Discussion:
US plans to attack Syria next
(too old to reply)
Alert
2004-01-15 13:29:52 UTC
Permalink
US plans to attack Syria next

The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.

The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."

The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.

Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.

In November last year, the premier scientific journal, Nature,
published a report called "Hydrocarbons and the evolution of human
culture" (Vol 426, pp 318-322) with a sober warning:

"About 100 years ago, the major source of energy shifted ... to fossil
hydrocarbons. ... Technology has generally led to a greater use of
hydrocarbon fuels ... making civilization vulnerable to decreases in
supply."

What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.

http://www.theinsider.org


SOURCE

Jerusalem Post, "Report: US considering armed intervention in Syria",
14 January 2004.
[ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074053868626
]
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons
of the Pentagon have proposed that President George Bush instigate
military actions against Syria due to its continued support for
Hizbullah and enabling terrorists to enter Iraq from its border.
Reports received by the Night Rider news group in Washington,
operations will not include large-scale military intervention, in
spite of several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq. The Defense Department is considering punitive
aerial attacks and Special Forces incursions.
The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of
Staff chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin
Powell and the State Department.


FURTHER READING

United Nations, "Syria", 2003.
[ http://www.un.org.sy/html/profile/economy.htm ]
Oil is the primary contributor to Syria's Gross Domestic Product,
constituting over 60% of the total.
...

US Energy Information Administration, "Syria", March 2003.
[ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/syria.html ]
With proven oil reserves expected to last only about 10 more years
and a population growing at 2.5% per year, Syria may become a net
importer of oil within the next decade. Thus, the exploration for oil
and natural gas is a top priority in Syria.
...

Arabic News, "Syrian oil minister: Syria's oil production continues
until 2040", 19 June 1999.
[ http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990619/1999061940.html ]
Syrian Minister of oil and mineral resources Muhammad Maher Jamal
said last Wednesday " We have precise and good studies indicating that
oil production in Syria will continue until the year 2040."
He added we always, in Syria, view the oil industry as a strategic
matter. The Minister added in replying to expectations expressed by
the Western media saying that the Syrian oil production will end by
the year 2010 that this expectation " is groundless," adding that "an
evidence on that in that we have a day after the other important
companies contracting for oil."
...



BBC News, "Powell pushes for Syria action", 3 May 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2995483.stm ]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has called on Syria and Lebanon
to end all support for groups Washington classifies as terrorist
organisations.
...
He said Syria had already closed the offices of some anti-Israel
groups in Damascus but he expected Syria "to do more".
...

BBC News, "Blair urges Syria to abandon WMD", 6 january 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3372441.stm ]
Tony Blair has repeated his calls for Syria to abandon any
development of weapons of mass destruction.
...
Syria's president is reported to have said he would not comply until
Israel abandons its nuclear weapons programme.
...

BBC News, "Israel's nuclear programme", 22 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm ]
While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few
international experts question the Jewish state's presence on the
world's list of nuclear powers.
Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of
mass destruction programme in the world.
Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear
ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global
spread of nuclear weapons.
As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of
sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
...

BBC News, "Strike on Syria: World reaction", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166554.stm ]
The Israeli air raid on Syrian territory has prompted concern and
condemnation from many world leaders.
Israel informed Washington of the raid only hours after it took
place.
...
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi branded Israel's strike a
"flagrant aggression and a violation of Syria's territorial
integrity", but made no comment on the Israeli allegation that Iran
funded the camp targeted in the raid.
The Arab League held an emergency session in Cairo to discuss the
attack.
"This aggression represents a serious escalation that threatens
regional and international security and peace and exposes the
deteriorating situation in the region to uncontrollable consequences,
which could drag the whole region into violent whirlpool," the body
said in a statement.
The Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, said the attack was an
"aggression on a close country," while Qatar and Kuwait - which like
Egypt are close US allies - also condemned the Israeli attack.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher said the air strike could
"drag the whole region into a circle of violence".
France, which holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council,
said the air strike "constitutes an unacceptable violation of
international law and rules of sovereignty".
And Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, on a tour of the
Middle East, said: "Violating the sovereignty of a third country
complicates further the [peace] process, that's why what happened in
Syria cannot be accepted."

BBC News, "Syria asks UN to condemn Israel", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166768.stm ]
An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council has
heard widespread condemnation of Israel for carrying out an air raid
on Syrian territory.
...
Syria, which requested the crisis talks, called for a vote on a
draft resolution condemning what it called Israel's "military
aggression" but the meeting was adjourned without a vote.
UN ambassadors are now consulting their governments on their next
steps.
Damascus has insisted the site targeted by Israel was a civilian
zone. It said Israel was threatening security in the Middle East with
its first attack on Syrian soil in more than 20 years.
At the council meeting, all the diplomats except US ambassador
John Negroponte spoke out against the Israeli action.
...
The US has often used its veto to block resolutions condemning
Israel...
...

BBC News, "Profile: The Golan Heights", 14 January 3004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm
]
The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, has a
political and strategic significance which belies its size.
Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in the closing stages
of the 1967 Six-Day War. Most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants fled the
area during the conflict.
An armistice line was established and the region came under
Israeli military control. Almost immediately Israel began to settle
the Golan.
...

BBC News, "Israel announces Golan expansion", 31 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3358797.stm ]
Israel has unveiled a $60m plan to build homes for thousands of
new settlers on the occupied Golan Heights.
...
Syria has reacted angrily, saying sovereignty should be resolved
by international law, not military power.
...

BBC News, "Timeline: Syria", 7 January 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/827580.stm
]
A chronology of key events
Witziges Rätsel
2004-01-15 14:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
If the human population was smaller, the so-called
fossil fuels would last longer. Why don't you find a
pleasant, practical method of diminishing the population
growth rate?
Docky Wocky
2004-01-15 15:55:02 UTC
Permalink
witziges sez:

"If the human population was smaller, the so-called
fossil fuels would last longer. Why don't you find a
pleasant, practical method of diminishing the population
growth rate?..."
________________________________

Why "pleasant" and not just "practical"?
Alert
2004-01-15 22:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Alert
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
If the human population was smaller, the so-called
fossil fuels would last longer. Why don't you find a
pleasant, practical method of diminishing the population
growth rate?
A number of measures are already in place:

Africa devastated by Aids
The reason is the large numbers of people in key roles who are dying:
teachers; farmers; health-workers; civil servants and young
professionals.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1679619.stm ]

Fresh fears over men's fertility
Sperm counts have fallen by almost a third since 1989, according
to one of the largest studies of its kind.
The findings add to the evidence which suggests a growing number
of men may have problems fathering children.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3362841.stm ]

Coca-Cola's 'toxic' India fertiliser
Waste product from a Coca-Cola plant in India which the company
provides as fertiliser for local farmers contains toxic chemicals, a
BBC study has found.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3096893.stm ]

Infertility linked to 9/11 stress
Women undergoing fertility treatment in New York during the 9/11
attacks may never have children, doctors say.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3192836.stm ]


http://www.theinsider.org
YSD
2004-01-15 14:18:56 UTC
Permalink
I think you got it backwards. You must have meant that Israel informed
Donald Rumsfeld that he would be attacking Syria on Israels behalf.
Remember what Arial Sharon said "we the jewish people control america, and
the americans know this."
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
In November last year, the premier scientific journal, Nature,
published a report called "Hydrocarbons and the evolution of human
"About 100 years ago, the major source of energy shifted ... to fossil
hydrocarbons. ... Technology has generally led to a greater use of
hydrocarbon fuels ... making civilization vulnerable to decreases in
supply."
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
SOURCE
Jerusalem Post, "Report: US considering armed intervention in Syria",
14 January 2004.
[
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074053868626
Post by Alert
]
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons
of the Pentagon have proposed that President George Bush instigate
military actions against Syria due to its continued support for
Hizbullah and enabling terrorists to enter Iraq from its border.
Reports received by the Night Rider news group in Washington,
operations will not include large-scale military intervention, in
spite of several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq. The Defense Department is considering punitive
aerial attacks and Special Forces incursions.
The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of
Staff chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin
Powell and the State Department.
FURTHER READING
United Nations, "Syria", 2003.
[ http://www.un.org.sy/html/profile/economy.htm ]
Oil is the primary contributor to Syria's Gross Domestic Product,
constituting over 60% of the total.
...
US Energy Information Administration, "Syria", March 2003.
[ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/syria.html ]
With proven oil reserves expected to last only about 10 more years
and a population growing at 2.5% per year, Syria may become a net
importer of oil within the next decade. Thus, the exploration for oil
and natural gas is a top priority in Syria.
...
Arabic News, "Syrian oil minister: Syria's oil production continues
until 2040", 19 June 1999.
[ http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990619/1999061940.html ]
Syrian Minister of oil and mineral resources Muhammad Maher Jamal
said last Wednesday " We have precise and good studies indicating that
oil production in Syria will continue until the year 2040."
He added we always, in Syria, view the oil industry as a strategic
matter. The Minister added in replying to expectations expressed by
the Western media saying that the Syrian oil production will end by
the year 2010 that this expectation " is groundless," adding that "an
evidence on that in that we have a day after the other important
companies contracting for oil."
...
BBC News, "Powell pushes for Syria action", 3 May 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2995483.stm ]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has called on Syria and Lebanon
to end all support for groups Washington classifies as terrorist
organisations.
...
He said Syria had already closed the offices of some anti-Israel
groups in Damascus but he expected Syria "to do more".
...
BBC News, "Blair urges Syria to abandon WMD", 6 january 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3372441.stm ]
Tony Blair has repeated his calls for Syria to abandon any
development of weapons of mass destruction.
...
Syria's president is reported to have said he would not comply until
Israel abandons its nuclear weapons programme.
...
BBC News, "Israel's nuclear programme", 22 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm ]
While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few
international experts question the Jewish state's presence on the
world's list of nuclear powers.
Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of
mass destruction programme in the world.
Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear
ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global
spread of nuclear weapons.
As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of
sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
...
BBC News, "Strike on Syria: World reaction", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166554.stm ]
The Israeli air raid on Syrian territory has prompted concern and
condemnation from many world leaders.
Israel informed Washington of the raid only hours after it took
place.
...
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi branded Israel's strike a
"flagrant aggression and a violation of Syria's territorial
integrity", but made no comment on the Israeli allegation that Iran
funded the camp targeted in the raid.
The Arab League held an emergency session in Cairo to discuss the
attack.
"This aggression represents a serious escalation that threatens
regional and international security and peace and exposes the
deteriorating situation in the region to uncontrollable consequences,
which could drag the whole region into violent whirlpool," the body
said in a statement.
The Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, said the attack was an
"aggression on a close country," while Qatar and Kuwait - which like
Egypt are close US allies - also condemned the Israeli attack.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher said the air strike could
"drag the whole region into a circle of violence".
France, which holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council,
said the air strike "constitutes an unacceptable violation of
international law and rules of sovereignty".
And Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, on a tour of the
Middle East, said: "Violating the sovereignty of a third country
complicates further the [peace] process, that's why what happened in
Syria cannot be accepted."
BBC News, "Syria asks UN to condemn Israel", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166768.stm ]
An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council has
heard widespread condemnation of Israel for carrying out an air raid
on Syrian territory.
...
Syria, which requested the crisis talks, called for a vote on a
draft resolution condemning what it called Israel's "military
aggression" but the meeting was adjourned without a vote.
UN ambassadors are now consulting their governments on their next
steps.
Damascus has insisted the site targeted by Israel was a civilian
zone. It said Israel was threatening security in the Middle East with
its first attack on Syrian soil in more than 20 years.
At the council meeting, all the diplomats except US ambassador
John Negroponte spoke out against the Israeli action.
...
The US has often used its veto to block resolutions condemning
Israel...
...
BBC News, "Profile: The Golan Heights", 14 January 3004.
[
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm
Post by Alert
]
The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, has a
political and strategic significance which belies its size.
Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in the closing stages
of the 1967 Six-Day War. Most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants fled the
area during the conflict.
An armistice line was established and the region came under
Israeli military control. Almost immediately Israel began to settle
the Golan.
...
BBC News, "Israel announces Golan expansion", 31 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3358797.stm ]
Israel has unveiled a $60m plan to build homes for thousands of
new settlers on the occupied Golan Heights.
...
Syria has reacted angrily, saying sovereignty should be resolved
by international law, not military power.
...
BBC News, "Timeline: Syria", 7 January 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/827580.stm
]
A chronology of key events
The Frog.
2004-01-15 14:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
Syria is openly hostile and has called for the destruction of our
allies. They are know sponsors of terrorism.
They may, indeed, be the head of the snake.

Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
jonah
2004-01-15 20:50:55 UTC
Permalink
The Frog.
Post by The Frog.
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
Syria is openly hostile and has called for the destruction of our
allies. They are know sponsors of terrorism.
They may, indeed, be the head of the snake.
Then I suppose the zionists are the arse of the snake, concidering
the amount crap that comes from the US-Israeli governments.

The US to attack Syria? I Really really hope so, because then we will
finally see the end of Zionism and have world peace at last.

