It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Syria prepares for US attack...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Looks like Syria is getting a bit antsy over having the US military on its border.

Frankly, I can't see us attacking any time soon, what with the hell were catching in Iraq. Still, I thought i'd pass this along and see if anyone else had idea's on the subject.

Who will we attack next? Or will we?

Here's the link:

www.worldtribune.com... 7.html

Wupy




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
We wont attack Syria, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or anyone else but Iraq or Afghanistan.

We arent capable enough. And we are too p u ssy to kill people.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Syria is doing the right thing getting ready for an US assault, after all they will get the hint after the US do his deeds first in Iran.


I wonder if US will do all these assaults on a budget after all our deficit due to the war is not getting any smaller.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Dunno we will probably tell our allies to help us out in a major way or to take a hike, if that fails then we probably will do a few 30 day compaigns and claim victory.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
Dunno we will probably tell our allies to help us out in a major way or to take a hike, if that fails then we probably will do a few 30 day compaigns and claim victory.



The sad truth...

Hey, do we really have a huge presence on their boarder yet?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
My problem with this is I have a kid who gets out of basic training next month. After that he's already been told he's off to iraq. I was hoping they would have the elections and then find a good excuse to slink out of that quagmire as quickly as possible.

Now i'm wondering if my son will make it out of there only to find himself having to invade some other god forsaken wasteland.

As a parent it scares me to death.

Love and light to each of you,

Wupy



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Well, in the whole Middle-East situation, a few well-placed atomic bombs would do wonders.

Don't look at me like that. It worked in Japan...they went from bombing us to making our cars.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Any attack on Syria couldn't happen until sometime after the Iraq elections.
The Syrians still have time to prepare.

The whole thing is a huge risk for the US even if it is just a punitive counter-force type of strike. The political cost is automatically high and what do they get out of it unless they also have a covert plan to overthrow the Syrian regime?

...yeah right



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
mrwupy, thanks for an interesting post. Mainly, though, I extend my wishes that your son keeps safe. My own son passed basic training in the Canadian army just a few months ago. No Iraq for him, but we do have guys in Afghanistan and a few other places, and you never know what will come down the pike.

As far as Syria is concerned, I don't blame Assad for being worried. Or Iran. Let's go back to the old debate about "why" the US went into Iraq. Oil? WMD's? Get terrorists? Nope. Two reasons: because they could (weak opponent), and for the other reason, just look at a map of the middle east. Strategically, the US has just plopped a substantial part of its armed forces right in the middle of it all. What a great position from which to influence all the surrounding states.

Its my theory that the Bush administration is playing a long term strategy that it doesn't talk much about (too controversial, and too threatening to the incumbent regimes), but which has as its goal transforming the entire region over time. The surrounding regimes will have to reform and change (which is starting, gradually), crumble, or be changed, as opportunity arises. I do believe, though, that using the US military to force change is probably the last thing they actually want to try, for the simple reason that its too risky and extremely expensive. But they emphatically do want it as an option.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy Now i'm wondering if my son will make it out of there only to find himself having to invade some other god forsaken wasteland.

As a parent it scares me to death.

Love and light to each of you, Wupy


As an American and as a father you have the right to be worry about your son, sad to say the situation in the middle east is just going to get worst if our president decide to attack another middle east country.

Regardless what some may said or the government Iran is bigger than Iraq and it has three times the population of Iraq, also if you research on their government is pretty much steady not like the administration is trying to portrait and the people will support the government not like Saddam.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Im curious of what china and russia will do if either Iran or Syria is invaded by the US.
Iran has just made a important oil deal with China of $80 billion(probably to scare The US off somewhat also)
Also Russia is on friendly terms with Iran, supplying them with technology and weapons.

I think the cold war never stopped to excist, it may have warmed up for a short while but i think we shall see the cold war back with a vengeance.
The US are playing a dangerous game.....



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Well, in the whole Middle-East situation, a few well-placed atomic bombs would do wonders.

Don't look at me like that. It worked in Japan...they went from bombing us to making our cars.


