Syria next?

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Yep and they have 3 millions soldiers, ten times the Saddam army.



    Well, that's just not fair . . .



    - T.I.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders the White

    Whos next? Hmm difficult one.



    My guess would be Copenhagen. And then London.




    Nah. Paris, Berlin, and then Moscow. You know it makes sense.



    - T.I.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    If the plan was set to attack Syria next, then that means we will attack Syria next. For Syria, "getting their act together", whatever that means, is irrelevant.



    So, lets roll.



    Whats the betting on a date for a Syria strike?

    7:4 on, before this August




    It would be most helpful to be given exact dates and countries so that one can plan one's holiday. One thing's for sure though, I wouldn't be heading west.



    - T.I.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 84
    rashumonrashumon Posts: 453member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    US will not attack Syria. I am ready to bet a nice bottle of Champagne.



    me too
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 84
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The Installer

    Nah. Paris, Berlin, and then Moscow. You know it makes sense.



    - T.I.




    You euro-centric bastards! Don't you know that San Francisco and LA are the next targets? Bush needs to take out us liberals. 54 electoral votes means a lot.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 84
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rashumon

    me too



    You just been on the blower with Ariel Sharon?



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 84
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Rumseld:



    "We certainly are hopeful Syria will not become a haven for war criminals or terrorists,"



    Bush (later):



    "We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria,"





    Source: New York Times / AP





    I rather doubt we'll push the war into Syria, but Syria is a lot easier to handle than Iran and certainly easier than N. Korea would be. They're clearly trying to plant the seeds of fear in Syrian leadership.



    Bush and his team would have to be either clinically insane or truly forced (by a N. Korean first strike) to start a war on the Korean peninsula. You think the economy is scewed up right now (and believe me the administration notices), wait til the bodies start coming home by the thousands each week. It would be the bloodiest thing anyone has seen since Normandy.



    The good that could come from it is the disarmament of N. Korea and possible reunification of the peninsula, but that last part isn't guaranteed and the cost would be enormous in human and economic terms. Who's to say if we were on the verge of victory that their lunatic of a president wouldn't lob a few nukes at Seoul and Tokyo out of spite? Or even Hawaii? Would make Iraq look like a SWAT team action....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    US will not attack Syria. I am ready to bet a nice bottle of Champagne.



    Its a deal.



    the rhetoric is much too similar to that used after the afghan war to ignore it.



    Now who is next after Syria? And what excuse will be used?



    My guess is Iran and the tried and tested "they har harbouring terrorists from the [name of the last country attacked]"
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 84
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Moogs you are right, US try to intimidate Syria, they can take economical sanctions against them, but they won't go to war. A war against Syria, will mean a world against the entire arabic world, something that US can't afford.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 84
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Bush and his team would have to be either clinically insane or truly forced (by a N. Korean first strike) to start a war on the Korean peninsula. You think the economy is scewed up right now (and believe me the administration notices), wait til the bodies start coming home by the thousands each week. It would be the bloodiest thing anyone has seen since Normandy.



    Comparing Saddam Hussein's ragtag military to Kim Jing Il's is like comparing the Michigan Militia to the US Army. The different standards by which we treat Iraq and N. Korea, (the latter being by far the greater threat to the US), are surely being noticed by the world. The interpretation is perhaps you get into the nuclear club, America will negotiate with you. If you don't, then you are liable to being attacked



    Quote:

    The good that could come from it is the disarmament of N. Korea and possible reunification of the peninsula, but that last part isn't guaranteed and the cost would be enormous in human and economic terms. Who's to say if we were on the verge of victory that their lunatic of a president wouldn't lob a few nukes at Seoul and Tokyo out of spite? Or even Hawaii? Would make Iraq look like a SWAT team action.... [/B]



    You just said it...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    The different standards by which we treat Iraq and N. Korea, (the latter being by far the greater threat to the US), are surely being noticed by the world.



    Oh, they are. They are.



    - T.I.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 84
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Yep. Some of these countries will start getting the message that the threat of a nuclear attack is more potent than actually unleashing one. If any of these "rogue" Arab states (Syria, Iran, etc.) had a few former soviet warheads and launch vehicles to match, they too would get the N. Korean treatment. And Israel wouldn't necessarily be the target because that would kill all the Palestinians too. I suspect other westernized countries would be the target -- Europe, Japan, maybe Australia or Hawaii.



    Canada's safe tho, eh? They are safely disengaged from the whole US vs. terrorist states thing, I'd say. By the look of the BBC's commercials, you'd think they're hoping the terroristas are watching and taking note of how anti-American they seem to be. Must be the playoff season getting the better of their ad execs. All Canadians hate the US during the Stanley Cup playoffs. It's DER CUP and no one's gonna take it from them this year, seee?





    Anyway, militarily lone nukes are practically useless (unless you've already been invaded (kinda makes you shudder doesn't it)), because they know the instant NORAD detects the launch, their entire country is 30 minutes from becoming the proverbial "self-lighting glass parking lot". Oil or no oil, innocents or no innocents.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 84
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    The interpretation is perhaps you get into the nuclear club, America will negotiate with you. If you don't, then you are liable to being attacked





    Wow. Did you just figure that out? That's not the interpretation, that's way things are and have been for decades. Why even bother trying to blame this on your jewish conspiracy, when it's been a fact of international relations for many, many years?



