| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| US to hit Syria with sanctions | |
| 2004-02-13 | |
| Thats the nice thing about change. Once you start to change things its hard to know where to stop. But Syria looks like being next on the list for regime change. Its certainly the lowest hanging fruit. The US plans to impose sanctions on Syria in accordance with the Syria Accountability Act, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate panel on Thursday. During the hearing, Powell also placed the burden for moving peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on the Palestinians.
Pretty unlikely! 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. Why stop at 2? I though we had got past that graduate and proportionate response nonsense. Powell said during the hearing that Syria had not yet closed the offices of Palestinian terrorist groups or expelled Palestinian terrorist leaders from Damascus as the US has demanded. He also said he could not confirm or deny whether a Syrian plane had brought back weapons for Hizbullah from Iran after an earthquake-relief mission there. On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Powell said that this week, through European intermediaries, he urged the Palestinian Authority leadership to "come forward with a security plan to start taking action against terrorists in a very significant and decisive way." He urged Israel not to enact a disengagement plan that would preclude long-term stability in the region. There is an embedded premise here that there are Israeli actions that would create long term stability. Something I seriously doubt. "The Israelis are now making some unilateral moves. We don’t want to see a solution that is so unilateral that it doesn’t really provide the kind of stability that we’re looking for. But the Palestinians must move, and we’ve made it clear to them," Powell said. In a radio interview Wednesday, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said "the majority of the blame has to be on the Palestinians who have not completely and totally eschewed terrorism as an instrument of policy." They haven’t ’eschewed’ terrorism at all. Never mind ’completely and totally’. In his testimony, Powell also said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inspiring anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and affecting US reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I wonder how much truth there is to this meme. My guess is not a lot. "We fully understand that this conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis is the source of a great deal of the anti-American feelings that exist in that part of the world, and does affect what we’re doing in Iraq, and that part of the world," he said. | |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #34 True, Shia massacre was a failure. We should've imho intervened w/what air power we had at the time. Though air power alone would've not been enough, boots on the ground would've needed as well to do it right. Again, Uzbek is not only allie we have w/unsavory internal human rights problems. Some look a Turkey's dealings w/Kurds in similar light, again, one at a time. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-14 4:26:59 PM |
| #33 The Uzbek comment was directed at Raptor and it wasn't off the mark. He indicated that he doesn't care whether a dictator kills 10 or 10,000. I was pointing out the irony since Uzbekistan is considered an ally in WOT. Yes, I did read all 4 resolutions and I must disagree. However, assuming that the resolution did allow for the no fly zone to 'to secure peace and security in the area' then it was a failure as the Shia massacres occured at that precise time. |
| Posted by: Igs 2004-2-14 8:50:54 AM |
| #32 "things were relatively free for women in th major cities (under the communists). You just confirmed my point." -early 70's prior to soviet invasion, read my post again. Though I don't doubt the soviets kept things the same or even improved them for women. Plus, just had friends return from there who have said the same that I did. Unless your a recently returned Marine or mil guy from Aghanistan, I'll take their word over yours. -You just re-read all 4 resolutions? probably in 687 where it says that the security council decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. -you'll probably say you want specifics as to which parallel they can fly up to blah, blah, the US took it as an implied task & the UN afaik never aggressively tried to stop it, so there you go. The Uzbek comment is off the mark btw, with that reasoning we would never take on anybody because someone is just as bad or worse, good moral relativism. We can only take'm one at a time. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-14 5:27:22 AM |
| #31 Jarhead, as I did indicate, things were relatively free for women in th major cities (under the communists). You just confirmed my point. With regards to UN resolutions, I just re-read them and fail to see any mention of no-fly zones. I would appreciate if you could point exactly where it is mentioned. Raptor, I'm concerned that you fail to see the difference between killing 10 and 10,000 people. But since you are feeling this way, what are your plans for Uzbekistan...oooops...sorry, their allies, silly me. |