Read this great piece from millitary anaylist Joe Vialls which
explains what a likely eventuality of any attack on Syria or Iran
would be:

“When the end finally comes for Israel, it will all be over in
microseconds. Flying faster than rifle bullets,
the Sunburns will approach Tel Aviv and Haifa at twice the speed of
sound, detonating in blinding white
200 Kiloton flashes designed to instantly transform animal vegetable
and mineral into heat and light.”

During the Cold War of the sixties, the only thing
stopping American or Russian psychopaths from taking over the entire
world was the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD], where a
multiple ICBM launch by America on Russia or vice versa, would
automatically lead to a “doomsday” response by the nation
under attack. Mutual destruction of both America and Russia was
thereby guaranteed, resulting in nearly thirty years of unprecedented
peace and quiet, caused solely by mutual nuclear fear.
About one month ago, Russia discreetly invoked MAD again,
but this time in the Middle East in direct response to hysterical
Israeli threats to nuke Iran with submarine-launched American Harpoon
missiles. Quietly and with the minimum of fuss, Russia deployed its
most advanced tactical nuclear missiles and crews to both Syria and
Iran, thereby sending an unmistakable diplomatic signal that if Israel
attacked Tehran or Damascus with nuclear weapons, Russia would in
return instantly and anonymously vaporize the Jewish State.
This is not an idle or exaggerated threat. The Russian
missile type deployed in Syria and Iran is the P270 Moskit [Mosquito],
known in NATO circles as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn", once described by Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher as "the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the
Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet.” The ship borne version of
this missile is launched from deck mounted quad tubes, but since
Rohrabacher made his comments, Russia has adapted the Sunburn for
submerged launch from submarines, air launch from Sukhoi 27s, and
single surface launch from modified 40’ flatbed trucks.
Nowadays, western defense experts unambiguously view all versions of
Sunburn as the “most dangerous missiles in the world”.

To see exactly how the Zionists drove us to this nuclear
flash point, it is necessary to go back a few years to discover how
the Jewish State managed to acquire sophisticated German submarine
launch platforms, and American nuclear-tipped Harpoon missiles,
thereby allowing a bunch of psychotic religious crazies in Tel Aviv to
bring the Middle East, and perhaps the entire world, to the very brink
of thermonuclear war.
Around 1989 Israel was trying to replace its obsolescent
Gal-class submarine fleet, while simultaneously whining that it
didn’t have the funds to do so. Predictably perhaps, the Jewish
State was looking for a free hand out. Having failed to extract these
big-ticket items as gifts from America, in 1991 Israel turned its
sights on Germany, perpetually in moral debt to the Zionists because
of the brilliantly managed and highly successful holocaust industry.
After a pathetically short period of Zionist arm wrestling
in Berlin, Germany caved-in and agreed to build and provide the first
two Dolphin class submarines free of charge, and extend a loan to
Israel for the third. Naturally this loan was never repaid, meaning
that German taxpayers had unwittingly funded Israel’s entire
submarine fleet, custom-designed to launch nuclear-tipped missiles
from specially designed torpedo tubes.
Obtaining the deadly American Harpoon missiles was
relatively easy. For decades American taxpayers have unwittingly
provided the Jewish State with enough free “expendable”
munitions to crush the Palestinian people in their own country, and
the Harpoon missile is classed as an expendable munition. What this
means is that Harpoon falls into the same generic category as rifle
bullets and hand grenades, so Washington went ahead and gifted the
Jewish State with more than fifty nuclear-capable Harpoons.
The nuclear warheads for these missiles can be either
American or homegrown Dimona products, but no matter which, Israel had
to make it known that the nuclear capability was real, for there is no
point making a nuclear threat if you cannot back it up with real
nuclear muscle. This was achieved by leaking the information through
high profile Israeli media assets, who initially plastered the
information all over the Internet. This completed stage one of the
exercise, which then had to be swiftly followed by a quasi-official
statement of absolute deniability. Think about this one carefully
people, think about it very carefully.
If Damascus or Tehran should suddenly turn into heat and
light any time soon, the Israelis will instantly get the blame, in the
first place because of their leaked high-profile threats, and secondly
because of their known hatred of anything even remotely related to
Islam or Arabs. We did not have very long to wait for this “on
the record” deniability statement, which was issued less than
24-hours after the initial threats.
Former Israeli deputy defence minister Efraim Sneh claimed
on Army Radio that, “Anyone with even the slightest
understanding of missiles knows that the Harpoon can never be used to
carry nuclear warheads”. This was swiftly reinforced by Ted
Hooton, editor of Jane's Naval Weapon Systems in London, who agreed
with Sneh’s assessment, saying problems with payload weight
would put the Harpoon out of balance, limiting its range and accuracy,
"It seems to me that a nuclear weapon, which is extremely dense, would
make the Harpoon nose heavy and significantly reduce its range —
in any event well below the (150 kilometers) it is designed for," he
said.
While many might doubt the authenticity of Sneh’s
claim, who would dare question the measured opinion of Jane’s,
widely touted as the most authoritative military publication on earth?
Unfortunately Jane’s appears to have made a terrible error,
because Hooton’s claim is the exact opposite of reality. Harpoon
normally carries a 215-pound conventional explosive charge in its
warhead, which can easily be replaced by a 99.2-pound nuclear device,
which then needs additional ballast to balance the missile in flight!

Rest assured that the American-Israeli Harpoons are
nuclear, and the Zionists have every intention of using them on Tehran
and Damascus if they think they can get away with it. Dangerous people
do dangerous things in dangerous times, and there is nothing more
dangerous that a pack of religious fanatics with their backs to the
Mediterranean, facing the imminent destruction of Zion. The Israeli
economy is in tatters, Jewish migrants are fleeing Israel in droves,
and the Zionist host [America] is fast running out of spare cash and
free weapons.
Russia has known all about Israel’s nuclear forward
planning for many months, and the only question the Kremlin faced was
which deterrent to pull out of its vast nuclear arsenal and deploy in
the Middle East. At the same time, Russia was equally determined to
send very strong signals to America: signals also designed to make the
Zionist crusaders think long and hard before they took any more
aggressive action against the former Soviet republics and North Korea.
Deterrent choice for the Middle East was easy, because the
Russians already knew the Americans were frightened of the SS-N-22,
which the U.S. Navy actually tried to purchase from the Russian Navy
in September 1995. In a letter reproduced at the bottom of this page,
Vice Admiral Bowes wrote to Russian Commander in Chief Admiral Gromov,
“I appreciate the opportunity to convey to you the United States
Navy’s interest in acquiring all variants of the SS-N-22
‘Sunburn’ Anti-Ship Supersonic Ship-to-Ship missile for
test and evaluation”. America’s naked fear of this
unstoppable weapon was thus laid bare, but Russia predictably refused
to sell
If the Israelis decide to nuke Tehran or Damascus there is
little doubt that some of their Harpoon missiles will get through,
though probably only because of the element of surprise. The
American-Israeli Harpoon is still vulnerable to defensive systems
because it is a relatively old subsonic missile, powered by a small
Teledyne turbofan engine. Detectable by radar, cruising relatively
high at around 300 feet altitude, and with a range of only 65 miles,
the Harpoon can be terminated by one of many different point defense
systems. But regardless of these notable shortcomings, and as
previously stated, some will reach their targets in Damascus or
Tehran.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is when the real fireworks
will start. Within seconds the tarpaulins will be thrown back on a
number of 40’ flatbed trucks currently dispersed in classified
locations, revealing the dull metal of the 37’ Sunburn launch
tubes within. While the hydraulic stabilizer jacks slam into the
ground and the launch tubes elevate to the firing position, Russian
artillery specialists will confirm the pre-programmed target
coordinates, then defer to central command fire control, at the same
time retaining unit “dead man” authority to fire on bypass
if absolutely necessary.
Each Sunburn will hurtle out of its launcher riding on the
white-hot tail of a booster rocket, while its special ramjet lights
and cycles up to full thrust. Then rapidly sinking back to an
undetectable cruising altitude of approximately 60 feet, each missile
will accelerate to Mach 2.2 [1,520 mph] in less than 30 seconds, with
a total flight time from Damascus to Tel Aviv of around three minutes.
When the end finally comes for Israel, it will all be over in
microseconds.

Flying faster than rifle bullets, the Sunburns will
approach Tel Aviv and Haifa at twice the speed of sound, detonating in
blinding white 200 Kiloton flashes designed to instantly transform
animal vegetable and mineral into heat and light. If I was an Israeli
general facing this doomsday response on my wife, my family and my
synagogue, I would not launch any Harpoons at all, but then I am not a
religious fanatic obsessed with killing Muslims and stealing their
land. Unfortunately, reading the minds of certifiable lunatics is all
but impossible, so the best I can suggest is that perhaps the Israelis
will launch, and perhaps they will not.
Worst of all for the Zionists left alive in Washington and
New York, is that if the Russians are obliged to launch their
counter-strike against Israel, it will be one-hundred-percent
deniable. Unlike Israel and its public threats to nuke Iran, Russia
has not threatened anyone at all. Because Sunburn flies below the
horizon it cannot be detected or logged by radar, and a 200-kiloton
hole in the middle of Tel Aviv will yield no clues. Very likely the
Russians will copy the Americans, and blame a fictional “rogue
state” like Iran, Pakistan or North Korea.
The Sunburns deployed in Syria and Iran are not the only
ones currently giving the Zionists recurring nightmares. Although the
Russians refused to sell any SS-N-22s to Vice Admiral Bowes in 1995,
they later made a very public sale of more than 100 Sunburns to the
Chinese, who mounted them on frigates and corvettes, which they
stationed near Taiwan. Thus by 2001, both the Russian and Chinese
Pacific Fleets were fully equipped with 200+ Sunburns, each and every
one of them easily capable of sinking an American aircraft carrier.
Ever since the illegal invasion of Iraq by America earlier
this year , Russia has deliberately sent a number of unmistakably
harsh diplomatic signals that the days of the Zionist crusaders are
numbered, especially in the mid and far east, but predictably all of
these signals have been deliberately suppressed by the western media.
Russia’s bottom line is completely neutralizing America and
Israeli in the Eastern Hemisphere, thereby preventing the U.S. from
stealing Eurasia’s strategic oil reserves.
In late May while the illegal invasion of Iraq was in full
swing, a small Russian fleet deployed to the Indian Ocean,
uncomfortably close to American carrier battle groups transiting in an
out of the Persian Gulf. This exercise, the first held by Russia in
the Indian Ocean for more than ten years, was extremely uncomfortable
for the American commanders, who knew that five of the Russian
vessels, including three submarines, were fully equipped with
nuclear-capable Sunburn missiles.
The diplomatic signal in the Indian Ocean was blatantly
obvious. Though numerically inferior to the American fleet, the
Russians had more than enough unstoppable firepower to win any sea
battle outright. Billion-dollar American aircraft carriers became
obsolete monoliths that day, as did America’s arrogant ability
to roam the oceans of the world attacking smaller sovereign nations on
Zionist orders. If America pushed too hard in Russian or Chinese
spheres of influence, a 93,000-ton American aircraft carrier might
“spontaneously” fireball in mid-ocean; in reality removed
from the face of the earth by an unheard and unseen Sunburn missile,
launched by a submerged Russian submarine more than fifty miles away.
In August and September 2003, the Russian and Chinese
navies held large independent exercises in the Pacific, both
coincidentally designed to, “Simulate sinking aggressive
American carrier battle groups”. No prizes for guessing the
name of the principal weapon system selected for this challenging
task. During September, the Chinese missile destroyer
“Fuzhou” fired a Sunburn with a practice warhead, which
high-speed cameras then recorded striking the center of the white
cross on the hull of the target vessel, located more than 60 nautical
miles away from the firing point. Terminal attack profile was Mach
2.05 at an altitude of 22 feet.

