Asked whether the US intends to begin implementation of the Syria Accountability Act sometime in the near future, Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "Yes. We're examining now what sections of the act we want to use."
 

"The act, signed in December by President George W. Bush, directs the president to ban US sales of weaponry and dual-use items items that could be used for civilian or military purpose unless Syria abandons its support for terrorism, removes its troops from Lebanon, stops the flow of terrorists into Iraq, and abandons its pursuit of nonconventional weapons.

It also calls on the president to impose two or more sanctions from a list of six: an export ban; ban on US businesses operating in Syria; restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the US; exclusion of Syrian-owned aircraft from US airspace; a reduction of diplomatic contacts with Syria; or freezing of Syrian assets in the US. "



www.freerepublic.com...

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Dreamz]

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I think freezing the assets would do quite nicely in this case.



posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   
freeze the assets?
screw that! take the damn assets and divide them up between the families of fallen coalition troops!



posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Precursor to.....?
Afghanistan ---->Iraq---->Syria(?)----->?

Whats that saying: "anybody else wanna negotiate"

Let's remember these recent unmentioned articles:
"Catch-22"
www.worldnetdaily.com...

"Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria"
www.debka.com...

"IRAQ TRANSPORTS WMD TO SYRIAN, TURKISH BORDERS"
www.menewsline.com...

"U.S.:Syrians hiding Iraqi weapons for cash"
www.upi.com...


And just as Clinton and Congress ratified the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.....the stage is set for Syria:
Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003"
www.2la.org...

Passed by Congress on/in April of 2003 and recently signed in December 2003 by the current president: Mr. Bush.

This is merely speculative, nonetheless. I just found it interesting that the media was 'planting' these mis-direction or mis-information stories of Iraq's WMD being shipped/moved out of country to namely countries and nations like Syria (Bakaa Valley, Kay's mentioning of three known sites in Syria, etc). Like I just mentioned, merely speculative.


regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I agree , the tables are being set for a American or Coalition invasion of Syria. I fully expect to be at a full out war with Syria by the 1st quarter of 06' if Bush is elected again.
I am not sure of all the "facts" but Syria is a "true" terrorist sponsered state unlike Iraq which was merely a WMD (supposedly) regime. Israel probably would do the deed for us for a bag of doritos, but the backlash would be twice as harsh as a American invasion.



posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I think this is crazy... Bush can't keep running around attacking anyone he likes... the 'Terrorist' Syria harbours are Iraqi RESISTANCE fighters and Palestinians fighting against the Israeli occupation... SCREW THE USA!!! if they keep this up the already strong anti-US feeling around the world is going to grow with each nation they invade and impose their values on... I'm happy that the USA is signing its own death warrant... just not about the way they are doing it



posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
So your freedom fighters include people who kill innocent civilians, babies, mothers and etc....Hizbullah is a terrorist entity and is occupied and supported by Syria. There is a difference between resistance fighters and terrorists and the difference is once you involve direct involvement of killing innocents you lose all credibility as a resistance fighter and therefor become a terrorist. Hizbullah has been on America's terrorist list for years, well before Sept 11th. And Syria has been a state sponser of terrorism well before Sept 11th.

Id Syria is indeed holding Iraqi "resistance" fighters as you call them, then our soldiers IMO have every right to go and kick the # out of them before they get our soldiers. Sorry if I sound harsh , but our soldiers and our people are #1 on my mind. No life is insignificant, but when I have to choose between our soldiers and some "resistance" fighter as you call them, I will rake our soldiers every time.



posted on Feb, 12 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
specialasianX?

What do you consider to be the "occupied lands"...."the Israeli occupation"?

Judea, Samaria and Gaza? All of Israel? Something else? And what does this have to do with sanctions against Syria?


regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   
If terrorism involves killing civilians then the USA are terrorist for bombing Iraq (for no good reason that has been justified), and Israel are Terrorists forkilling Palestinian civilians... i'm not saying i approve of the tactics the Palestinians or Hezbolah use, but i feel their cause is as just as Israels or the USA's (Hezbolah i do see as terrorists as they arent defending their lands but are helping the Palestinians this is what seperates them from the Resistance of Iraq and the freedon fighters of palestine). The Israelis were given land in palestine by foreign nations that should not have hadthe right to distribute the land like that... that aside they then proceeded to take more land which they still occupy... I'm not saying the violence is Israels fault, i'm not saying its the plaestinians fault...

Invading Syria though is ridiculous in my eyes just becasue they habour some 'Terrorists' i'm sure many arab nations would like to see George Bysh arrested and tried in their countries... but because they dont have the power to do so they cant. What gives the USA the right to impose their values on other nations? But like i said all this will do is increase the anti-US sentiment around the world



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Wow. The next invasion is starting up very quickly.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Iraq had a 12 year binding agreement with the International body known as the UN that they constantly failed to comply with. Because we had what seems like bad intelligence on WMD's still does not discount the fact that Iraq broke international law after law. The vote for "severe consequences" in 1441 was passed unanimously in the UN. Everyone knew what the severe consequences were. The onus was on Saddam to prove he had destroyed WMD's or supply info on where they were. He failed to provide documentation and Hans Blix even wrote a report in Jan of 02' that stated that over 7500 tonnes of WMD's were unaccounted for.
Because we havent found WMD's doesnt take away the fact that he broke international law constantly while sanctions were imposed.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
What gives the USA the right to impose their values on other nations?


Im all for respecting the values of other countries and cultures, but that respect dries up fast when those countries and cultures start exporting violence and death.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
But the Us exports violence and death too, they've probably killed more civilians than all the 'terror' groups put together



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Shall I remind you this is about sanctions?



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Well, I guess I'll be adding Syria to my list of foriegn countries to visit.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
specialasian, i think a good portion of american citizens have come to the realization that the rest of the world is going to hate them regardless of what they do. people like you hold protests even when the government does food drops for countries in africa. every single day another american citizen ceases to care about the "international community's" opinions on them.

I have always found it amazing that these nations full of critics will mercilessly mock our president and our government and our citizens yet happily cash our checks. If you think all americans are "fat and stupid" or if you think america is a nation of tyrants bent on world domination, stand up for yourself and return all aid you receive from america. Who wants blood money?? If all of the countries truly believe that america is as evil as they claim, then they should be repulsed by american money. I, for one, would not take money from a convicted murderer for a job. So if they feel that way, they should do the same.

Until the "international community" shows some guts, I really just have to say that I'm on the list of Americans that simply can not take the international criticism seriously. Keep bitching about us while we feed your kids and pay for your infrastructure and build up your businesses. It's funny.

[Edited on 2-13-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
If the U.S invades Syria they will defiantly be doing it without the U.K. There is no way the U.K population will stomach another invasion and the government knows it.

Personally I think the 'weapons moved to Syria' idea is bunk and is just part of laying the groundwork to justify the invasion. It would be funny though if they invaded Syria and found nothing too. Then it would be 'ah, but Syria moved them to *insert next target here*' I know Syria has its own chem and bio weapons though.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Lebanon???
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I know we talk a lot about Syria as the next target of US invasion but I believe we will see North Korea dealt with first. Mainly because they are ruled by a dictator, who has no regard for his own people but thanks to Pakistan has a nuclear weapon. He is also someone who requires his people to treat him as a GOD and if you believe in your mind you are a GOD and you feel you may lose power over your country why not use the ulitmate weapon. Maybe not against us but what about Japan, if you read the DPRK web sites and follow the news they publish it is easy to realize just how "demented" this man is.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
North Korea has come around quite a bit since last year and IMO will be dealt with diplomatically. War on the Korean penninsula is probably the last thing Bush wants.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join