Hahaha,
That's true. Too funny.
I do not think the U.S. will attack anyone at this point. We have too many other coals in the fire already



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by motionknight


I think the cold war never stopped to excist, it may have warmed up for a short while but i think we shall see the cold war back with a vengeance.
The US are playing a dangerous game.....




I agree. It's as if everyone was in a bit of shock when the cold war suddenly ended and the berlin wall fell, but now that the shock has passed a whole new cold war is forming.

China needs oil, Russia needs respect and the US of A needs all of the above and sides are being chosen. The one that comes out on top will probably become the very first leader of the one world government.

These are truly scary times.

Love and light my friends,

Wupy



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I think any attack will be in Iran. After all, who has more natural resources? Expect small scale incursions followed by more "shock and awe." Then expect high causality rates. I believe that if Iran is threatened by ground they will not hesitate to use poison gas. And if the state of armor protection offered to U.S. troops is any indication, their protection from chem warefare is suspect.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Would you want to open the whole can of worms in the middle-east, UNLESS you want to have it escelate to nuclear in the first place? Maybe that thought is pure nonsense /t over the top, but i never found having myselve such thoughts with any other american presidents behind the rudder



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
These rogue states should be living in fear - its one of the more important reasons overlooked why the USA invaded Iraq - to make the military option more credible to nations who wish not to comply.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
These rogue states should be living in fear - its one of the more important reasons overlooked why the USA invaded Iraq - to make the military option more credible to nations who wish not to comply.


From most people's criteria (mainly the right) any country in the middle east is a rogue state.

Most of them should not have the folks in power stay in power, but what are we going to do about it. Strong arm the world?

That's not the way to run a war on terror.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
people seem to forget syria has much of its army occupying lebanon and by the golan heights border, they are in horrible position to defend from invasion and if we strike insurgent camps that will make guerilla resistance easier to suppress in iraq and syria.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Wow, it looks like many here haven't gotten it yet. Read The Pentagon's New Map, by Thomas Barnett.

Name just about anywhere that US troops have been stationed in the country among the population for longer than 10 years and Dr. Barnett will show you a relatively stable developing area that is improving both socially and economically. We are in the process of moving our forces to places that aren't stable or improving socially and economically. We will probably stay there until they turn around.

Democratic ideals and western civilization based on personal liberty, by their very natures cannot be forced or imposed. They can only be absorbed from those who enjoy them. That requires proximity. The only way we can do that is to send them examples and keep them there for a while. Since Islam seems to abhor proximity to other cultures, we're likely in for a rough ride, but it has to be done. Islam seeks to widen the gap of non-connectivity since a non-connected population is easer to dominate and control.

Until China, India, and Russia start taking some of the civilizing role, the US will be sending forces and losing soldiers to these horrid places.

As callous as it is, we can also note that to maintain a capable military, every generation of soldiers must have some members with actual combat experience. Only one way to get that.

So, yes, for the forseeable future, the US will have forces in combat somewhere in the world. Every country in the Middle East will be given the choice. You can do it like Libya or have it done to ya like Iraq, but welcome to the 21st Century. Once the Middle East is done, it's on to Africa. That is where all the crazy Islamofacists are going to run to anyway.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I have no doubt that we will see a war in either Iran,North Korea or Syria before Bush's term expires..Why because the bush administration are trying to get as much done as they can in a short amount of time.Just look of what they've done in the first 4 years:

1.They rushed to get the missile shield up,before it was ready..I wonder why?

2.They went into afghanstan, waged war with the taliban and not even half way through the operation they decide to go to war with Iraq.

3.The administration pulls the weapon inspectors from Iraq before the inspectors were finished inspecting (even though the inspectors asked for more time)...Also they did not wait to get more support from other countries..they opted to go to war then.

4.They set a date for Presidential Elections in Iraq,even after getting warnings from other countries that Iraq and it's people are not ready for elections("it's too soon")

I think when Bush decides to wage another war he won't care if the military is ready or not ,it will be go in with what you have.This administration is in a rush to get things done,he's not going to wait .




top topics



 
0

log in

join