These exercises took place while the Zionist media was
hyping up public opinion against that nasty “Rogue State”
North Korea, allegedly brimming with fictional “Weapons of Mass
Destruction” being manufactured specifically for sale to Iran,
or so you were led to believe by CNN, NBC, Fox News and many others.
In turn, Iran was allegedly itching to mount the fictional weapons on
multiple launchers, then fire the lot at poor little Israel, all
alone and unarmed at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Plans were
made to intercept Korean ships on the high seas for inspection, and
Australia obsequiously offered to send a gunboat. But then Australia
always offers to send a gunboat when a lowly clerk in the White House
snaps his or her fingers.
Those readers with long memories will recall that the
Korean War of the fifties was all about spheres of influence. In other
words the Korean War was a surrogate war, with America and Britain
backing the south while Russia and China backed the north. Though
sixty years have passed since the end of the Korean War, this proxy
position has not changed, and North Korea is still viewed by Russia
and China as firmly within their spheres of influence. Thus the
diplomatic signal generated by the large Russian and Chinese naval
exercises was clear and unambiguous: “Hands off North Korea, or
else!” Within days of the Chinese Sunburn launch, which was
observed and logged by two American spy planes, Washington went
uncharacteristically quiet about the Korean peninsula, and remains so
today.
Perhaps for the first time in contemporary American
history, Washington was being forced to come to grips with a new and
very harsh reality. Though the United States was allowed [in fact
discreetly encouraged] to become horribly bogged down in Afghanistan
and Iraq, it was no longer allowed to interfere anywhere else in the
world. Massive American aircraft carriers were no longer free to roam
around looking for helpless prey, and Russia or China, sometimes both
in tandem, started riding shotgun on all American adventures in the
Eastern Hemisphere.
Effectively denied sea [and most land] access to the
Eastern Hemisphere, it was not long before the Zionists decided to
play what they thought was their trump card, declaring that their
absolute right of self-defence allowed them to launch Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles [ICBMs] of sixties vintage, against
“terrorist targets” on the other side of the world. Though
such weapons might appear to have the advantage of not needing direct
sea or land access in the Eastern Hemisphere, this twisted Zionist
thinking was quickly proved to be panicky and entirely delusional.
On 17 October 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin
responded to this crude threat, pointing out that although Russia had
scrapped hundreds of its ICBMs under various disarmament treaties, it
still has a "significant amount" of SS-19 intercontinental ballistic
missiles that had never been previously deployed, and thus were not
part of disarmament negotiations, which remain mothballed for
emergency use. “These are the most powerful rockets in the
world”, Putin said, adding they would be the perfect weapons for
breaking through any potential American missile defense shield.
Unconfirmed rumor suggests that Russia has a minimum of two hundred
unused SS-19s in storage. Within 48-hours of this stern Russian
warning, frantic Zionist talk of firing ICBMs at “terrorist
targets” in the Eastern Hemisphere became muted, then stopped
completely.
Just one week later on 24 October, President Putin
redefined the limits of American access in the Eastern Hemisphere when
he opened a new Russian air base at Kant in Kyrgyzstan, just twenty
miles to the east of a rented American base at Manas, used for
supporting “counter terrorist” operations in Afghanistan.
And while a squadron of cutting-edge Russian Sukhoi 27 multi-role
aircraft screamed overhead performing complex aerobatics at the
opening ceremony, the Chinese quietly moved a squadron of their own
Sukhoi 27s up to Kashi air base, which is the closest airfield to
their own border with Kyrgyzstan. Completely coincidental timing of
course, and anyone who suggests otherwise will be labeled a
“conspiracy theorist” by CNN, NBC, Fox News and many
others.



Appreciating that his opposite number in America is
intellectually challenged, Vladimir Putin said a few words at the
opening ceremony designed to be catchy enough to reach the frontal
lobes of President Bush’s brain: "By building up an aviation
shield in Kyrgyzstan”, he said, “we aim to strengthen the
security of this region, whose stability is an increasingly
significant factor." Vladimir Putin went on to emphasize that Kant
air base was now, "a deterrent for terrorists and extremists of ALL
kinds". A master of understatement, Putin failed to mention that the
Sukhoi 27s assigned to Kant, and landing on the runway in front of him
as he spoke, were all equipped with distinctive Sunburn centerline
mounts. Presumably the Chinese jets at Kashi are similarly equipped.
The gloves were off, and with American and Israel still
unable to steal any oil from Iraq because someone keeps blowing the
pipelines, this Russian and Chinese firepower buildup suddenly slammed
the door firmly shut on Caspian oil reserves in the old Soviet
republics. For more than a decade American oil multinationals have
been conducting “joint ventures” in the former Soviet
republics bordering the Caspian Sea, with the stated intent of pumping
this stolen crude oil out through Turkey, then on to western markets.
Now this route has been blocked permanently, and America is in no
position to do anything about it, because a large part of the U.S.
conventional army is currently bogged down in Iraq, being shot at and
killed on a daily basis.



In terms of protecting Eastern Hemisphere oil reserves
from the Zionist crusaders, Russia still had one more hurdle to clear,
in the form of Moscow-based Zionist Jew Mikhail Khodorkovsky. When the
Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Khodorkovsky acted as the principal
Zionist front man, grabbing cheap oil assets in rigged auctions. In
1995 he pulled the same trick again, rigging an auction at which he
paid a mere $200 million for Yukos, a Russian oil major worth at
least $14 billon.
Control of Yukos made Khodorkovsky very dangerous to
Russian national security, because the company controls nearly two
thirds of Russia’s strategic oil pipelines, including most of
those feeding Eastern Europe. Russia is now the second-largest oil
producer in the world, and Khodorkovsky’s actions prove he
intended to exploit this, by selling 51% of Yukos to ExxonMobil,
America’s largest oil multinational. In turn, this would have
placed Russian crude oil reserves under direct Zionist control, a
situation the Kremlin was not prepared to tolerate.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested while en-route to the
Russian Far East, though rumor suggests he knew about the plan to
arrest him, and actually intended to flee the country via Vladivostok.
A spokesman for Yukos said that government security agents rushed
Khodorkovsky's private jet at 5am on Saturday during a refuelling stop
in Siberia, shouting, "Weapons on the floor or we'll shoot."
Khodorkovsky initially faces seven charges including fraud and tax
evasion, with possible [consecutive] jail sentences of up to forty
years. It could get far worse if prosecutors add the charge of
treason, for undermining Russian national security.
Within hours of Khodorkovsky’s arrest, the Zionist
media went berserk, stating that the arrest would “damage
investor confidence” in Russia, and further claiming that,
“without new investors, Russia will be in big economic
trouble”. This is garbage, because Russia is now the second
largest producer of oil in the world, and has eager buyers for all of
its oil products. About the last thing Russia needs or wants today,
is a pack of Zionist “investors” trying to skim their
traditional 10% off Russia’s oil profits.
In slightly more than a single decade, Russia ’s
fortunes have come full circle. Back in 1989, General Secretary
Mikhail Gorbachev sold Russia and its peoples to the Zionists in
return for two gold American Express cards and unlimited free shopping
for his wife on Fifth Avenue. During the years that followed, Russians
underwent almost unbelievable hardships, with old age pensions
vanishing into thin air [or into a New York Zionist bank], and
starvation became quite common in the provinces. Russians fared no
better under “democratic” Boris Yeltsin, but Vladimir
Putin is an entirely different matter. In just a few short years as
President of Russia, Putin has turned everything upside down, and
probably set in train the final destruction of Zionist influence
worldwide.
Put simply, America is now completely broke. The U.S.
dollar is falling like a stone and unemployment is climbing through
the roof. Most of America’s manufacturing capacity was shifted
years ago to “cheap labor” countries overseas, and there
is no practical way of getting it back. For nearly twelve months the
Dow Jones Index has been rigged by computers, desperately trying to
create an illusion of relative wealth. At the beginning of this year
the only chance America and Israel had of staying afloat, was to steal
and sell oil from the Caspian, Iraq and Russia, but this entire
strategy has now either collapsed or been blocked by Russia and China.
Where America and Americans go after this is a very good
question, but, as you might expect, the Zionists have a fall back
plan, at least for them. When things eventually get completely
untenable, the Zionists will fall back on “Fortress
Americas”, a top-secret initiative designed to change the face
of the earth as we now know it. So sensitive is this information, that
when a small group of British Marconi defence scientists stumbled on
some of the data during the eighties, they very swiftly died in
murders dressed up as suicides.
OrionCA
2004-01-16 01:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonah
Then I suppose the zionists are the arse of the snake, concidering
the amount crap that comes from the US-Israeli governments.
Ah, another Good Little Democrat, demonstrating his racism.
--
From the official Howard Dean website forum,
A typical Dean supporter comments on the
capture of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein:

Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
Alert
2004-01-17 20:10:40 UTC
Permalink
***@robbiekeane.zzn.com (jonah) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

[ SNIP ]
Post by jonah
About one month ago, Russia discreetly invoked MAD again,
but this time in the Middle East in direct response to hysterical
Israeli threats to nuke Iran with submarine-launched American Harpoon
missiles. Quietly and with the minimum of fuss, Russia deployed its
most advanced tactical nuclear missiles and crews to both Syria and
Iran, thereby sending an unmistakable diplomatic signal that if Israel
attacked Tehran or Damascus with nuclear weapons, Russia would in
return instantly and anonymously vaporize the Jewish State.
This is not an idle or exaggerated threat. The Russian
missile type deployed in Syria and Iran is the P270 Moskit [Mosquito],
known in NATO circles as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn", once described by Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher as "the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the
Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet.&#8221; The ship borne version of
this missile is launched from deck mounted quad tubes, but since
Rohrabacher made his comments, Russia has adapted the Sunburn for
submerged launch from submarines, air launch from Sukhoi 27s, and
single surface launch from modified 40&#8217; flatbed trucks.
Nowadays, western defense experts unambiguously view all versions of
Sunburn as the &#8220;most dangerous missiles in the world&#8221;.
Vigliantabus!

www.theinsider.org
Alert
2004-01-15 22:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Frog.
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
Syria is openly hostile and has called for the destruction of our
allies. They are know sponsors of terrorism.
They may, indeed, be the head of the snake.
What has Syria done to hurt the West lately? Are you worried that the
USA would be too weak to defeat Syria?

Which terrorist organizations do Syria sponsor, currently?

www.theinsider.org
Billy
2004-01-15 14:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
About time.
Ian S
2004-01-15 15:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
Hell, our military is stretched thin enough with the Iraqi occupation; an
attempt to occupy Syria would be a recipe for disaster especially since this
time, there would be no "fig leaf" of support from a "coalition of the
coerced." Frankly, I don't think even the Bushies could be so stupid as to
seriously consider such foolishness.
OrionCA
2004-01-15 16:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
This would be bad exactly how? Freedom for Lebanon? An end to
Hezbollah, one of the most vicious terrorist organizations in the
world? Disruption of terrorist infiltration into Iraq? Militarily it
would not be that big a deal. Syria's armed forces are no match for
ours.

Still, my guess is that the Post is simply repeating rumor in hopes of
scaring the shit out of the Ba'athists in Syria. It's most likely a
disinformation campaign. But don't tell the Syrians that. >:)
--
From the official Howard Dean website forum,
A typical Dean supporter comments on the
capture of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein:

Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
Ian S
2004-01-15 16:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
This would be bad exactly how? Freedom for Lebanon? An end to
Hezbollah, one of the most vicious terrorist organizations in the
world? Disruption of terrorist infiltration into Iraq? Militarily it
would not be that big a deal. Syria's armed forces are no match for
ours.
Yup, it'd be just like Iraq except without the bouquets of flowers and
without the coalition of the coerced.
Post by OrionCA
Still, my guess is that the Post is simply repeating rumor in hopes of
scaring the shit out of the Ba'athists in Syria. It's most likely a
disinformation campaign. But don't tell the Syrians that. >:)
--
From the official Howard Dean website forum,
A typical Dean supporter comments on the
Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
How do you know it was a typical Dean supporter and not just a typical Repub
playing tricks?
OrionCA
2004-01-15 20:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian S
Post by OrionCA
From the official Howard Dean website forum,
A typical Dean supporter comments on the
Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
How do you know it was a typical Dean supporter and not just a typical Repub
playing tricks?
1) it was posted within minutes of Hussein's capture

2) "Carrie B" was a known Dean supporter on that forum prior to that
date I think she may have changed her handle out of embarrassment at
being caught like this and having her post quoted all over the
Internet.

3) How do I know you're not a Bush staffer trying to make leftwing
kooks look bad? You're doing a good job of it, btw.
--
From the official Howard Dean website forum,
A typical Dean supporter comments on the
capture of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein:

Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
Ian S
2004-01-15 21:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
Post by Ian S
Post by OrionCA
From the official Howard Dean website forum,
A typical Dean supporter comments on the
Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
How do you know it was a typical Dean supporter and not just a typical Repub
playing tricks?
1) it was posted within minutes of Hussein's capture
Irrelevant to the question I posed.
Post by OrionCA
2) "Carrie B" was a known Dean supporter on that forum prior to that
date I think she may have changed her handle out of embarrassment at
being caught like this and having her post quoted all over the
Internet.
Or, her work completed, she simply moved on to some other task for the RNC.
Post by OrionCA
3) How do I know you're not a Bush staffer trying to make leftwing
kooks look bad?
You don't.
Post by OrionCA
You're doing a good job of it, btw.
Thanks.
President Moonbeam
2004-01-15 20:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
This would be bad exactly how? Freedom for Lebanon? An end to
Hezbollah, one of the most vicious terrorist organizations in the
world? Disruption of terrorist infiltration into Iraq?
Not before the election. The Syria story is being floated to see if it gains any
public traction. It will officially be Iraq invading Syria for self
'protection' because Syria won't 'close its borders'. See Poland, 1939.
Post by OrionCA
Militarily it
would not be that big a deal. Syria's armed forces are no match for
ours.
Still, my guess is that the Post is simply repeating rumor in hopes of
scaring the shit out of the Ba'athists in Syria. It's most likely a
disinformation campaign. But don't tell the Syrians that. >:)
--
From the official Howard Dean website forum,
A typical Dean supporter comments on the
Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
BOEDICIA
2004-01-16 02:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: US plans to attack Syria next
Date: 1/15/04 8:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
This would be bad exactly how?
Because it's time the U.S. picked on someone their own size for a change.
Since when do the internal affairs of Syria concern the U.S. If they want to
invade a rgue nation with WMD, a nation that has invaded its neighbours and
ignored hundreds of U.N Resolutions, they need look no further than Israel.
There would be peace in the Middle East if that 2 bit nation was stripped of
its WMD.
Steven Litvintchouk
2004-01-15 17:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Somehow you just forgot to mention the following paragraph from that
article:
"The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of Staff
chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin Powell
and the State Department."
Post by Alert
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year.
Syria's oil is relatively small by Middle East standards. Half of those
450,000 barrels are consumed by Syrians themselves. Only the other half
is exported. And that compares with the 7 million barrels produced by
Saudi Arabia, most of it exported.
Post by Alert
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
Learn something about the economic law of supply and demand.



