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.

 

Pentagon Plans: Next, War on Syria?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Are not "islamic fundementalists" whatever the hell that term means anway.

They where teh lebanese resistance against israeli occupation. And they have a very influencial place in lebanese parliament as a political party!

Syrian government is technically socialist remenant of the Cold war Soviet satelite states.


As a poster above points out, yes, they in fact are.



Syria Iran Alliance, You can't take us both on!!!


Unfortunately for Syria and Iran, the US could take on both Syria and Iran, and do so very easily.

As I have said over and over, and as the current and past US military doctrine states, the US armed forces are designed to handle a two theater war. The whole Middle East would be a small theater.

Frankly, the length of time it would take the US to occupy Iran and Syria is only restricted by our tanks speed.


Oh and as for you "diplomatic" isolation LOOOLLL. ooooh the pain the pain!!!!

Especially since, we have already put isolations and sanctions on you in the first place.


Maybe you don't know the meaning of isolation. The US could, if it chose, isolate either Iran or Syria or both if it so wished. By isolation, I mean NOTHING coming in or out in the way of trade.

Take a look at this map:



Now, take Syria for instance. Turkey is to your north. The US has their military there. Iraq is to your east. We all know the US has teir military there. Saudi Arabia is to your south. We've got our military there too. Jordan is to your south. We may not have our military there, but you can be damned sure they would not cross the US. We all know who controls the Sea. So your western flank would be owned by the US Navy.

Frankly, Syria would be more or less cut off from the rest of the world - if the US decided to go that route.



Your going to ignore someone who is already ignoring you? nice

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]


No, we are going to forcably make the world ignore Syria, or even just invade them if it is warrented.


I find it ammusing how little respect you give to the US and it's political/military influence in one breath, and in the other damn the US as the greatest evil in the world for 'always meddling' in others buisness.

Which is it? Are we the all powerful great satan, or are we a powerless meak country making empty threats?




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Between 1938, the year of Syrian independance, and 2005, in Syria, there have been about 20 different wars, rebellions, coups, take-overs, etc. An average of one internal conflict every 3.3 years. Not even counting what happened before that.

Attack? Nooooo, just wait for it...

[edit on 22-10-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Unfortunately for Syria and Iran, the US could take on both Syria and Iran, and do so very easily.

As I have said over and over, and as the current and past US military doctrine states, the US armed forces are designed to handle a two theater war. The whole Middle East would be a small theater.

Frankly, the length of time it would take the US to occupy Iran and Syria is only restricted by our tanks speed.


Whilst the US is the most dominant military around, all their high tech doctrine counts to nothing in the end if they don't have the ' boots on the ground '.

The amount of soldiers needed to invade and occupy both countries would be immense. Just have a look at the size of Iran. These 2 countries Iran and Syria have a very large armies in terms of manpower and as has been shown it only takes one committed soldier with an RPG to take out a Bradley.

The argument that the US wouldn't have to occupy the countries is void. If they have a quick in and out then, they will be leaving the same situation which plagued them with Iraq after 1991.

And as you said this Mad Man, this is only one thater out of two that the US should be able to fight in simultaneously. The other I assume being East Asia - NK, PRC and Taiwan. At least in East Asia the US will have the support of the well trained South Korean and Taiwanese forces, both of which have large militaries. Throw in Japan and there is some formidable Allied war machine.

However the same can't be said in the Middle East. So IMO, the US has to increase it's fighting manpower, to be capable of holding the ground they've taken. They should have gone into Iraq not with 150 000 but 500 000, not because they needed that many to win but to show an overwhelming presence. The insurgency would have been nipped in the bud.

Anyway enough of my rambling it's late



new topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join