    Since nuclear capable countries demand more delicate handling, specifically because the are nuclear capable, do you begin to comprehend why your jewish/zionist cabal desires to prevent the ascension of other states to nuclear powers, especially rogue states known to harbour and support terrorist worldwide?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 84
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs



    Anyway, militarily lone nukes are practically useless (unless you've already been invaded (kinda makes you shudder doesn't it)), because they know the instant NORAD detects the launch, their entire country is 30 minutes from becoming the proverbial "self-lighting glass parking lot". Oil or no oil, innocents or no innocents.




    So long as you count on them using conventional delivery systems, that would make sense. Assuming they know that getting a missle to hit a US target would quite beyond their capabilities and that the missle launch would be detected and retaliation would be immediate, then one can assume some groups might choose a nonconventional delivery system. Maybe a cargo-tanker, or a smaller speedboat into a large busy US harbour. How about in the trunk of a car driven across one of the totally unguarded and unchecked points between Canada and the US and driven into New York or Chicago. Anonymous and difficult to trace.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 84
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tulkas

    Wow. Did you just figure that out? That's not the interpretation, that's way things are and have been for decades. Why even bother trying to blame this on your jewish conspiracy, when it's been a fact of international relations for many, many years?



    Since nuclear capable countries demand more delicate handling, specifically because the are nuclear capable, do you begin to comprehend why your jewish/zionist cabal desires to prevent the ascension of other states to nuclear powers, especially rogue states known to harbour and support terrorist worldwide?



    Yikes. C'mon kindergarten...you really don't be quite so yawningly predictable. Just one mention of Israel and the knees start jerking in unison and regurgitating that hackneyed "conspiracy theory" chestnut.



    The PNAC just happens to be one of the most influential "steering committees" for current US foreign policy. It's not a "conspiracy theory", or a black-helicopter fantasy from a bunch of paranoids in Wyoming. The PNAC's proponents are completely open about their aims...to the point of blatant promotion. Is it coincidental that all the underwriters are hardline conservative, and a disproportionate number happen to be Jewish? Do you feel that mentioning this fact renders me antisemitic? Haven't you got anything original or relevant to add? You feel that Israel's security doesn't figure in any of this mess, huh?



    Stop being so politically correct: just because the Holocaust was so ghastly doesn't mean that everything Israel does to further its its aim for a secure homeland for the Jewish people is automatically "right". Nothing should be taboo in discussion.







    More US saber-rattling on Syria links:



    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...645911,00.html

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/283749.html

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=397011

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...fromEmail=true

    http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/10...deast%2B.shtml



    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=397011



    On that last link, read conservative arch-hawk Lawrence Eagleburger's comments regarding a pre-emptive invasion of Syria.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 84
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    PNAC not just an influential, PNAC is the current admin. Rummy, Dick................. Hell, name anyone other than powell and rice.



    But let's not forget American Enterprise Institute, JINSA, Foundation for Defense of Democracy or Center for Security Policy.



    Of course, maybe it's nothing. It's not like any of our cheif policy makers like Perle have ever been caught spying against the US for Israel.



    Ok. I'll fess up. Perle actually was caught spying.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 84
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Tulkas: good points all.



    Hard to know whether a nation with the will to use one against us would rather spend the money on attaining a launch vehicle (and have the whole thing be under their control up to launch), or try to smuggle one into our ports of entry somehow.



    The latter would certainly be beyond Norad's ability (or any other existing technological ability) to detect its arrival, but it also adds lot's of variables to the equation. More that can go wrong from their perspective. Clearly it wouldn't be a true military operation; they would have to rely on the help of outsiders to get their dirty work done....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 84
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    You feel that Israel's security doesn't figure in any of this mess, huh?



    Stop being so politically correct: just because the Holocaust was so ghastly doesn't mean that everything Israel does to further its its aim for a secure homeland for the Jewish people is automatically "right". Nothing should be taboo in discussion.

    [/B]



    I think Israel's security figures very highly into the mix. You seems to believe that everything the US does is automatically bad, if it involves Jews or Israel's security concerns.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 84
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I think Syria is a tougher nut to crack than Iraq. However, basically all militaries are easy for ours.



    They have more modern Russian military hardware than Iraq.

    S-300 SAMs and a far more developed air force, including the supersexy Mig-29 Fulcrum and later updated versions like the SMT. Probably other Russian jets that I am forgetting.



    Not that anyone would ever be stupid enough to fly against our air force.



    More importantly with regard to making them a tough military target is their very real connection to international terrorism, especially their connection with Hizbollah. Where the cry for jihad against US forces in Iraq has gone largely unheeded (well, largely without any real effects), such a cry from Syria might not be ignored.



    ---



    At this point I definitely do not support a military attack on either Syria or Iran, especially not Iran. There is a very real reform movement going on in Iran and the last thing we need there is war.



    Syria... well I don't have my mind made up. I don't know a whole lot about it so I'm open to some new information.



    War is a last resort, we have definitely not done as much political wrestling with Syria as we had with Hussein.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 84
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Things are getting very interesting indeed!



    The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday.



    In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad.



    ...



    However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria.




    --------



    The hawkish neo-cons got their way with Iraq (and they were completely right), but I always side with Powellish diplomacy in the beginning.



    These freaking PNAC neo-cons are freaking me out, it's so radically different from the way we're used to thinking about foreign affairs and so far their first real effort has been a stunning success.



    Yikes! Change is scary!



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.