-- Steven L.
The Frog.
2004-01-15 18:05:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:41:06 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Somehow you just forgot to mention the following paragraph from that
"The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of Staff
chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin Powell
and the State Department."
Post by Alert
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year.
Syria's oil is relatively small by Middle East standards. Half of those
450,000 barrels are consumed by Syrians themselves. Only the other half
is exported. And that compares with the 7 million barrels produced by
Saudi Arabia, most of it exported.
Post by Alert
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
Learn something about the economic law of supply and demand.
-- Steven L.
GAme...Set...Match !!
Steven hit a homer.


Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke
Steven Litvintchouk
2004-01-15 19:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Frog.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:41:06 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Somehow you just forgot to mention the following paragraph from that
"The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of Staff
chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin Powell
and the State Department."
Post by Alert
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year.
Syria's oil is relatively small by Middle East standards. Half of those
450,000 barrels are consumed by Syrians themselves. Only the other half
is exported. And that compares with the 7 million barrels produced by
Saudi Arabia, most of it exported.
Post by Alert
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
Learn something about the economic law of supply and demand.
-- Steven L.
GAme...Set...Match !!
Steven hit a homer.
While mainstream liberals and the far-left loons don't always agree, one
thing they do agree on is that they don't accept the validity of the law
of supply and demand. That's why liberals are constantly trying to
fiddle with it--price controls, rent controls, minimum wage, etc. etc.
etc. Every one of these has created the exact market distortions that
the law of supply and demand would predict. The law of supply and
demand is as immmutable and valid as any law of economics can be.



-- Steven L.
John Starrett
2004-01-15 20:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:

<snip>
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
While mainstream liberals and the far-left loons don't always agree, one
thing they do agree on is that they don't accept the validity of the law
of supply and demand. That's why liberals are constantly trying to
fiddle with it--price controls, rent controls, minimum wage, etc. etc.
etc. Every one of these has created the exact market distortions that
the law of supply and demand would predict. The law of supply and
demand is as immmutable and valid as any law of economics can be.
<snip>

You are quite wrong. Mainstream liberals certainly do accept the law of
supply and demand. They may not like it, but they know it works.
--
John Starrett



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Alert
2004-01-15 22:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
Post by The Frog.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:41:06 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Somehow you just forgot to mention the following paragraph from that
"The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of Staff
chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin Powell
and the State Department."
Post by Alert
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year.
Syria's oil is relatively small by Middle East standards. Half of those
450,000 barrels are consumed by Syrians themselves. Only the other half
is exported. And that compares with the 7 million barrels produced by
Saudi Arabia, most of it exported.
Post by Alert
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
Learn something about the economic law of supply and demand.
-- Steven L.
GAme...Set...Match !!
Steven hit a homer.
While mainstream liberals and the far-left loons don't always agree, one
thing they do agree on is that they don't accept the validity of the law
of supply and demand. That's why liberals are constantly trying to
fiddle with it--price controls, rent controls, minimum wage, etc. etc.
etc. Every one of these has created the exact market distortions that
the law of supply and demand would predict. The law of supply and
demand is as immmutable and valid as any law of economics can be.
Only at high-school level. Real life is more complex.

www.theinsider.org
Alert
2004-01-15 22:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Somehow you just forgot to mention the following paragraph from that
"The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of Staff
chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin Powell
and the State Department."
Because it is an irrelevent side-track, regretably one which you fell
for.

Bush doesn't take orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint
Cheifs will support military action if intelligence indicates a
threat. US intelligence will report Syria as a threat when the US
government instructs them to.

www.theinsider.org
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Alert
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year.
Syria's oil is relatively small by Middle East standards. Half of those
450,000 barrels are consumed by Syrians themselves. Only the other half
is exported. And that compares with the 7 million barrels produced by
Saudi Arabia, most of it exported.
Irrelevent. Scroll down further in the original article to see the
material relating to the strategic and political significance of
Syria.

Saudi Arabia is an ally to the US, albeit a reluctant one. Invasion
would be untenable at this stage.

When the oil is running out, every drop counts.

http://www.oilcrisis.com
Post by Steven Litvintchouk
Post by Alert
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
Learn something about the economic law of supply and demand.
Irrelevent. The huge influence of oil corporations on Western
governments ensures that instead of pursuing alternatives, we sat back
and watched the oil price rise.

[ http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0423 ]

With only ten tears to go until crunch time, it's too late for
alternatives now, so the US government and others are taking drastic
action to secure what remains of the world's oil:

[ http://www.thedebate.org ]
Captain Compassion
2004-01-15 17:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
Enough Bull Shit.

The US may well atack Syria but oil will have nothing to do with it.
Syria has very little oil production and it isn't even a member of
OPEC. With yealds of 400,000 barrels per day and a petroleum usage of
250,000 barrels per day leaves only 150,000 barrels per day for
export. To put it in prospective the Alaskan North Slope produces over
980,000 barrels per day.

<Snip Rest of BS>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette
***@NOSPAMverizon.net
Sensitive_Asshole
2004-01-15 21:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Canada has enough oil in sand to supply the world for 14,000 years.
It is harder to get out of the sand though, have to filter it, pump it
in special ways. Would cost 4 or 5 times as much as oil is now, so
that's why we don't buy it or extract it.
Gogarty
2004-01-15 21:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sensitive_Asshole
Canada has enough oil in sand to supply the world for 14,000 years.
It is harder to get out of the sand though, have to filter it, pump it
in special ways. Would cost 4 or 5 times as much as oil is now, so
that's why we don't buy it or extract it.
And the US has huge reserves of oil shale and Venezuela has enormous
deposits of tar sands. The trouble is that extracting this oil is
primarily a mining operation for starters then a manufacturing
operation (retorting) before you actually get any liquid oil. Not cost
effective as long as it is possible to stick a pipe in a hole in the
ground and just pump or let natural pressure bring it up.
Captain Compassion
2004-01-16 02:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Post by Sensitive_Asshole
Canada has enough oil in sand to supply the world for 14,000 years.
It is harder to get out of the sand though, have to filter it, pump it
in special ways. Would cost 4 or 5 times as much as oil is now, so
that's why we don't buy it or extract it.
And the US has huge reserves of oil shale and Venezuela has enormous
deposits of tar sands. The trouble is that extracting this oil is
primarily a mining operation for starters then a manufacturing
operation (retorting) before you actually get any liquid oil. Not cost
effective as long as it is possible to stick a pipe in a hole in the
ground and just pump or let natural pressure bring it up.
But oil shale becomes competative at $50 - $75 a barrel. Think of the
value of the Green River formation with 1.5*10^12 bbls of petroleum
equivlent reserves.






----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette
***@NOSPAMverizon.net
Captain Compassion
2004-01-16 02:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sensitive_Asshole
Canada has enough oil in sand to supply the world for 14,000 years.
It is harder to get out of the sand though, have to filter it, pump it
in special ways. Would cost 4 or 5 times as much as oil is now, so
that's why we don't buy it or extract it.
Then there is oil shale where the US has 80% of the known reserves and
the petroleum equivlent is twice the known world oil reserves.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette
***@NOSPAMverizon.net
Alert
2004-01-15 23:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
Enough Bull Shit.
The US may well atack Syria but oil will have nothing to do with it.
Syria has very little oil production and it isn't even a member of
OPEC. With yealds of 400,000 barrels per day and a petroleum usage of
250,000 barrels per day leaves only 150,000 barrels per day for
export. To put it in prospective the Alaskan North Slope produces over
980,000 barrels per day.
<Snip Rest of BS>
I suggest that you read the article again, properly this time. Nowhere
did I say that oil was the primary motive for invading Syria. The
material I cited highlight the political and strategic issues too.
However, the oil in Syria cannot be overlooked.

www.thedebate.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Captain Compassion
2004-01-16 02:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
Enough Bull Shit.
The US may well atack Syria but oil will have nothing to do with it.
Syria has very little oil production and it isn't even a member of
OPEC. With yealds of 400,000 barrels per day and a petroleum usage of
250,000 barrels per day leaves only 150,000 barrels per day for
export. To put it in prospective the Alaskan North Slope produces over
980,000 barrels per day.
<Snip Rest of BS>
I suggest that you read the article again, properly this time. Nowhere
did I say that oil was the primary motive for invading Syria. The
material I cited highlight the political and strategic issues too.
However, the oil in Syria cannot be overlooked.
www.thedebate.org
"Syria is an important oil producing economy." You didn't say this?
The fact is that this statement is BS. I suspect that much of the
increase in Syria's oil output was oil diverted from Iraq.

There is really one reason to invade Syria. That's where the
terrorists are.
Post by Alert
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette
***@NOSPAMverizon.net
Alert
2004-01-16 12:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
Enough Bull Shit.
The US may well atack Syria but oil will have nothing to do with it.
Syria has very little oil production and it isn't even a member of
OPEC. With yealds of 400,000 barrels per day and a petroleum usage of
250,000 barrels per day leaves only 150,000 barrels per day for
export. To put it in prospective the Alaskan North Slope produces over
980,000 barrels per day.
<Snip Rest of BS>
I suggest that you read the article again, properly this time. Nowhere
did I say that oil was the primary motive for invading Syria. The
material I cited highlight the political and strategic issues too.
However, the oil in Syria cannot be overlooked.
www.thedebate.org
"Syria is an important oil producing economy." You didn't say this?
The fact is that this statement is BS.
FIRSTLY, you suggested claimed that I had said oil was the primary
motive for invading Syria, so I corrected you.

http://www.theinsider.org


SECONDLY, my original statement is true. In fact, in the international
economy, Syrias ONLY importance is as an oil exporter. Syrian exports
were between 300,000 and 450,000 barrels per day, accounting for
approximately 60% of GDP. I will now proceed to correct you yet again.

You thought I said Syria is one of the MOST important oil producing
countries, because you were so desparate to find something wrong in my
article, but it's all in your mind.

"Oil industry sources said that Syrian oil exports this year had
suddenly risen from about 300,000 to 450,000 barrels a day. Syria has
its own oilfields, which produce about 520,000 barrels a day."
- SOURCE: The Times (UK), 16 December 2002.
[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-515271,00.html ]


The oil industry in Syria is important enough to the US, because
whenhe US approved sanctions against Syria, the sponsors of the bill
complained that US oil corporations were signing too many
multi-billion dollar oil contracts in Syria:

"I am deeply concerned that American companies continue to sign
multibillion-dollar deals to invest in Syria's oil and gas sector.
Worse yet, they are reportedly joining hundreds of other types of US
companies doing business in Syria," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
said.
[ http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn34440.htm ]

The fact is, Syria exports oil, enough to worry the US government, and
this is significant in the context of the original article.

[ SNIP ]

http://www.thedebate.org
Captain Compassion
2004-01-16 16:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
Enough Bull Shit.
The US may well atack Syria but oil will have nothing to do with it.
Syria has very little oil production and it isn't even a member of
OPEC. With yealds of 400,000 barrels per day and a petroleum usage of
250,000 barrels per day leaves only 150,000 barrels per day for
export. To put it in prospective the Alaskan North Slope produces over
980,000 barrels per day.
<Snip Rest of BS>
I suggest that you read the article again, properly this time. Nowhere
did I say that oil was the primary motive for invading Syria. The
material I cited highlight the political and strategic issues too.
However, the oil in Syria cannot be overlooked.
www.thedebate.org
"Syria is an important oil producing economy." You didn't say this?
The fact is that this statement is BS.
FIRSTLY, you suggested claimed that I had said oil was the primary
motive for invading Syria, so I corrected you.
Why was it raised as the first reason for attacking Syria? Why was it
mentioned at all?
Post by Alert
http://www.theinsider.org
SECONDLY, my original statement is true. In fact, in the international
economy, Syrias ONLY importance is as an oil exporter. Syrian exports
were between 300,000 and 450,000 barrels per day, accounting for
approximately 60% of GDP. I will now proceed to correct you yet again.
You thought I said Syria is one of the MOST important oil producing
countries, because you were so desparate to find something wrong in my
article, but it's all in your mind.
"Oil industry sources said that Syrian oil exports this year had
suddenly risen from about 300,000 to 450,000 barrels a day. Syria has
its own oilfields, which produce about 520,000 barrels a day."
- SOURCE: The Times (UK), 16 December 2002.
[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-515271,00.html ]
The oil industry in Syria is important enough to the US, because
whenhe US approved sanctions against Syria, the sponsors of the bill
complained that US oil corporations were signing too many
"I am deeply concerned that American companies continue to sign
multibillion-dollar deals to invest in Syria's oil and gas sector.
Worse yet, they are reportedly joining hundreds of other types of US
companies doing business in Syria," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
said.
[ http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn34440.htm ]
The fact is, Syria exports oil, enough to worry the US government, and
this is significant in the context of the original article.
The main players in Syria are Shell and Petro-Canada. Not US
companies.