| Posted by: Igs 2004-2-14 12:21:32 AM |
| #30 Antiwar, interesting, our backgrounds are similar - I'm third generation Irish from Derry, same age bracket as well. I'm not left wing or opposed to war though. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-13 11:44:10 PM |
| #29 Rafael , ?????????????!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-13 9:31:19 PM |
| #28 Not left wing just opposed to war. Also opposed to logic as is evident. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-2-13 9:18:01 PM |
| #27 Jarhead age bracket 30 - 40. Of irish descent actually born in Ireland. Not left wing just opposed to war. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-13 8:59:52 PM |
| #26 Antiwar is a female. Nope, the needle on my surprisemeter did'nt even move a nanometer. Why do you feel the need to be so foulmouthed Auntiwar? frustration? lack of self-image? PMS? ( i still think that osamanaut would have made a better nick ) |
| Posted by: Evert Visser 2004-2-13 2:21:35 PM |
| #25 i think she must be your typical lefty antiwar hippie that comes from a decent background and dosn't realise quite how lucky she is to live in Oz, love to see you move to a Arab dictatorship or North Korea and see how much you love it, when will your type realise that the countries you so long to defend are the countries that are nothing but crap spewing, dictatorship ruled hell holes! I wish the world could be all nice and peacefull with with no war and lots of flowers and the birds tweeting all around but it ain;t gonna happen if we don't clean the planet up and rid these countries of thier filthy self indulgent leaders and make it alot better for everyone! |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-2-13 2:04:08 PM |
| #24 Antiwar, that previous info being confirmed. Is your age bracket: 18-22, 22-30, 30-40, or 40+? If I had to guess I'd say you're probably under 24. Are you of middle eastern descent or just opposed to the war, Bush, etc. on left wing principals? Just wondering. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-13 1:34:05 PM |
| #23 I'm all for "ruining" more countries. Syria and Iran sound like real good candidates. Jarhead your right about nationality. One small stain on a largely great bunch of people down there. A shame. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-2-13 1:24:45 PM |
| #22 Ptah, Tomorrow is a busy day for them: Remember V-Day is the time to warm up the old Vagina! Igs, France has/had an Air Force??? Shocking! |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2004-2-13 1:14:53 PM |
| #21 Jarhead your right about nationality. Ptah you are a wanker. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-13 1:14:20 PM |
| #20 Hank, I believe antiwar is an Aussie. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-13 12:58:18 PM |
| #19 Aww, poor NMM and Antiwar! No hunnybunnies to snuggle up to tomorrow? Is that grievious situation outweighing the suffering of human beings oppressed and killed by the dictators, tyrants, and strongmen you're defending? Go away, you people of small minds and even smaller characters. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-2-13 12:47:35 PM |
| #18 Henry, your right about gender, wrong about nationality. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-13 12:37:31 PM |
| #17 Don't get all relativistic on me,IGS.I don't care if a mass murderer kills 10 people or 10,000. A mass murder,Dictatorship,that slaughters people has given-up it's"Right to Life". |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-13 12:29:04 PM |
| #16 Igs, was the burka the norm before Taliban? Or just taken to new extremes. Friends of mine who visited Kabul in early 70's talked of a pretty much cosmopolitan city for that time w/out the burka and other hostility. I was being tongue in cheek about women's rights being great during taliban, maybe they are still not on par w/what we would like now, but you mean to tell me they're worse off then before? Re-read my post, you may just get my sarcasm. AFAIK, nf zone was signed off on, resolutions 678,687,688,947. France fell away from NFZ in 98. Many have criticised nfz's i.e. your war protestors, malaysia, bbc, and that ilk, if you like that angle then that's your opinion. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-13 12:12:55 PM |
| #15 Jon, Auntie-War is clearly a girl. And a Brit I'm soorry to say. |
| Posted by: Henry E. Pankey 2004-2-13 12:10:13 PM |
#14 "What in hell is wrong with you fools?" Theory: parents used cattle prods during potty-training. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-2-13 11:44:56 AM |
| #13 good to see anti war making a fool of himself again, i just can't work out why he hasn't decided to emigrate to North Korea yet, he'd fuckin love it there just like he would if he visited 95% of Arab countries. What a Sucker! |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-2-13 11:43:32 AM |
