Syria could be next, warns Washington : WASHINGTON, April 13: The United States has pledged to tackle the Syrian-backed Hizbollah group in the next phase of its ‘war on terror’ in a move which could threaten military action against President Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus. The move is part of Washington’s efforts to persuade Israel to support a new peace settlement with the Palestinians. Washington has promised Israel that it will take ‘all effective action’ to cut off Syria’s support for Hizbollah - implying a military strike if necessary, sources in the Bush administration have told The Observer . Hizbollah is a Shia Muslim organisation based in Lebanon, whose fighters have attacked northern Israeli settlements and harassed occupying Israeli troops to the point of forcing an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon three years ago. The new US undertaking to Israel to deal with Hizbollah via its Syrian sponsors has been made over recent days during meetings between administration officials and Israeli diplomats in Washington, and Americans talking to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. It would be part of a deal designed to entice Israel into the so-called road map to peace package that would involve the Jewish state pulling out of the Palestinian West Bank, occupied since 1967. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has so far rejected the road map initiative - charted by the US with its ally, Britain - which also calls for mutual recognition between Israel and a new Palestinian state, structured according to US-backed reforms. The American guarantee would be to take armed action if necessary to cut off Syrian support for Hizbollah, and stop further sponsorship for the group by Iran. ‘If you control Iraq, you can affect the Syrian and Iranian sponsorship of Hizbollah, both geographically and politically,’ says Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution think-tank in Washington. ‘The United States will make it very clear, quietly and publicly, that Baathist Syria may come to an end if it does not stop its support of Hizbollah.’ The undertaking dovetails conveniently into ‘phase three’ of what President George Bush calls the ‘war on terror’ and his pledge to go after all countries accused of harbouring terrorists. It also fits into calls by hawks inside and aligned to the administration who believe that war in Iraq was first stage in a wider war for American control of the region. Threats against Syria come daily out of Washington. (Guardian) (Posted @ 13:40 PST)
At times like this. There is a certain phrase that the elders use.
Perhaps this is a good thing, I mean the US getting rid of Saddam (first) which he was a secular ruler, then Syria, then Mubarak, then the Wahabbis in Saudi and the Gulf, and this might be a good thing for us. Getting rid of these kaffar puppets of the west rulers and replacing them with true Muslims, this might be a blessing from God. The US thinks it has done a good thing for themselves but perhaps it has just started digging a grave for itself.
Only Allah (swt) knows whats going on.
Please kindly remember to provide a working URL for any news articles you post - Thank you. The Observer
I also think US is digging there own grave for it self 
Agreed :k:
Why would replacing rulers with true Muslims be digging a grave for US?
Maybe because true Muslim leaders will look out for the benefit of their respective communities in line with Islamic ideology and not be 'yes sir three bags full sir' cowards.
Similar to how the West looks out for theirs.
I don't see Bush beckoning to Musharraf?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
I don't see Bush beckoning to Musharraf?
[/QUOTE]
So, you'll be happy if he does?
anything to delay the Palestanian homeland. Of course by taking out hizbollah, they will get rid of one of the biggest supporters of the Palestanian cause. Litlle resistance from palestine and the Jews can do whatever they want. oh, it also delays any real effort to provide the strategy and "path to peace".
Abhi Iraq ka masla nahin pura khatam hua, laykin phiR bhi itni jaldi khujli ho rahi hai Bush ko.
Bush tells Syria to ‘co-operate’, BBC, 13 April 2003
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Majestic: *
Getting rid of these kaffar puppets of the west rulers and replacing them with true Muslims, this might be a blessing from God.
[/QUOTE]
Majestic, I agree that arab leaders are totally corrupted but do you actually think america will replace them with true muslims?
That depends on one's interpretation of true Muslim.
A true leader would be a start, one who looks out for the best interests of the people he/she is leading and has some sort of base of support in order to lead the said people i.e. not necessarily appointed to lead a nation by the judiciary but through free election; and by no means by inheriting leadership.
This is in itself a test of the honesty of the faith of a true Muslim leadership and also the test of a true democracy in a non-Muslim nation.
From where I’m sitting I can’t see a good example of either.
Nadia did u also hear the response from the Syrian FM (I think), that this blaming on Syria is just an act of Red Herring by the US. The intent being to divert attention away from all the looting and lawlessness and void in functions of society ever since the Bag Dad was liberated 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *
Nadia did u also hear the response from the Syrian FM (I think), that this blaming on Syria is just an act of Red Herring by the US. The intent being to divert attention away from all the looting and lawlessness and void in functions of society ever since the Bag Dad was liberated :D
[/QUOTE]
It really depends, if Syria do not have any WMD then it most likely is the next candidate. As Brian Cloughley put it very nicely:-
Six years ago I wrote an analysis for the International Defense Review, 'Korean Flashpoint Waits to be Ignited.' It is still waiting ignition, and North Korea has done what it can to increase tension. It has withdrawn from the NPT and ejected IAEA inspectors; it possesses at least two nuclear warheads (there may be more); it has in service (as distinct from being under development), proven delivery systems, and has testfired other missiles. It has reactivated facilities capable of manufacturing nuclear weapons (if, indeed, it ever effectively deactivated them); and has stated that further sanctions would constitute "an act of war". In riposte, Bush, ever anxious to use language of confrontation, said he would prevent North Korea from building a nuclear arsenal. He declared that if US efforts "don't work diplomatically, they'll have to work militarily", which was a another blunt threat of war from the US Prersident. There is little wonder North Korea considers it is likely to be attacked.
It need not fear, because Bush will not attack it. Certainly, as I wrote in the Review, it "is poorly-equipped and operates out-of-date combat systems ..." But in spite of Bush's bluster and threats he will not dare wage war on North Korea, which Washington says is a major supporter of terrorism. US presidential elections are 20 months away, and the pro-Bush Iraq-effect will have worn off by then, with Americans wondering what it was all about as their economy falters in the aftermath of their President's war. ** There is also the unpleasant fact that, unlike Iraq, North Korea actually possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and would use them against an invader. Bush will not dare attack North Korea, for it can defend itself, as can Iran. He attacks only the weak, such as puny Iraq. So Syria is looking good for the Bush re-election campaign. **
If anyone falls for the WMD line again… :nono:
What was it Bush said, ‘fool me once, er um…’
Those ppl who are thinking that these wars will help bring "true" Muslim leader are lost. When a "leader" will emerge out of this crisis, he will be HEAVILY dependent on US/UK/coalition to rebuild his nation... and when you are HEAVILY dependent on someone you cannot make your own decisions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
It really depends, if Syria do not have any WMD then it most likely is the next candidate.....
[/QUOTE]
It also depends who you believe :) or whose statment you take to compare. Bush might say Iraq has moved its WMDs to Syria and then the saga will continue.
Or not, according to The Guardian…
…
Syria has a real opportunity here.
If Bush leads the U.S. into a war with Syria tomorrow… he should be impeached. He sold his story to the American Public about Iraq…and there was truth to it.
If he sends the marines to Syria … pushing his luck, I think. Not to mention corroding the trust of the American people. I for one would be outraged at the very idea.