Syria is a landlocked country surrounded three countries that are in
the US pocket. Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Lebanon is in Syria's pocket
and Jordan wants nothing more then to keep a low profile. Unless Syria
flies it's oil out it would easy to block any exports.

But I suspect that the US would be more inclined to use more direct
techniques then sanctions or any kind of blockade.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette
***@NOSPAMverizon.net
Alert
2004-01-17 10:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
Enough Bull Shit.
The US may well atack Syria but oil will have nothing to do with it.
Syria has very little oil production and it isn't even a member of
OPEC. With yealds of 400,000 barrels per day and a petroleum usage of
250,000 barrels per day leaves only 150,000 barrels per day for
export. To put it in prospective the Alaskan North Slope produces over
980,000 barrels per day.
<Snip Rest of BS>
I suggest that you read the article again, properly this time. Nowhere
did I say that oil was the primary motive for invading Syria. The
material I cited highlight the political and strategic issues too.
However, the oil in Syria cannot be overlooked.
www.thedebate.org
"Syria is an important oil producing economy." You didn't say this?
The fact is that this statement is BS.
FIRSTLY, you suggested claimed that I had said oil was the primary
motive for invading Syria, so I corrected you.
Why was it raised as the first reason for attacking Syria? Why was it
mentioned at all?
It was not. Nowhere did I say that oil was the reason for attacking
Syria, let alone the "first reason".

The oil in Syria was mentioned, as I have explained, because even a
mere half a million barrels of oil per day should not be overlooked
alongside the political and strategic factors that I also cited.

See: http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/who_next.asp

http://www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
SECONDLY, my original statement is true. In fact, in the international
economy, Syrias ONLY importance is as an oil exporter. Syrian exports
were between 300,000 and 450,000 barrels per day, accounting for
approximately 60% of GDP. I will now proceed to correct you yet again.
You thought I said Syria is one of the MOST important oil producing
countries, because you were so desparate to find something wrong in my
article, but it's all in your mind.
"Oil industry sources said that Syrian oil exports this year had
suddenly risen from about 300,000 to 450,000 barrels a day. Syria has
its own oilfields, which produce about 520,000 barrels a day."
- SOURCE: The Times (UK), 16 December 2002.
[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-515271,00.html ]
The oil industry in Syria is important enough to the US, because
whenhe US approved sanctions against Syria, the sponsors of the bill
complained that US oil corporations were signing too many
"I am deeply concerned that American companies continue to sign
multibillion-dollar deals to invest in Syria's oil and gas sector.
Worse yet, they are reportedly joining hundreds of other types of US
companies doing business in Syria," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
said.
[ http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn34440.htm ]
The fact is, Syria exports oil, enough to worry the US government, and
this is significant in the context of the original article.
The main players in Syria are Shell and Petro-Canada. Not US
companies.
Exactly. As I pointed out, the US government is concerned that
American oil companies have too many "multi-billion dollar" contracts
in Syria. Now that you have looked this up and realized that these are
not even the "main players", I hope you will now appreciate my point
about the importance of Syria's oil economy in the context of the
original article.

www.thedebate.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Syria is a landlocked country surrounded three countries that are in
the US pocket. Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Lebanon is in Syria's pocket
and Jordan wants nothing more then to keep a low profile. Unless Syria
flies it's oil out it would easy to block any exports.
Like pre-conquest Iraq, Syria is a Baathist regime. Surrounded by
powerful enemies with yet more powerful allies, Syria is a soft target
compared with Iraq.

As of the few remaining states in the region that has not given in to
bullying and bribery from the US, the conquest of Syria will be a
simple but effective step toward bringing the whole region under
US-Israeli control.

www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
But I suspect that the US would be more inclined to use more direct
techniques then sanctions or any kind of blockade.
Yes, sanctions and threats have failed to pursuade the Syrian
government to fall in line with the West.

www.theinsider.org
gaffo
2004-01-17 02:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Captain Compassion
There is really one reason to invade Syria. That's where the
terrorists are.
No Dipshit - the Terrorists are in two places - neither is in Syria.


1. Yemen.
2. Pakistan's no man's land (western border).
--
"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001


"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."

"He threatens not the United States."

"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001
Captain Compassion
2004-01-17 02:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaffo
Post by Captain Compassion
There is really one reason to invade Syria. That's where the
terrorists are.
No Dipshit - the Terrorists are in two places - neither is in Syria.
1. Yemen.
2. Pakistan's no man's land (western border).
There are terrorists in all these countries including Iran. The
Hezbollah operate out of Syria and Lebanon. Syria also is where many
of the terrorists enter Iraq from. Should ought to cover our back
before going after Iran don't you think so. Dip Shit.
Post by gaffo
--
"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001
"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."
"He threatens not the United States."
"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."
'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette
***@NOSPAMverizon.net
Mick
2004-01-17 16:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by gaffo
Post by Captain Compassion
There is really one reason to invade Syria. That's where the
terrorists are.
No Dipshit - the Terrorists are in two places - neither is in Syria.
1. Yemen.
2. Pakistan's no man's land (western border).
There are terrorists in all these countries including Iran. The
Hezbollah operate out of Syria and Lebanon. Syria also is where many
of the terrorists enter Iraq from. Should ought to cover our back
before going after Iran don't you think so. Dip Shit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to interrupt your charming conversation but you pair of dipshits
forgot about Londonistan UK.
For fucks sake will you yanks hurry up and nuke it, preferable while Tony
Blair is there.
Alert
2004-01-17 20:13:19 UTC
Permalink
***@verizon.net (Captain Compassion) wrote in message news:<***@news.verizon.net>...

[ SNIP ]
Post by Captain Compassion
There are terrorists in all these countries including Iran. The
Hezbollah operate out of Syria and Lebanon. Syria also is where many
of the terrorists enter Iraq from. Should ought to cover our back
before going after Iran don't you think so. Dip Shit.
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else where too.

www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Billy
2004-01-17 21:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
[ SNIP ]
Post by Captain Compassion
There are terrorists in all these countries including Iran. The
Hezbollah operate out of Syria and Lebanon. Syria also is where many
of the terrorists enter Iraq from. Should ought to cover our back
before going after Iran don't you think so. Dip Shit.
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else where too.
www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Exactly the reason we need to round up and deport all non U.S. citizens.
Alert
2004-01-18 10:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
[ SNIP ]
Post by Captain Compassion
There are terrorists in all these countries including Iran. The
Hezbollah operate out of Syria and Lebanon. Syria also is where many
of the terrorists enter Iraq from. Should ought to cover our back
before going after Iran don't you think so. Dip Shit.
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else where
too.
Post by Alert
www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Exactly the reason we need to round up and deport all non U.S. citizens.
Does this mean you think that there no American citizens involved with
supporting terrorist organizations?

It's not only non-US citizens who oppose the US government. There have
been American and British citizens locked up in America's
concentration camps.

www.theinsider.org
Billy
2004-01-18 15:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
[ SNIP ]
Post by Captain Compassion
There are terrorists in all these countries including Iran. The
Hezbollah operate out of Syria and Lebanon. Syria also is where many
of the terrorists enter Iraq from. Should ought to cover our back
before going after Iran don't you think so. Dip Shit.
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else where
too.
Post by Alert
www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Exactly the reason we need to round up and deport all non U.S. citizens.
Does this mean you think that there no American citizens involved with
supporting terrorist organizations?
It's not only non-US citizens who oppose the US government. There have
been American and British citizens locked up in America's
concentration camps.
www.theinsider.org
True but we will have to deal with them on individual bases, the non-US
citizens should be easy, round them up and send the home.
Alert
2004-01-19 14:54:54 UTC
Permalink
"Billy" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:<hMxOb.6616$***@fed1read02>...
[ SNIP ]
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else
where
too.
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Exactly the reason we need to round up and deport all non U.S. citizens.
Does this mean you think that there no American citizens involved with
supporting terrorist organizations?
It's not only non-US citizens who oppose the US government. There have
been American and British citizens locked up in America's
concentration camps.
www.theinsider.org
True but we will have to deal with them on individual bases, the non-US
citizens should be easy, round them up and send the home.
Are you seriously suggesting that you round up all non-US citizens in
the whole of North America?

Tell me: how would you differentiate between terrorists and
non-terrorists, or even terrorists and tourists?

www.theinsider.org
Billy
2004-01-19 16:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
[ SNIP ]
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else
where
too.
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Exactly the reason we need to round up and deport all non U.S. citizens.
Does this mean you think that there no American citizens involved with
supporting terrorist organizations?
It's not only non-US citizens who oppose the US government. There have
been American and British citizens locked up in America's
concentration camps.
www.theinsider.org
True but we will have to deal with them on individual bases, the non-US
citizens should be easy, round them up and send the home.
Are you seriously suggesting that you round up all non-US citizens in
the whole of North America?
No Just the U.S. portion
Post by Alert
Tell me: how would you differentiate between terrorists and
non-terrorists, or even terrorists and tourists?
I wouldn't I would send them all home.
Alert
2004-01-20 11:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
[ SNIP ]
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else
where
too.
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Exactly the reason we need to round up and deport all non U.S.
citizens.
Post by Alert
Post by Billy
Post by Alert
Does this mean you think that there no American citizens involved with
supporting terrorist organizations?
It's not only non-US citizens who oppose the US government. There have
been American and British citizens locked up in America's
concentration camps.
www.theinsider.org
True but we will have to deal with them on individual bases, the non-US
citizens should be easy, round them up and send the home.
Are you seriously suggesting that you round up all non-US citizens in
the whole of North America?
No Just the U.S. portion
Post by Alert
Tell me: how would you differentiate between terrorists and
non-terrorists, or even terrorists and tourists?
I wouldn't I would send them all home.
Good strategy. A similar approach worked well for Hitler.

www.theinsider.org
Captain Compassion
2004-01-18 03:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
[ SNIP ]
Post by Captain Compassion
There are terrorists in all these countries including Iran. The
Hezbollah operate out of Syria and Lebanon. Syria also is where many
of the terrorists enter Iraq from. Should ought to cover our back
before going after Iran don't you think so. Dip Shit.
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else where too.
The ones in the US we are cleaning up. GB is taking care of their own.
It's the terrorist states that support terrorism that need cleaning
up.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I suspect that the problem is not with those that believe that there is a
heaven above but with those that believe that there can be a heaven here
on earth." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam

Joseph R. Darancette
***@NOSPAMverizon.net
Alert
2004-01-18 11:00:36 UTC
Permalink
***@verizon.net (Captain Compassion) wrote in message news:<***@news.verizon.net>...

[ SNIP [
Post by Captain Compassion
Post by Alert
There are terrorist cells operating in the US and the UK, and else where too.
The ones in the US we are cleaning up. GB is taking care of their own.
It's the terrorist states that support terrorism that need cleaning
up.
Are you seriously suggesting that all of the terrorists in the US and
UK have been found?

How many terrorist cells have been arrested in the US or UK?

www.theinsider.org
Post by Captain Compassion
Joseph R. Darancette
Midwinter
2004-01-15 17:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alert
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of such a campaign, I very much doubt it
could be initiated without triggering considerable public opposition. It
is becoming apparent that the public of the US and the UK were deliberately
deceived into supporting the assault on Iraq, and it is probable that such
support will be less freely given in future, regardless of the subject.

In addition, as has previously been mentioned, had the invasion of Iraq
been a simple "in and out" job then contemplating further such campaigns
would make more sense. However, since it appears the US and UK forces will
be committed in Iraq for some time yet, it would not be advisable to
overstretch our military resources in this way.

--
Midwinter
Phoenix Rising
2004-01-17 18:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Midwinter
Post by Alert
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US.
Aside from the rights and wrongs of such a campaign, I very much doubt it
could be initiated without triggering considerable public opposition. It
is becoming apparent that the public of the US and the UK were deliberately
deceived into supporting the assault on Iraq, and it is probable that such
support will be less freely given in future, regardless of the subject.
In addition, as has previously been mentioned, had the invasion of Iraq
been a simple "in and out" job then contemplating further such campaigns
would make more sense. However, since it appears the US and UK forces will
be committed in Iraq for some time yet, it would not be advisable to
overstretch our military resources in this way.
I generally second this, though with a bit more positive spin.
Going into Iraq with the intent to stay for the long haul was the proper
course of action. If we can stabilize it, we will have created a
powerful player in a geostrategically critical region, and done so along
lines antithetical to the means and ends of the terrorists operating in
the region.

