It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Okay... who's next? Oh, Syria... right!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:13 AM

US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict
From Tim Reid in Washington

Bush accuses Damascus of developing chemical weapons

PRESIDENT BUSH yesterday accused Syria of having chemical weapons. In the clearest sign yet that Washington is turning its sights on Damascus? links to terrorism, two of his most senior Cabinet members also warned the country against harbouring Iraqi officials.

Mr Bush told Syria that it ?must co-operate? with Washington as it continues its effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein?s regime in Iraq.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 08:53 AM
well, we all said this wouldnt stop months before. I think that it will be somewhat like they did with Iraq, only this time they have to prove they WERENT helping Iraq. I dont know about Syria, but Iran has stated that it would arrest and jail any Iraqi Ministers that crossed it's borders.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 08:54 AM
the jugment day is at hand

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:05 AM
I have a VERY bad feeling about this. If we go into Syria what do you think the odds are they release CMB's on Israel? My guess would be be they'd do it in a heartbeat to draw the rest of the ME into the conflict.

Scary story William... scary story.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:16 AM
I think this conflict has been building for quite some time. The war of words is heating up and may erupt if Syria doesn't comply with U.S. demands.

As Observer mentioned, should Israel be attacked and retaliate (and they would) the whole place will explode.

I'd be interested to know what type of actual Intelligence the U.S. has about Syrian activities.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:27 AM
You guy's aren't seriously surprised now are you?

The US is gonna invade not only Syria, but also Iran.
It's so obvious. I do however have doubts about NK, they are very smart. But made a bad move with restarting their (military) nuclear reactor.

They will blame Syria for hiding Iraq's WMD. And will blame Iran for their (secret) nuclear program.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:35 AM
No I'm not surprised at all. When the BBC reported that British Intelligence had information about Syrian involvement with Iraq by accepting transfers of Iraqi WMD - I commented then, that Syria placed themselves on America's hit list.

Recent words between the U.S. & Syria seem to indicate that push is coming to shove now and a showdown is eniment.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:42 AM
I am not at all suprised just fearful, that's all. I knew this was going to happen but I guess I was hoping to see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drawing to conclusions before the admin set its sights west of Baghdad. I fear how thinly spread our military is. Which by the way leaves the homefront more suseptible to attack.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 01:15 PM
Don't be fearful. Nobody else over there has anything close to what Saddam had militarily speaking. I think Syria and Iran will wise up. Sounds like North Korea has taken notice too. All I heard is how Saddam was going to be such a chore to overthrow and how he would launch missles galore into Kuwait and Israel. The thing is, a lot of things happened in there that will never be told and I'm sure he thought he had the capabilities to do all those things. Its kinda like he pushed the button but instead of launching a missle, he got squirted in the face with lemon juice. See, we aren't stupid by any means. We can sit here and guess about these guys but there are military people that know exactly how big and bad all these guys harboring terrorist are and now they know that we know it. I expect Syria will be coughing up any of Saddam's guys along with any weapons he stashed there plus a few Alqeada guys too. Believe me, nobody else wants on the receiving end of what Saddam got.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 01:19 PM
um, syria may not have a big army as iraqs, but they DO have chemical weapons, legally, and they DO have scuds legally. scud + vx + israel = ouch! syria could be a devastating enemy in an out with a bang situation. they will probably give us a little more trouble in the air too, although i know nothing about the syrian air force, if they even have one.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 01:24 PM
We shouldn't be worrying about whether Syria has Chemical weapons. It's not our place to tell them to disarm. They made no such agreement, unlike Iraq. They may support terrorism, but that doesn't require an invasion to fix.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:00 PM
If Bush has any brains (don't ask me) he'll move next to Isreal/Palistine which would circumvent most other Middle East problems. Or at least remove the excuse used for most middle eastern problems.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by phoenix_cross
um, syria may not have a big army as iraqs, but they DO have chemical weapons, legally, and they DO have scuds legally. scud + vx + israel = ouch! syria could be a devastating enemy in an out with a bang situation. they will probably give us a little more trouble in the air too, although i know nothing about the syrian air force, if they even have one.

i had the info about syrian airforce some where ill look it up, i think they got the sa-10 grumble SAM systems.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:32 PM
I guess it is too late for that!!!

Syria is not a threat, only a menace. They support terror. They are guilty of that. Yet war is not the way to handle that situation. War is blind punishment upon humanity. Terror supporters are not humanity.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:38 PM
Syria's officials have stated that if the US invades, they will launch Nukes at Isreal.This is what Isreal has said in return:
"Israel is not looking for an escalation with Syria but Damascus is playing with fire by threatening us with its terror arsenal," a senior official close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told AFP.

"We warned Syria against the temptation to attack us during the war in Iraq. That would be an even greater mistake for them after the victory of the coalition" of US and British forces in Iraq, said the official, who asked not to be named.

I'm sorry to say, but it sounds like prophecy (Isreal to go to war with Arab nations and level the Palestinians) may be comming true.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:40 PM
holy shizzle when did syria get nukes? i wasn't aware of that. was that really what was said? holy crap. well, at least it will shut up those damned palestinians.....

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:44 PM
Cause from the prophecy I know, the firestarter of WWIII would be a confrontation between Israel and the 'United' States of America. So what I want to ask is, does anyone else think about the fact that Israeli's want peace in Palestine and peace in all of the Middle East??? Doesn't anyone else see this?

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 07:52 PM
I take the nuke post back. I got a little ahead of myself. Sorry. As far as the prophesy portion of my post, many people believe several scenarios as to how WWIII will start. In Revelation, it talks of Isreal, with God's help, leveling off the ______ tribe.(What is now Palestinians) I forgot the name given here. Anyway, that's where I'm comming from.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:42 PM
I imagine this is largely bluff and counter-bluff; but Syria would I think be a rather different case from Iraq. There is the complication of Israel and Lebanon of course (and another chapter of Israeli breaches of UN resolutions being dragged up).
And its difficult to see who might support Syria.
The French (who had the post W.W.I League of Nations mandate) had a very turbulent 20-odd years there: in fact Syrian National Day still commemorates the expulsion of the French. Not much love lost there.
The US has a history of dirty deeds there centred upon the great oil pipeline that, at that time, took 30% of Saudi oil to the Mediterranean (and oil from Kirkut too, come to think of it- Search Tapline). Syrians still remember the 1949 CIA-aided coup in which Syria's national government was overthrown by Hussni al-Zaim who was then overthrown by Sami al-Hinnawi.
It was this chaos that eventually let Assad ( the defence minister) in.
This was all done to secure the pipeline and a new invasion would look rather suspicious in the light of past history and given that many believe Iraq to be motivated largely by oil.
However, Assad 2 (Bashar) appears to be a rather different customer from Assad 1 who cordially loathed Saddam. There is some evidence of closer Iraq-Syria ties over the last couple of years.
If the US is determined on stern measures, I imagine it will not be too difficult to find a suitable pretext; but it is hard to see whats to be gained.

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 09:52 PM
What is to be gained? More anti-American tidal waves.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in