Assad given weapons ultimatum

[Skippy1]

Figured this needed a new topic.......

By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 07/01/2004)


America and Britain rebuffed President Bashar Assad of Syria yesterday, telling him bluntly that Damascus must give up its weapons of mass destruction or face ostracism - even if neighbouring Israel keeps its nuclear arms.

"Israel is in a unique position as the only state whose very existence is threatened," said a senior British Government source yesterday. "There is no point in asking for a WMD-free Middle East while there are countries parading missiles with a sign up the side saying Death to Israel."

Isolated since the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Mr Assad is under strong pressure to follow the lead given by Libya's Col Muammar Gaddafi, who last month announced the dismantling of his secret non-conventional weapons.

But the Syrian leader told The Telegraph this week that he would not agree to destroy his chemical weapons unless Israel abandoned its undeclared nuclear arsenal, estimated at between 100 and 200 warheads. "Unless this applies to all countries, we are wasting our time," he said.

Washington and London have told Damascus that giving up its well-developed chemical arsenal and its embryonic biological programme agents is the price for better relations with America.

They say they support the idea of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction but have all but abandoned the pretence of an even-handed policy. They believe that "rogue" states such as Syria must disarm first, and, by implication, Israel will be last.

A senior western diplomatic source said: "They [the Syrians] have to make a decision about whether the chemical weapons will make much of a difference against the Israelis, or whether they would not be in a better position by saying, 'We're giving it up and now we want a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction'.

"The pressure will rise on the Israelis as Arab states give up their weapons of mass destruction."

Despite the new attempt by Mr Assad to charm the West - which included a ground-breaking trip yesterday to Turkey, a close American ally - there is a growing sense of frustration with his failure to reform the country since taking over after his father's death in 2000.

Syria has caused particular anger by criticising the war in Iraq, hailing the resistance by Saddam loyalists, and failing to prevent extremists from crossing the border into Iraq to fight US-led forces.

Moreover, Britain believes Syria not only harbours Palestinian extremist groups, but is actively preventing them from agreeing to an Egyptian-mediated Palestinian ceasefire.

The Daily Telegraph, UK

[johnny]

Right on. It seemed an honest proposal, all weapons of mass destruction gone from the middle east, including Israel's Arsenal, but there's a small catch. No other country in the world has so many enemies as Israel. If they gave up their heavy stuff, they might just as well start digging their own graves.

[Timber Loftis]

If I were an Israeli, a member of a group of people who've been persecuted for round about 4,000 years, a country surrounded on all sides by enemies decrying the evil of Israel, the last thing I'd do is give up ANY weapon. You don't see Israelis having anti-Palestine marches, do you? I think it's a silly demand given the state of things. If it's for PR, it's for PR. If it's to stall agreeing to any concessions, it will work of course. But, the Syrians, assuming they're smart at all, know it's a demand that simply will not be met -- for reasons fair or unfair.

[ 01-07-2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

israel's armed forces are already technologically light years ahead of their local enemies. they dont need nukes for defense.

and the reason there arent anti-palestine marches in israel is because they (israel) invaded palestine and are currently squatting on their (palestine's) soil, not vice versa.

you dont see any anti-iraq marches in america or britain.

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, sultan, you're right. Israelis have absolutely no reason whatsoever to dislike Palestinians. They are simply squatters, and the Palestinians simply complain and march and take no action. Your view on arab issues is perennially bent, I'll note.

See, with me, I take things issue by issue, with a dash of pragmatism thrown in on the "wouldn't it be nice - but impossible" issues. You, however, are for arabs and against Israel, no matter the issue. You sympathize with suicide bombers and even cheer them on from the sidelines, as best as I recall it. I may be wrong, but I don't think my recollection of your posting history is incorrect. With such bias, you lose credibility, at least in my eyes.

And, I note I've never said anything good about Israeli settlements or their continued occupation of occupied territories.

[Skippy1]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If I were an Israeli, a member of a group of people who've been persecuted for round about 4,000 years, a country surrounded on all sides by enemies decrying the evil of Israel, the last thing I'd do is give up ANY weapon. You don't see Israelis having anti-Palestine marches, do you? I think it's a silly demand given the state of things. If it's for PR, it's for PR. If it's to stall agreeing to any concessions, it will work of course. But, the Syrians, assuming they're smart at all, know it's a demand that simply will not be met -- for reasons fair or unfair.