Syria does support terrorism. However, Midwinter is right that
acting militarily there is probably politically infeasible ... unless
Syria does something to change the equation. This, hopefully, will act
as a deterrent on the younger Assad.

I believe the administration views the war on terror as the next
Cold War, and Iraq is very likely going to be a frontline state in the
next generational conflict of ideas, like West Germany for so long. As
such, it is definitely better to consolidate what we've done there
already and continue to build it up to what it might have been had the
Ba'athists never come to power than to move on to another battle too
quickly. It's not a very palatable thing to say, but sometimes it's
better to let the guilty walk free. (For the moment, anyway.)

--Phoenix Rising
EagleEye
2004-01-16 00:19:11 UTC
Permalink
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The
main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which
prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles
Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav
Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports
on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated
the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts
to salvage Israel's socialist institutions-which include pursuing
supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that
embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"-undermine the legitimacy of the
nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government'
s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding
national critical mass- including a palpable sense of national
exhaustion-and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical
mass was illustrated best by Israel's efforts to draw in the United States
to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty
over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so
intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily
functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu's government comes in with a new set of ideas. While
there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to
make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an
entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative
and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on
rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To
secure the nation's streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:


a.. Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from
the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based
on balance of power.

b.. Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including
upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian
areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat's exclusive grip on Palestinian
society.

c.. Forge a new basis for relations with the United States-stressing
self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern,
and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel
takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT,
that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity
to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and
laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is
imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and
many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"- which placed Israel in the
position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military
retreat - the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such
an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes
"peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance
of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in
Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace
depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous
neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral
ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to
annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our
claim to the land -to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is
legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we
concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by
Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for
peace," is a solid basis for the future.
Israel's quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of
its ideals. The Jewish people's hunger for human rights - burned into their
identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land - informs
the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and
Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not
ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can
challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on
minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one
with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic
initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and
Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:


a.. striking Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in
Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

b.. paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian
territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy
forces.

c.. striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of
the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous
agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing
to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria
staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to
sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese
sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of
thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at
a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian
military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria's regime
supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and
on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has
become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The
Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not
production points, of the "supernote" - counterfeit US currency so well done
that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious
realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is
dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own
people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with
international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the
most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral
that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain
Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and
rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure
that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of
our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and
Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's
regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions
recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has
triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping
up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using
infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak,
but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in
its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too
preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit
distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural
axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and
Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi
Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of
the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East
profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in
supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such
measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before
a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting
King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to
protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging - through
influence in the U.S. business community - investment in Jordan to
structurally shift Jordan's economy away from dependence on Iraq; and
diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to
destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting
diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions
against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross
into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under
control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied
for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were
the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to
help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and
Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost
the Prophet's family, the direct descendants of which - and in whose veins
the blood of the Prophet flows - is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the
Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel's efforts to secure its streets may
require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable
practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed.
Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing
Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub's operatives in Jerusalem.
Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance
Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum
standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and
judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal
standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm
peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill
the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to
fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not
fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal
standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper
interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate
alternatives to Arafat's base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO
problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a
special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many
Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are
important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan,
have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to
better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel's
domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition
to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to
lure Arabs - through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S.
weapons - to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American
money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very
costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles
is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for
the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and
mutuality - not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel's new
strategy - based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength - reflects
continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant,
does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the
Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant
Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure
used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to
announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately
from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent
economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate
arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply
problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute
report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than
in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a
free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises - moves
which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of
key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt
Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter
real threats to the region and the West's security. Mr. Netanyahu can
highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on
anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a
weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such
cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel'
s survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the
United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much
about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to
move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those
reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress
themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into
themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to
Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign
American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict


TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of
Israel's floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has
invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope
for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was
leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel's new agenda
can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and
allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption,
rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation
without response.

Israel's new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways
that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are
most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through
replacing Israel's socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to
overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict
though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace
its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free,
powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the
Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition
leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and
intellectual leadership. It is an important - if not the most
important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel - proud,
wealthy, solid, and strong - would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful
Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
In November last year, the premier scientific journal, Nature,
published a report called "Hydrocarbons and the evolution of human
"About 100 years ago, the major source of energy shifted ... to fossil
hydrocarbons. ... Technology has generally led to a greater use of
hydrocarbon fuels ... making civilization vulnerable to decreases in
supply."
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
SOURCE
Jerusalem Post, "Report: US considering armed intervention in Syria",
14 January 2004.
[
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid
=1074053868626
Post by Alert
]
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons
of the Pentagon have proposed that President George Bush instigate
military actions against Syria due to its continued support for
Hizbullah and enabling terrorists to enter Iraq from its border.
Reports received by the Night Rider news group in Washington,
operations will not include large-scale military intervention, in
spite of several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq. The Defense Department is considering punitive
aerial attacks and Special Forces incursions.
The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of
Staff chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin
Powell and the State Department.
FURTHER READING
United Nations, "Syria", 2003.
[ http://www.un.org.sy/html/profile/economy.htm ]
Oil is the primary contributor to Syria's Gross Domestic Product,
constituting over 60% of the total.
...
US Energy Information Administration, "Syria", March 2003.
[ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/syria.html ]
With proven oil reserves expected to last only about 10 more years
and a population growing at 2.5% per year, Syria may become a net
importer of oil within the next decade. Thus, the exploration for oil
and natural gas is a top priority in Syria.
...
Arabic News, "Syrian oil minister: Syria's oil production continues
until 2040", 19 June 1999.
[ http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990619/1999061940.html ]
Syrian Minister of oil and mineral resources Muhammad Maher Jamal
said last Wednesday " We have precise and good studies indicating that
oil production in Syria will continue until the year 2040."
He added we always, in Syria, view the oil industry as a strategic
matter. The Minister added in replying to expectations expressed by
the Western media saying that the Syrian oil production will end by
the year 2010 that this expectation " is groundless," adding that "an
evidence on that in that we have a day after the other important
companies contracting for oil."
...
BBC News, "Powell pushes for Syria action", 3 May 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2995483.stm ]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has called on Syria and Lebanon
to end all support for groups Washington classifies as terrorist
organisations.
...
He said Syria had already closed the offices of some anti-Israel
groups in Damascus but he expected Syria "to do more".
...
BBC News, "Blair urges Syria to abandon WMD", 6 january 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3372441.stm ]
Tony Blair has repeated his calls for Syria to abandon any
development of weapons of mass destruction.
...
Syria's president is reported to have said he would not comply until
Israel abandons its nuclear weapons programme.
...
BBC News, "Israel's nuclear programme", 22 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm ]
While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few
international experts question the Jewish state's presence on the
world's list of nuclear powers.
Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of
mass destruction programme in the world.
Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear
ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global
spread of nuclear weapons.
As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of
sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
...
BBC News, "Strike on Syria: World reaction", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166554.stm ]
The Israeli air raid on Syrian territory has prompted concern and
condemnation from many world leaders.
Israel informed Washington of the raid only hours after it took
place.
...
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi branded Israel's strike a
"flagrant aggression and a violation of Syria's territorial
integrity", but made no comment on the Israeli allegation that Iran
funded the camp targeted in the raid.
The Arab League held an emergency session in Cairo to discuss the
attack.
"This aggression represents a serious escalation that threatens
regional and international security and peace and exposes the
deteriorating situation in the region to uncontrollable consequences,
which could drag the whole region into violent whirlpool," the body
said in a statement.
The Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, said the attack was an
"aggression on a close country," while Qatar and Kuwait - which like
Egypt are close US allies - also condemned the Israeli attack.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher said the air strike could
"drag the whole region into a circle of violence".
France, which holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council,
said the air strike "constitutes an unacceptable violation of
international law and rules of sovereignty".
And Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, on a tour of the
Middle East, said: "Violating the sovereignty of a third country
complicates further the [peace] process, that's why what happened in
Syria cannot be accepted."
BBC News, "Syria asks UN to condemn Israel", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166768.stm ]
An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council has
heard widespread condemnation of Israel for carrying out an air raid
on Syrian territory.
...
Syria, which requested the crisis talks, called for a vote on a
draft resolution condemning what it called Israel's "military
aggression" but the meeting was adjourned without a vote.
UN ambassadors are now consulting their governments on their next
steps.
Damascus has insisted the site targeted by Israel was a civilian
zone. It said Israel was threatening security in the Middle East with
its first attack on Syrian soil in more than 20 years.
At the council meeting, all the diplomats except US ambassador
John Negroponte spoke out against the Israeli action.
...
The US has often used its veto to block resolutions condemning
Israel...
...
BBC News, "Profile: The Golan Heights", 14 January 3004.
[
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm
Post by Alert
]
The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, has a
political and strategic significance which belies its size.
Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in the closing stages
of the 1967 Six-Day War. Most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants fled the
area during the conflict.
An armistice line was established and the region came under
Israeli military control. Almost immediately Israel began to settle
the Golan.
...
BBC News, "Israel announces Golan expansion", 31 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3358797.stm ]
Israel has unveiled a $60m plan to build homes for thousands of
new settlers on the occupied Golan Heights.
...
Syria has reacted angrily, saying sovereignty should be resolved
by international law, not military power.
...
BBC News, "Timeline: Syria", 7 January 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/827580.stm
]
A chronology of key events
EagleEye
2004-01-16 02:58:06 UTC
Permalink
http://www.peakoil.net/

Mix the two together, and add in a healthy dose of Christian end times
prophesy, along with certain Zionist/Masonic Satanic principals, American
capitalist secular humanist modernity, post modernism, a dash of Hobbes,
combined with a Darwinian might makes right dominant survival of the fittest
view of order 'n chaos, and what do you get?

A death star, - unleashing entropy, chaos, and destruction, straight through
to the end of the age of Pisces.

Do I need to post the PNAC document yet again as well?

Some 9/11 links?

Mayan end date prophesy? "The return of the fifth sun" and the sacred tree.

Some futurist stuff on the approaching Technological Singularity?

Darwin, and the new competing views on the strong anthropic principal and
"by design creative intelligence".

HAARP? Chemtrails.

The Omega Point. Pierre de Chardin.

Zachariah Sitchin?

Civility. M. Scott Peck

The Road Less Traveled. Peck

Freemasonry. Illuminati

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

The Holy Bible. New Testament. The Book of Revelations.

Oh and the "Dancing Wu Lee Masters". Zukav

The Cosmological Constant.

Quantum reality, quantum mind.

Rupert Sheldrake and David Bohm.

Carl Jung.

Joseph Campbell.

Complexity theory.

"The Nature and Destiny of Man." Reinhold Neibur

That about covers the whole spectrum of what I've looked into trying to
unravel this thing.

Call me crazy if you like, but these things are all well worth reading, and
synthesizing, and appropriating, if you want to really frame things in a
holistic way that actually makes some rational sense, at least from a birds
eye perspective. After you study these things, and then, if you read that
last recommendation, & if you are smart, and imaginative, then I believe
that you will have the beginnings for a rational basis of faith. There are
seven steps in the Temple of Solomon, the last of which is just a quantum
leap, which you'll have already made by the time you get there. It sure puts
the Bible in a new perspective and a new and radiant light.

If you cover the same ground that I have, perhaps you too will come to see a
great pyramid like tree of life structure, at the very apex of which stands
the cross, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ as an actual supra-rational,
supra-historical reality. At the very least, you'll be unshakable in the
notion of a great overarching truth and reality, and in debate you'll be
able to go head to head with any atheist, who at bottom in arguing for the
no-God hypothesis only argue for the non-existence of the most fundamental
"I am" of reality. Ironically, you will find yourself sharing the same
ground as Christian fundamentalists, though you would actually know
something which they can only take on faith, but in the end, you will see
the wisdom in the biblical admonition not to rely on knowledge which has its
limits, and not to seek after one's own understanding of things, which we
are not yet truly capable of grasping in its entirety, though all will soon
be revealed, and the ultimate purpose made manifest, very likely in our
present lifetime, though at some level the eternal present extends itself as
an arc over history, and if we are here now, and understand the true meaning
of the cross, then we will come to see, that we indeed possess an eternal
destiny and heritage in God's great kingdom.

There are more stars in the universe (one song) than there are grains of
sand on all the beaches and in all the deserts on the entire face of the
earth, and, any one technologically, and presumably spiritually advanced,
civilization, would possess powers which would be indistinguishable from
magic. So is it any wonder that the shepherds quaked at the sight, or that
John was temped to worship the messenger.

Just remember that if you do decide to pick up your sleuthing magnifying
glass to chase after "the truth", to hold that Bible close to your chest,
and deeply "grok" the hidden meaning imbedded therein, or you'll have a
schizophrenic break with reality, and end up a character in "one flew over
the cookoo's nest", and the next sound you'll hear, when you slowly arise
from your bed is "meds, time to get your meds".

