WAR With Syria!!!

Bush just announced that the assasination of Hairiri would not have taken place without syrian involvement.

Bush is demanding a Special Metting at the U.N.

War With Syria Days Away!


Links Coming...

I heard a similar but not saying that war would commence in days.

America has been looking for a pretense for war with Syria for a long time. They just got it handed to them on a silver platter.

....hmmm, tinfoil crowd out again

next time, don't jump gun until something solid has been said

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
Bush just announced that the assasination of Hairiri would not have taken place without syrian involvement.

Bush is demanding a Special Metting at the U.N.

War With Syria Days Away!


Links Coming...

I don't see how this would involve the United States in another war. The U.N. will express outrage, there will be a good amount of 'harrumpf'-ing in the chambers and things will continue on as is.

well, my thinking has been the w plan is iran then syria, but it may make more sense to knock off syria first, since iran is such a major threat....leave them for the final push.

if there is a resolution calling for a set of circumstances, and then "al options are on the table......bombs away after the US holidays

my guess is jan 22

We saw it in Iraq........
They "Syria" seem to have done this a very sloppy way.
Thats all.

Here's a news article on the issue if anyone is interested in facts(More or less). No doubt there will be UN resolutions and some saber rattling by the US but I don't know if anything more than sanctions will come out of this.

another war?
geez, but atleast we are nocking off the bad guys!

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
America has been looking for a pretense for war with Syria for a long time. They just got it handed to them on a silver platter.

I must be missing something here. What "pretense" is provided by the assassination of a Lebanese national perpetrated by the government of Syria? The Lebanese have a pretense, but not the U.S. I realize wild speculation is fun, and in some ways entertaining... But I'm rather doubtful that this will rise to your "expectations."

It may, however, create a "construction windfall" for those skilled in excavation and pouring reinforced concrete in Damascus.

Sabre Rattling Monkeys, not just FOX News all-nighters anymore...


[edit on 21/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

I think it would be prudent to NOT say anything about a war with Syria unless it actually does happen.

Jumping the gun is never a good thing with situations like this. Plus who knows, maybe the UN will finally make a stance for once. Maybe they will finally prove their worth.

Plenty of pretense. Syria has been fueling the insurgency since the beginning. Syria should have been in trouble for years now.

I love how the remarks are about the US now getting a war. Nobody makes any comments about a supposed Sovreign government assassinating political figures. Go figure.

The US needs is another war. No chance of this happening and if there was a reason to go to war again it would be the Iranian nuclear arming problem that would cause one.

MM, the link is that that killed leader was in the process of asking all Syrian trops and "advisors" to leave their country.
The theory being that Syria would kill him and put a more favorable leader in place and keep all the troops and such in place.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
MM, the link is that that killed leader was in the process of asking all Syrian trops and "advisors" to leave their country.
The theory being that Syria would kill him and put a more favorable leader in place and keep all the troops and such in place.

But it still won't buy you a cup of coffee, or an invasion of a soveriegn nation.

I'll go further, and qualify that Syria could be invaded on general principal (not to be confused with GeneralDilemma of course), but that's another thread, for another time.

This just doesn't rise to the appropraite level of "national interest."

My own consideration on this is that the US has been putting pressure on syria and iran as reigonal threats/fake targets for global domination/evil masonic-vatican-nazi-plan/whateveryfloatsyourboat, and seeing how they respond. The iranians have turned down european diplomacy, elected a radical from the revolution itself as their leader, and put the revolutionary guard in charge of their 'civilian' nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, Kannan, a member of the old guard even rumoured to have been working against assad and who is the big suspect in the harriri assasination, commits/gets suicide/d, Assad gives public interviews with CNN which is very rare and they turn over husseins brother and blow open part of the iraqi insurgency.


It looks like (assuming kannan was assasinated, and assuming some other things of course) Syria is capitulating and Iran is taking a hardline, in response to US pressure.


So I, personally, don't think that the US is going to go to war with Syria. Plus, it'd be far easier to control syria, ignoring all this other stuff, with iran occupied, than to control iran with syria occupied.

Originally posted by Nygdan
My own consideration on this is that the US has been putting pressure on syria and iran as reigonal threats/fake targets for global domination/evil masonic-vatican-nazi-plan/whateveryfloatsyourboat, and seeing how they respond. The iranians have turned down european diplomacy, elected a radical from the revolution itself as their leader, and put the revolutionary guard in charge of their 'civilian' nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, Kannan, a member of the old guard even rumoured to have been working against assad and who is the big suspect in the harriri assasination, commits/gets suicide/d, Assad gives public interviews with CNN which is very rare and they turn over husseins brother and blow open part of the iraqi insurgency.


It looks like (assuming kannan was assasinated, and assuming some other things of course) Syria is capitulating and Iran is taking a hardline, in response to US pressure.


So I, personally, don't think that the US is going to go to war with Syria. Plus, it'd be far easier to control syria, ignoring all this other stuff, with iran occupied, than to control iran with syria occupied.

thanks for the cliffnotes, nygdan, now I feel like I understand whats going on

btw, is nyg new york giants ?

Originally posted by skippytjc
Plenty of pretense. Syria has been fueling the insurgency since the beginning. Syria should have been in trouble for years now.

Strategicly, taking out Syria would be the best move for the USA... If they are serious about IRAN.

The USA has control of Afghanistan and Iraq ... both bordering nations of Iran.

If the USA went to war with IRAN they would still be worried about a 2 front war coming from Syria... Jordan is pretty peaceful.

Syria is also responsible for bombings in Isreal...

Syria is a Bad Guy...and it makes sense for America to go to war.

We would occupy Syria within weeks. They are nothing.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
I must be missing something here. What "pretense" is provided by the assassination of a Lebanese national perpetrated by the government of Syria? The Lebanese have a pretense, but not the U.S. [edit on 21/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

I guess you don't know how the U.N. Works. The USA is going to Sanction Syria into a war by making unagreeable demands in the sanctions. This way the USA can get a YES vote from the Security Counsil.

Or... have you ever heard of "The Bush Doctrine"?
Its this little piece of paper that says, in my own words, you are either with us or against us. We will "Go it Alone" without the Security Counsil's Permission.