That would seem on the face of it, a pretty negative attitude you have there TL. I'm sure that with a population of about 17 million, there are bound to be a few "smart" Syrians. We can't expect countries like Syria to simply lay down and take whatever is dished out to them. At least dialogue has been entered into, which is a lot more than has happened in recent history. Granted, it is the threat of military conflict that has prompted it, but it is much better than the tit for tat that has gone on for decades now.

As much as Israel has a history full of persecution, it is now time for them to stop using this as an excuse for riding rough-shod over their weaker neighbours. Whenever this issue crops up the old line of persecution comes back into play again. Yes the holocaust happened. But it's time to move on. I won't enter into the religious aspect of their persecution, as I'm not a religious person myself and have my own doubts about religion in any case. Too often in history it has been used as a case for war. A more ridiculous reason is hard to imagine when you consider that all religions preach peace and harmony.

What I'm trying to say is, with the lesson of Iraq fresh in the minds of potentially volatile states, the time is right to thrash out agreements. The time is right for Israel, along with the Arab Nations to compromise with each other and build a lasting peace. This means getting rid of all WMD in the middle-east and recognising each countries right to exist.

On another tack as well, the UN should NOT be involved. They are about as effective as their predecessor The League of Nations before the first World War. All rhetoric and absolutely no effectiveness at all!

[Timber Loftis]

I didn't mean to imply Syrians weren't smart. I meant to point out that they couldn't miss the fact that it ain't gonna happen because they surely are smart.

This is possibly a political ploy to garner discussion of the issue, as you point out. However, it is also possibly, and more likely, a lame-ass excuse to not do away with their chemical weapons. And, since it's an ulitmatum, I'm sure that's what it is.

Which is problematical, because Syria cannot be trusted with chemical WMD. It is simply too likely that it will use them in the near or distant future. Not because the current leaders are bad, but because it has a lot of extremist groups inside the country who have a great deal of popularity and may come to power. Many Syrians verbally yell about how great killing Jews is. If the right combination of these people came into power, well... it wouldn't be pretty. SCUDS will reach Israel from Syria for sure.

As well, chemical WMD are not as destructive as nukes and do not cause permanent damage -- so they can be used without as big a threat of retaliation or of permanently damaging the earth; look at what Saddam did to 40 Kurdish villages with mustard gas bombs and other lovely treats.

I see this as a poker game. The world is looking to Syria to end its chemical WMD program. Syria in turn is looking across the table at Israel and saying "only if Israel folds too." Israel's response, whether directly or impliedly, will be quite simple: "You got a pair of Jacks -- bully for you. We still got a full house, which beats your measley Jacks anyday. Ante up."

timber - i find it unfortunate that you chose not to discuss syria's stance on womd but instead launched into a meta-discussion of my position on israel.

i am choosing to take this discussion off-line as it is inappropriate to this thread or the forum.

[Timber Loftis]

*deleted*

[ 01-10-2004, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Sultan PM'ed me about my quote to him a bit above on this page. . . . ~snipped~ . . . HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE that if you object to this post being made, please shoot me a quick PM, and I will immediately delete it, no questions asked. [EDIT] quote: timber - i find it unfortunate that you chose not to discuss syria's stance on womd but instead launched into a meta-discussion of my position on israel. i am choosing to take this discussion off-line as it is inappropriate to this thread or the forum.

I just saw this post right now. Sultan, for the reasons I stated above, I felt it was okay for the forum rather than personal. I reiterate that if you PM me I will remove it. However, I think the meta discussion is appropriate. As the Tick said, "Get META with me, Arthur!"

Regarding Syria's WMD, I have stated they cannot be trusted with them, regardless of Israel of the US or Russia -- taken as an issue only with them, they should not have them. They have too many popular extremist views in their country.

Separately, regarding Israel, I feel they can be trusted with WMD. It's simply my belief. But, as I said, I feel its a separate issue. [/QUOTE]What on earth is all this about? Are you guys having a bitch fight or what?

Surely it would be better for us to hear Sultan's viewpoint from Sultan himself, rather than hearing his views secondhand? That said, I would imagine that if he PM'ed you his views it was something he wished to remain private and it's probably a good idea to wait till he's ok with posting it in public before doing so, even though none of what you said about what he said was particularly bad or anything. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Anyway...I trust the two of you will be able to sort it all out between yourselves. I trust you both as being reasonable people.

[ 01-09-2004, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]