But fear not, the way has been paved. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt
as they say, and its now safe to wear - no need for a straightjacket.


If faith can not be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be
eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and
replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible
and can be validated - Man for Himself, pg.197
~Erich Fromm

In terms of an overarching & authentic Civil Liberty, which will do lasting
Justice to the individual historical participant, (as an unwitting victim of
historical circumstance (causation), amid the generational "sins of the
father"), - the only POSSIBLE framework within which that individual can
reconcile himself to the source of his life and being, and to his fellow
man, without eternally falling victim in some type of Nietzschean nihilistic
death meeting death eternal recurrence, or hell, is through an
ultra-rational theological foundation and authentic spiritual experience.
~EagleEye

The modern man must leave behind the mass man, and enter the fray with his
entire being. To accomplish this almost superhuman feat, he must somehow
develop for himself a unique, yet wholly authentic theological framework by
which to relate himself to the whole of it.
~Jung (paraphrased)

Folks - we live in a holographic universe in which certain overarching
principals of truth and justice form the basis, according to God's own
nature, and order, and sovereign will, of a universal path of progress to
perfection. In other words, there is a universal man of which we are but a
part, and a ground of being and becoming in which our life and consciousness
is the rhizome or the seedling. To be is to be perceived, while retaining
the space required for personal privacy and individual integrity. For there
to be love, there must be two, a lover and a beloved, and love, in order to
BE love, must be a passionate love of action, and reaction, of a first and
last cause, offering hope for a true and lasting purpose and meaning of life
and history, which does not end in death, since life itself cannot be death,
nor creation, destruction. Darwin was wrong. It is "by design" that all
things, including ourselves were made, and a supreme being or creator who
created us in His image. If there is a fundamental paradox in terms of the
larger historical causality in which we have our being, and if we of our own
human resources simply cannot, no matter how hard we may try, engineer our
own salvation because of our fundamental attachments which are inescapable,
being enmeshed or entangled as it were, then the only possible way to pass
through the desert and into the promised land of eternal life, is if a camel
goes before us, and passes through the eye of a needle. An intervention by
the love and grace of God of the highest simply HAD to, out of love, and
passion for the chase, disclose a divine purpose, and a meaning of life and
history, which is transcendent of all things, all philosophies and all
conceptions.

Jesus Christ
the same
yesterday, and
to-day, and
for ever.

He himself is faith itself, and is the author and perfecter of our faith,
but me, I happen to believe, for one, that in today's age, there simply must
be a rational basis for faith in God, so that even the sceptic and the
rationally minded person, can without challenge or criticism safely take
that lamb into his house for a complete inspection for possible flaws,
before calling himself a believer. Nothing else will do, at least for those
with a powerful will and a strong mind, and Christianity needs people like
that, who can defend the faith, not with bombs, but with conviction,
discipline (discipleship) and with authentic leadership which is capable of
meeting any challenge.

A powerful will is a real blessing, that is if it is properly harnessed to
the highest will and intentionality of fate itself in the unfolding life of
the individual journeyer.

Any attempt to blanket the world in death and destruction, and total war -
that is NOT the medium or the message of faith, who's aim it is for our
individual and collective salvation.

If the road to peace cannot be paved with peace in accordance with the
highest law of life and love and liberty, then I for one must conclude that
the leadership of people like Dick Cheney, and those who advocate for
continuous all out war, for decades, or even for generations, is not at all
in congruent alignment with the will and purpose of God, who's law of life
and love is Civility and Liberty itself.

If we cannot find a transcendent path to peace, and towards a new type of
creative mastermind alliance or what I like to call a collaborative
mutuality of existence, in accord with the very highest expression of the
law, then there's really no point, since the path to progress, at this stage
in our spiritual evolution, simply cannot be founded upon Darwinian
principals, who's philosophy has itself been usurped by modern science,
though we have yet to adequately describe a corresponding law of moral
gravity which would transcend the entropy that is the problem of our human
existence.

The end of evil does not reside in total war, but in the son, in Christ,
who's overarching will, and sovereignty over history bends itself and
envelopes the world in a supra-rational and supra-national moral code of
appropriate thinking and actions.

If what I believe, according to all the above information is true, then
there is yet another eye in the needle before us looming large on our
collective horizon which we must either try to thread, or to approach in the
awe and humility that it is due. A great historical crossroads, or
superdeterministic space-time event horizon does not spell the end of the
world, but merely the end of the world as we know it. The status quo will no
longer do. The map is no longer congruent with reality as it really is, and
there must be, among other things, an absolute dedication to the truth, at
all cost, except to the truth itself.

You think if Christ WAS indeed going to return to earth, in terms of a
transcendent reality, and with a whole host of angels, and a new city in the
sky, that He of all people would say to the elect - "roll out the red carpet
of blood, I'm on my way". Doubtful.

There is a great fear of terror and terrorists, bridging the gap in the
ocean which separates the stars of the heavens above, and that terror is
felt by those who believe that when the author steps onto the stage, that
that is the end of existence, but maybe, if God is really a God of love, and
mercy, that such a grand entrance will not spell the end, but simply a new
beginning, and a new administration of truth and justice, and a new central
governance founded upon the very highest possible standard of justice and
liberty.

What the power people fear the most, is the loss of power. What they fear is
impotence in the face of something that is well beyond us all. What they
fear is the loss of our way of life, and the loss of control, and of
attachments, to outcomes, and to materialism. They would rather blanket the
earth with death and destruction "exporting death and destruction to the
four corners of the earth" than to see something truly novel be born anew
which would threaten to lay low every mountain and turn everything on its
head.

I honestly believe that at core, what "they" would like to unleash is
nothing but an upturned spearhead with a US/Israeli flag on it saying "no,
we are not ready yet, and you are not welcome here on this planet - see all
the wars we need to fight first". Come back in a hundred years, or never,
and allow us to set ourselves up as God's over this earth, and reign supreme
in dominion. We can work it out on our own, and we do not need or want your
help. It is the kind of doctrine which actually hates, actively, Christian
principals, and which will go to any length, stopping short of nothing, to
cling to what is nothing but rubbish anyway.

We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a cataclysmic collapse is due,
and pretty soon, and that there is no longer anything that can be done to
engineer our collective global salvation. All out total war IS NOT THE
SOLUTION to the problem of man. It is our divinity, and our kinship with the
children of God, and light, that is our last hope.

Let us prepare a path to peace, with peace, according to law, and according
to the very highest standards of truth, justice, civility and liberty which
is possible and imaginable. We must make our paths straight, and prepare a
way for the Lord, that He might come in peace, and not in wrathful
vengeance.

A dramatic depopulation of the earth, total war, and destruction, amid
untold suffering - that cannot be the way, the life and the truth nor the
Magnum Opus of the United States.

They are wrong, and their philosophy of life, is death driven, and even
willful and hate filled, believing falsely in the supremacy and dominion of
man OVER nature. That was given to us in the beginning, but now, we are
fumbling the ball, and so is this Bush administration, who is listening to
the wrong angel in the whirlwind, the angel of death. Hitler is rising
again, and is attempting to make an ascent to the apex of the structure in
the form of the beast, from which he will weave an evil web, and draw
designs upon us all. This cannot be permitted to happen - I don't care if it
means asking God to change the script of the last act, which he could do, if
he so chose.

My God, as I understand Him, is a God of love, and faith, truth, beauty,
justice, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and he is a God of mercy,
who asks for mercy and not sacrifice.

The Pope is right, and Bush and co are wrong. It is high time to start
weaving a net of law to which even the US shall be bound in a new type of
rational self interest which is rational and which is founded upon faith.

Anything less, at the end of the day, will lead to a cataclysmic
annihilation of much of our humanity. Civility and civil liberty is already
starting to fly out the window, discarding the baby with the bathwater.

It's time to let go and let God, and when I say that I do not mean stepping
aside and allowing the US AS GOD, to take over the world. It cannot be
trusted, and can be plainly seen now as a malevolent, and not a benign or
benevolent force of civility in the world - a mere beast of prey and beast
of burden, a cancer on the world body, threatening to wreck havoc at all
levels for what comes down to nothing but an IR-rational selfish pursuit of
attachment to a conservative based status quo.

The spear needs to be turned into a simple flag pole, at the base of which
would be described the moral law, and rising in majestic splendor at the end
of the age, 2012, a white flag of surrender - the end of the road, but ahhh,
the beginning of something new, and glorious - the Earth itself entering, or
being received into the universal order of civilized worlds. Only then, much
later, when there is not left one single starving soul upon the face of the
earth, might it be appropriate to even think of setting out for the stars
above. For the kingdom of heaven would be at hand, and we would once again,
come back to the place where we first started and know it for the first time
in human history, since Moses left Egypt, leaving nothing behind, to embark
upon a new calling to find the promised land.

But he never found it, you may say. But he could have. The problem then, as
now, is that he didn't listen. His people were thirsty and needed water, and
so Moses approached God, and God (or God's agent) said to Him
to "speak to the rock", and it would release water for the people, but the
people being desperate, wanted an immediate fix to satiate their thirst, and
Moses then made a terrible error in judgment, and he took his staff and
struck the rock (an image of Christ) and sure enough he got his water, but
in the process sacrificed the heritage of his people. Why? Why would God be
so cruel as to deprive them at the end of the promised land? Because Moses
inappropriately used the power of God ON God, to get his way. In his
urgency, he did not listen, and willfully extracted his own desired outcome,
out of laziness. Even to this day, the implications of that mistake, is
costing humanity dearly. You must understand that then, actual historical
events represent what is now a greater spiritual truth and reality. These
things are images, and allegories, but no less accurate or even historical.

