You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Syria-U.S. confrontation ruled out
2005-01-12
... by Syria, anyway...
Syrian Ambassador to Washington Imad Mustafa has ruled out a military confrontation with the United States despite extremely tense political relations. "I believe that neither the U.S. administration nor the American people are ready, both mentally and practically, to engage in a new military action against Syria after the invasion of Iraq," Mustafa said hopefully in an interview with the Saudi daily al-Hayat, monitored in Beirut. "Our relations with the United States are extremely tense but I don't think that tension will escalate to the point of military confrontation or invasion of Syria," he said. He rejected U.S. accusations Syria was fueling violence against U.S. forces in Iraq as "ridiculous." "Syria is equally worried and deeply concerned about mounting violence in Iraq," he said.
Posted by:Steve

#17  How very nice of the SYRIAN ambassador to rule it out.

I think there are some Generals, a SecDef, National Security Advisor and a President who have much more of a say in this.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-01-12 10:25:23 AM  

#16  How very nice of the SYRIAN ambassador to rule it out.

I think there are some Generals, a SecDef, National Security Advisor and a President who have much more of a say in this.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-01-12 10:25:23 AM  

#15  VAST Syrian Navy steaming into NY harbor to the sounds of the Village People.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen   2005-01-12 2:30:06 PM  

#14  Didn't Saddam rule out "a military confrontation with the United States" at some point too? Yeah, THAT stopped us!

I've got a list around here somewhere that lays out what THEY need to do in order to get US to "rule it out".

Then again, maybe what they're saying is that they've ruled out sending the VAST Syrian Navy steaming into NY Harbor to demand our surrender..for now! Dammit, I can't figure it out, just bomb 'em!
Posted by: Justrand   2005-01-12 2:02:56 PM  

#13   The thing to remember, Imad, is that in Iraq we're interested in creating a democracy as an ally in the further rationalization of the area.

Syria, however, we don't need in that role. Which means that if we simply bomb you back into the stone age (which we're capable of doing without much trouble) and let the Israelis pacify Lebbanon, it's all good as far as we're concerned.

Sleep tight...
Posted by: mojo   2005-01-12 1:41:24 PM  

#12  T.W. Good one.Syrians are going to be "blind".
Face saving,and all.
Posted by: crazyhorse   2005-01-12 1:23:20 PM  

#11  How many personnel qualifies as an "invasion?"

Well, if they come in tanks four abreast, with American flags flying and and the national anthem playing, that might count. But if the border guards don't notice, why should we?
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-12 1:07:42 PM  

#10  How many personnel qualifies as an "invasion?"
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-01-12 11:04:40 AM  

#9  "Syria is equally worried and deeply concerned about mounting violence in Iraq," he said.

An absolutely odorous, steamy, pile of male bovine feces.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-01-12 10:52:33 AM  

#8  Translated this means: "The Syrian ambassador and other diaper heads are shitting in their collective pants" hoping we will not turn our eyes on their terrorist-supporting asses. Don't underestimate the American people dip wad. We may decide to just bomb Syria into oblivion rather than expend good troops on scum. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be this subtle.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen   2005-01-12 10:32:08 AM  

#7  Just whistling past the graveyard. Funny that he said "invasion" - I don't think I've seen that word used by any US Official regards Syria, ever.
Posted by: .com   2005-01-12 10:26:33 AM  

#6  How very nice of the SYRIAN ambassador to rule it out.

I think there are some Generals, a SecDef, National Security Advisor and a President who have much more of a say in this.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-01-12 10:25:23 AM  

#5  Um, I'll rule it out when the US ambassador denies it out... maybe. The Syrians really don't have a say in it, other than to make their home-grown a**holes cut it out.
Posted by: BH   2005-01-12 10:24:09 AM  

#4  Remember the Debka version of this? The US will send incursions into Syria, but *not* to fight the Syrians. Now if the Syrians wish to fight with the US visitors, *then* it would be a Syrian-US fight. But if the Syrians would just prefer to ignore the US arresting and killing Iraqi Baathist ex-leaders, well, far be it from the US to bother them at all. Peaceful coexistence and shit.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-01-12 10:22:42 AM  

#3  not a target but also not going to stop the activities causing them to be a target? Sounds like he doesn't understand opur relationship and cause=>effect thang...typically arab
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-12 10:07:25 AM  

#2  everybody now....'Cause wishing and hoping and thinking and praying - Planning and dreaming the bombing won't start'
Posted by: 2b   2005-01-12 10:04:00 AM  

#1  Yeah, that wiolence has a tendency to spread. West.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-12 9:50:19 AM  

00:00