| #12 Antiwar - explain how iraq is a "dogs breakfest" - whatever that means. You and your type can accept nothing less than a diminished US. Iraq today is better off, yes there are some problems with Iraq's fucking jihadi arab brethren who kill and maime them. At least the Iraqis can protect themselves, which they could not do under saddam. You have no idea what's going on. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-2-13 11:17:39 AM |
| #11 Raptor, short memory, I would rate Pol Pot and Stalin a bit above SH Jarhead with regards to women's rights, it should be pointed out that they always have been screwed in Afghanistan. Things were slightly better under the communists (weird huh?) but that was in the large cities. In the countryside, things are just the same and they will be. So before preaching on just how wonderful woman's rights are there, get your facts right. Jarhead, correct me if I'm wrong but the n-fly-zone was imposed by the US, Britain and France after the first war. It has never been endorsed by the UN. The aim was to protect Shia Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north. As you probably are aware, this did help the Kurds considerably but unfortunately the Shias were nevertheless slaughtered, as such it failed miserably in its goal. Now, technically speaking, since there was no UN approval (US claims that there was under resolution 688), it can be deemed that in fact it was a violation of a country's air space and as such it had the right to fire as many missiles as it liked. While the original intention for the no-fly-zone was indeed humanitarian, it was only after pictures of the Kurds and stories of the Shia uprising were reported in the media that the US, Britain and France were forced to act (as I recall France withdrew in 1998). |
| Posted by: Igs 2004-2-13 10:33:04 AM |
| #10 ...and in related news, deers agree that "halogen bulbs is better bulbs, 'cause they's brighter"... |
| Posted by: Hyper 2004-2-13 10:26:23 AM |
| #9 I can't believe that these fools actually believe that the most blood thirsty Dictatorships in the last sixty years have a right to exist. What in hell is wrong with you fools? I am stun at your open support people who slughter thousands at the drop of Quran. How about that short meglomanic with the bad hair(Not Sharpton)thats uses whole faimilys for bio/chem warfare experiments. You guys are worst than evil bastards themselves! [end Rant] (crap,dubf$%%ks) |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-13 9:24:34 AM |
| #8 Your right antiwar, Aghan/Iraq were just fine, great places to live. You've been there right? So you know how wonderful they were, and how efficient, democratic, peaceable and enlightened their gov'ts were right? A threat to no one at all I agree, we should've even got rid of the no-fly zones, even though Hussein shot more then 200 anti-air missiles in 12 years at our planes. I know this first hand from friends who patrolled the damn thing. I especially liked the soccer field in Kabul much better when the Talibano's were in business. Such pleasant upstanding folks, taking care of the populace, especially the women. We really fucked that place up, I'm so ashamed. -"whose next after Syria" hopefully Iran, NKor, Yemen, unfinished business in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, & asshole Mugabe. As one of my personal heros would say, "your all next". |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-2-13 8:46:33 AM |
| #7 Oh my GOD, *sob* , we've RUINED AFGHANISTAN! *sniff* and after the Taliban put in all that good work to spruce the place up so nice, *sob* , and now we have taken all the fun out of those precious little mass graves *sniff* *sniff* , ooooooh, what WILL the world think of us now, *sob* . Tito, get me a tissue. |
| Posted by: Henry E. Pankey 2004-2-13 8:12:54 AM |
| #6 Then the Norks! Then Sudan! So many vicious murdering dictatorships! So little time! Too right, phil! (And too funny after those trolls' comments!) Great post. |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2004-2-13 6:16:43 AM |
| #5 If what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq was "ruining", then several other coutries in the greater ME region need the same. |
| Posted by: Craig 2004-2-13 5:49:48 AM |
| #4 Then the Norks! Then Sudan! So many vicious murdering dictatorships! So little time! |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-2-13 5:44:22 AM |
| #3 Probably Iran. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-2-13 5:06:41 AM |
| #2 Right, now that US gas made a dog's breakfast out of Iraq, it moves on to Syria to do the same ,bloody brilliant,not! Trust the US Govt to try and ruin another country, whose next after Syria |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-2-13 4:31:27 AM |
| #1 The president has the ability to waive sanctions if he deems it in US national security interests As if! The President has the ability to scare up some more saber rattling to scare the sheeple is more accurate! |
| Posted by: NotMike Moore 2004-2-13 1:33:49 AM |