Let's not make the same mistake again, so that there will be both water AND
the promise.
Post by EagleEye
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The
main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which
prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles
Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav
Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports
on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated
the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts
to salvage Israel's socialist institutions-which include pursuing
supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that
embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"-undermine the legitimacy of the
nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government'
s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding
national critical mass- including a palpable sense of national
exhaustion-and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical
mass was illustrated best by Israel's efforts to draw in the United States
to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty
over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so
intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily
functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu's government comes in with a new set of ideas. While
there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to
make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an
entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative
and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on
rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To
a.. Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from
the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based
on balance of power.
b.. Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including
upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian
areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat's exclusive grip on Palestinian
society.
c.. Forge a new basis for relations with the United States-stressing
self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern,
and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel
takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT,
that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity
to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and
laying out the strategic context of the passages.
A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is
imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and
many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"- which placed Israel in the
position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military
retreat - the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such
an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes
"peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance
of power.
We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in
Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace
depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous
neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral
ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to
annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our
claim to the land -to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is
legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we
concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by
Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for
peace," is a solid basis for the future.
Israel's quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of
its ideals. The Jewish people's hunger for human rights - burned into their
identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land - informs
the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and
Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not
ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can
challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on
minimal standards of accountability.
Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one
with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic
initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and
a.. striking Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in
Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
b.. paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian
territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy
forces.
c.. striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove
insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of
the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous
agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing
to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria
staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to
sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese
sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of
thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at
a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.
Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian
military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria's regime
supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and
on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has
become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The
Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not
production points, of the "supernote" - counterfeit US currency so well done
that it is impossible to detect.
Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious
realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is
dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own
people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with
international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the
most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral
that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain
Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and
rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure
that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of
our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and
Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's
regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions
recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has
triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping
up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using
infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak,
but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in
its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too
preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit
distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural
axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and
Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi
Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of
the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East
profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in
supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such
measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before
a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting
King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to
protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging - through
influence in the U.S. business community - investment in Jordan to
structurally shift Jordan's economy away from dependence on Iraq; and
diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to
destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting
diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions
against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross
into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under
control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied
for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were
the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to
help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and
Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost
the Prophet's family, the direct descendants of which - and in whose veins
the blood of the Prophet flows - is King Hussein.
Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians
Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the
Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel's efforts to secure its streets may
require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable
practice with which Americans can sympathize.
A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed.
Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing
Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub's operatives in Jerusalem.
Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance
Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum
standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and
judicial and fiduciary accountability.
We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal
standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm
peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill
the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to
fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not
fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal
standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper
interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate
alternatives to Arafat's base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.
To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO
problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a
special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many
Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are
important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan,
have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to
better integrate its own Arabs.
Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel's
domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition
to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to
lure Arabs - through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S.
weapons - to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American
money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very
costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles
is should neither have nor want.
Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for
the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and
mutuality - not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel's new
strategy - based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength - reflects
continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant,
does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the
Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant
Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure
used against it in the past.
To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to
announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately
from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent
economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate
arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply
problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute
report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than
in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a
free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises - moves
which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of
key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt
Gingrich.
Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter
real threats to the region and the West's security. Mr. Netanyahu can
highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on
anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a
weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such
cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel'
s survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the
United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much
about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to
move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those
reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress
themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into
themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to
Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign
American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.
Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict
TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of
Israel's floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has
invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope
for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was
leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel's new agenda
can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and
allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption,
rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation
without response.
Israel's new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways
that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are
most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through
replacing Israel's socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to
overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.
Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict
though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace
its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free,
powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the
Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition
leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and
intellectual leadership. It is an important - if not the most
important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel - proud,
wealthy, solid, and strong - would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful
Middle East.
Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
In November last year, the premier scientific journal, Nature,
published a report called "Hydrocarbons and the evolution of human
"About 100 years ago, the major source of energy shifted ... to fossil
hydrocarbons. ... Technology has generally led to a greater use of
hydrocarbon fuels ... making civilization vulnerable to decreases in
supply."
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
SOURCE
Jerusalem Post, "Report: US considering armed intervention in Syria",
14 January 2004.
[
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid
Post by EagleEye
=1074053868626
Post by Alert
]
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons
of the Pentagon have proposed that President George Bush instigate
military actions against Syria due to its continued support for
Hizbullah and enabling terrorists to enter Iraq from its border.
Reports received by the Night Rider news group in Washington,
operations will not include large-scale military intervention, in
spite of several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq. The Defense Department is considering punitive
aerial attacks and Special Forces incursions.
The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of
Staff chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin
Powell and the State Department.
FURTHER READING
United Nations, "Syria", 2003.
[ http://www.un.org.sy/html/profile/economy.htm ]
Oil is the primary contributor to Syria's Gross Domestic Product,
constituting over 60% of the total.
...
US Energy Information Administration, "Syria", March 2003.
[ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/syria.html ]
With proven oil reserves expected to last only about 10 more years
and a population growing at 2.5% per year, Syria may become a net
importer of oil within the next decade. Thus, the exploration for oil
and natural gas is a top priority in Syria.
...
Arabic News, "Syrian oil minister: Syria's oil production continues
until 2040", 19 June 1999.
[ http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990619/1999061940.html ]
Syrian Minister of oil and mineral resources Muhammad Maher Jamal
said last Wednesday " We have precise and good studies indicating that
oil production in Syria will continue until the year 2040."
He added we always, in Syria, view the oil industry as a strategic
matter. The Minister added in replying to expectations expressed by
the Western media saying that the Syrian oil production will end by
the year 2010 that this expectation " is groundless," adding that "an
evidence on that in that we have a day after the other important
companies contracting for oil."
...
BBC News, "Powell pushes for Syria action", 3 May 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2995483.stm ]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has called on Syria and Lebanon
to end all support for groups Washington classifies as terrorist
organisations.
...
He said Syria had already closed the offices of some anti-Israel
groups in Damascus but he expected Syria "to do more".
...
BBC News, "Blair urges Syria to abandon WMD", 6 january 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3372441.stm ]
Tony Blair has repeated his calls for Syria to abandon any
development of weapons of mass destruction.
...
Syria's president is reported to have said he would not comply until
Israel abandons its nuclear weapons programme.
...
BBC News, "Israel's nuclear programme", 22 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm ]
While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few
international experts question the Jewish state's presence on the
world's list of nuclear powers.
Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of
mass destruction programme in the world.
Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear
ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global
spread of nuclear weapons.
As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of
sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
...
BBC News, "Strike on Syria: World reaction", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166554.stm ]
The Israeli air raid on Syrian territory has prompted concern and
condemnation from many world leaders.
Israel informed Washington of the raid only hours after it took
place.
...
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi branded Israel's strike a
"flagrant aggression and a violation of Syria's territorial
integrity", but made no comment on the Israeli allegation that Iran
funded the camp targeted in the raid.
The Arab League held an emergency session in Cairo to discuss the
attack.
"This aggression represents a serious escalation that threatens
regional and international security and peace and exposes the
deteriorating situation in the region to uncontrollable consequences,
which could drag the whole region into violent whirlpool," the body
said in a statement.
The Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, said the attack was an
"aggression on a close country," while Qatar and Kuwait - which like
Egypt are close US allies - also condemned the Israeli attack.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher said the air strike could
"drag the whole region into a circle of violence".
France, which holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council,
said the air strike "constitutes an unacceptable violation of
international law and rules of sovereignty".
And Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, on a tour of the
Middle East, said: "Violating the sovereignty of a third country
complicates further the [peace] process, that's why what happened in
Syria cannot be accepted."
BBC News, "Syria asks UN to condemn Israel", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166768.stm ]
An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council has
heard widespread condemnation of Israel for carrying out an air raid
on Syrian territory.
...
Syria, which requested the crisis talks, called for a vote on a
draft resolution condemning what it called Israel's "military
aggression" but the meeting was adjourned without a vote.
UN ambassadors are now consulting their governments on their next
steps.
Damascus has insisted the site targeted by Israel was a civilian
zone. It said Israel was threatening security in the Middle East with
its first attack on Syrian soil in more than 20 years.
At the council meeting, all the diplomats except US ambassador
John Negroponte spoke out against the Israeli action.
...
The US has often used its veto to block resolutions condemning
Israel...
...
BBC News, "Profile: The Golan Heights", 14 January 3004.
[
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm
Post by Alert
]
The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, has a
political and strategic significance which belies its size.
Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in the closing stages
of the 1967 Six-Day War. Most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants fled the
area during the conflict.
An armistice line was established and the region came under
Israeli military control. Almost immediately Israel began to settle
the Golan.
...
BBC News, "Israel announces Golan expansion", 31 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3358797.stm ]
Israel has unveiled a $60m plan to build homes for thousands of
new settlers on the occupied Golan Heights.
...
Syria has reacted angrily, saying sovereignty should be resolved
by international law, not military power.
...
BBC News, "Timeline: Syria", 7 January 2004.
[
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/827580.stm
Post by EagleEye
Post by Alert
]
A chronology of key events
Alert
2004-01-23 14:23:13 UTC
Permalink
FURTHER READING:

Jerusalem Post, "Report: Rumsfeld considers striking Hizbullah to
provoke Syria", 22 January 2004.
[ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074745158639
]
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a
military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near
the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative
London-based Jane's Intelligence Digest.
In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said
multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the
framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on
Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon.
It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa
Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based,
would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a
confrontation with Syrian troops."
Such a conflict might well prove to be the objective of the US,
said the journal, which described Washington's strategic benefits from
a confrontation with Syria. These include:
* Pressuring Damascus into ending its support for anti-Israel
Palestinian groups;
* Persuading Syria to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and
to withdraw its troops from Lebanon;
* Stimulating a situation where Syrian leader Bashir Assad can be
ousted;
...


http://www.theinsider.org
Post by Alert
US plans to attack Syria next
The media in Israel have been informed of the US government's
intention to attack Syria next.
The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday: "US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons of the Pentagon have proposed that
President George Bush instigate military actions against Syria". The
same Jewish newspaper, which has good connections with the USA,
reports: "several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq."
The first phase of the war on Syria will be a series of small strikes
over a long period, designed to disable Syria's defences without
provoking too much public opposition at home in the US. The allies
used the same strategy in neighbouring Iraq. The excuses for the war
on Syria will also be the same - WMD and terrorism.
Syria is an important oil producing economy. In 2003 the Syrian oil
industry yielded approximately 400,000 to 450,000 barrels per day,
representing an increase of around 100,000 b/d compared with the
previous year. The US government predicts that in 10 years or so
Syria, like most other oil exporters, will no longer have enough oil
to export. The Syrian government disputes this in the hope that new
reserves may be found.
In November last year, the premier scientific journal, Nature,
published a report called "Hydrocarbons and the evolution of human
"About 100 years ago, the major source of energy shifted ... to fossil
hydrocarbons. ... Technology has generally led to a greater use of
hydrocarbon fuels ... making civilization vulnerable to decreases in
supply."
What will happen to Western civilization ten years from now, when the
primary fuel source is no longer available? Think of all the things in
your life that depend on petrol or gas; electricity, lorries, cars,
shops... Now imagine them gone.
http://www.theinsider.org
SOURCE
Jerusalem Post, "Report: US considering armed intervention in Syria",
14 January 2004.
[ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074053868626
]
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the civilian echelons
of the Pentagon have proposed that President George Bush instigate
military actions against Syria due to its continued support for
Hizbullah and enabling terrorists to enter Iraq from its border.
Reports received by the Night Rider news group in Washington,
operations will not include large-scale military intervention, in
spite of several Pentagon officials' belief that Syria should be the
next to go after Iraq. The Defense Department is considering punitive
aerial attacks and Special Forces incursions.
The initiative is presently being rejected by Joint Chiefs of
Staff chairman General Richard Meyers and by Secretary of State Colin
Powell and the State Department.
FURTHER READING
United Nations, "Syria", 2003.
[ http://www.un.org.sy/html/profile/economy.htm ]
Oil is the primary contributor to Syria's Gross Domestic Product,
constituting over 60% of the total.
...
US Energy Information Administration, "Syria", March 2003.
[ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/syria.html ]
With proven oil reserves expected to last only about 10 more years
and a population growing at 2.5% per year, Syria may become a net
importer of oil within the next decade. Thus, the exploration for oil
and natural gas is a top priority in Syria.
...
Arabic News, "Syrian oil minister: Syria's oil production continues
until 2040", 19 June 1999.
[ http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990619/1999061940.html ]
Syrian Minister of oil and mineral resources Muhammad Maher Jamal
said last Wednesday " We have precise and good studies indicating that
oil production in Syria will continue until the year 2040."
He added we always, in Syria, view the oil industry as a strategic
matter. The Minister added in replying to expectations expressed by
the Western media saying that the Syrian oil production will end by
the year 2010 that this expectation " is groundless," adding that "an
evidence on that in that we have a day after the other important
companies contracting for oil."
...
BBC News, "Powell pushes for Syria action", 3 May 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2995483.stm ]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has called on Syria and Lebanon
to end all support for groups Washington classifies as terrorist
organisations.
...
He said Syria had already closed the offices of some anti-Israel
groups in Damascus but he expected Syria "to do more".
...
BBC News, "Blair urges Syria to abandon WMD", 6 january 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3372441.stm ]
Tony Blair has repeated his calls for Syria to abandon any
development of weapons of mass destruction.
...
Syria's president is reported to have said he would not comply until
Israel abandons its nuclear weapons programme.
...
BBC News, "Israel's nuclear programme", 22 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm ]
While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few
international experts question the Jewish state's presence on the
world's list of nuclear powers.
Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of
mass destruction programme in the world.
Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear
ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global
spread of nuclear weapons.
As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of
sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
...
BBC News, "Strike on Syria: World reaction", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166554.stm ]
The Israeli air raid on Syrian territory has prompted concern and
condemnation from many world leaders.
Israel informed Washington of the raid only hours after it took
place.
...
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi branded Israel's strike a
"flagrant aggression and a violation of Syria's territorial
integrity", but made no comment on the Israeli allegation that Iran
funded the camp targeted in the raid.
The Arab League held an emergency session in Cairo to discuss the
attack.
"This aggression represents a serious escalation that threatens
regional and international security and peace and exposes the
deteriorating situation in the region to uncontrollable consequences,
which could drag the whole region into violent whirlpool," the body
said in a statement.
The Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, said the attack was an
"aggression on a close country," while Qatar and Kuwait - which like
Egypt are close US allies - also condemned the Israeli attack.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher said the air strike could
"drag the whole region into a circle of violence".
France, which holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council,
said the air strike "constitutes an unacceptable violation of
international law and rules of sovereignty".
And Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, on a tour of the
Middle East, said: "Violating the sovereignty of a third country
complicates further the [peace] process, that's why what happened in
Syria cannot be accepted."
BBC News, "Syria asks UN to condemn Israel", 7 October 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166768.stm ]
An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council has
heard widespread condemnation of Israel for carrying out an air raid
on Syrian territory.
...
Syria, which requested the crisis talks, called for a vote on a
draft resolution condemning what it called Israel's "military
aggression" but the meeting was adjourned without a vote.
UN ambassadors are now consulting their governments on their next
steps.
Damascus has insisted the site targeted by Israel was a civilian
zone. It said Israel was threatening security in the Middle East with
its first attack on Syrian soil in more than 20 years.
At the council meeting, all the diplomats except US ambassador
John Negroponte spoke out against the Israeli action.
...
The US has often used its veto to block resolutions condemning
Israel...
...
BBC News, "Profile: The Golan Heights", 14 January 3004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm
]
The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, has a
political and strategic significance which belies its size.
Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in the closing stages
of the 1967 Six-Day War. Most of the Syrian Arab inhabitants fled the
area during the conflict.
An armistice line was established and the region came under
Israeli military control. Almost immediately Israel began to settle
the Golan.
...
BBC News, "Israel announces Golan expansion", 31 December 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3358797.stm ]
Israel has unveiled a $60m plan to build homes for thousands of
new settlers on the occupied Golan Heights.
...
Syria has reacted angrily, saying sovereignty should be resolved
by international law, not military power.
...
BBC News, "Timeline: Syria", 7 January 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/827580.stm
]
A chronology of key events
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...