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.

 

WAR With Syria!!!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
We would occupy Syria within weeks. They are nothing.

The US could occupy the whole of the middle east within weeks. Iraq and Iran are the only regional powers, and iraq fell as fast as they could drive thru it. Weather held them up more than military resistance.




posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Even though it seems pretty early, I can't believe some of the already early reactions explaining or making reasons for it..as far as I'm concerned there are no sensible explanations...'take out the bad guys' where have I heard that before?! VIOLENCE ONLY LEADS TO MORE VIOLENCE! ELIMINATE HATE

LOVE



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Violence does not only lead to more violence. Violence can and has been an end to a means.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
when war ends it usually means they are sick of the violence, or there is very little left from one side or the other..or both

[edit on 21-10-2005 by invisibleplane]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane
Even though it seems pretty early, I can't believe some of the already early reactions explaining or making reasons for it..as far as I'm concerned there are no sensible explanations...'take out the bad guys' where have I heard that before?! VIOLENCE ONLY LEADS TO MORE VIOLENCE! ELIMINATE HATE

LOVE


Yeah yeah, very nice. But I'm afraid that's not reality.


On the other hand, I don't really see why the US would want to fight another war. Our military is already overstretched, we have thousands of casualties, and our economy isn't doing too well. Also, if the US starts taking out ragimes by force in the middle east, it will become extremely unpopular because Arabs would see that as an agression and I could understand them. Plus in case that Syria does fall, setting up a new government would be much harder than Iraq.


Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
We would occupy Syria within weeks. They are nothing.

The US could occupy the whole of the middle east within weeks. Iraq and Iran are the only regional powers, and iraq fell as fast as they could drive thru it. Weather held them up more than military resistance.


I'd like to know where we would get the soldiers and the money to do that. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm simply saying it would be much much tougher.

And let's not forget that the Syrian government isn't as unpopular as Saddams government, so I would expect a lot more fighting.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by RK_Pr0t0c0l]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
With all due respect, I don’t see how anyone could construe this as a justification for a US invasion of Syria. After all, if President Bush, and those evil, imperialist neo-cons really wanted to invade Syria, there have been plenty of other incidents that would have made a much better pretense for war. Here are just two examples of what I mean:

In April of 2004, Jordanian security forces foiled a suspected chemical weapon attack by terrorists linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The attack staged from “a chemical facility just over the Syrian border from Jordan”, included over 70 different ingredients: nerve gas, chocking agents, and blistering agents and was to target the United States embassy and Jordanian government offices. This incident alone could have easily been spun to implicate Syria in an attack on the US. It wasn’t.
Related Articles:
ICT.org article
Biohazardnews.net article

Then in early 2005, Jordanian security forces charged 8 more men with plotting terrorist attacks against U.S. tourists in Jordan and attacks against Israel. As before, the suspects and their explosives were tied to Syria. This incident along with the previous one could have easily been used by the US as a pretense to threaten Syria with force, especially given Syria's long known links to Islamic Jihad.
Related articles:
Khaleej Time Article
North County Times article

The fact is, if President Bush really wanted to invade Syria, he could have pursued a course that would have led to war a long time ago. On march 8th of this year, President Bush gave this speech to the National Defense University in which he reiterated his call for Syria to withdrawal from Lebanon, and to allow that country to hold fair and free elections. In it he refers to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 that also calls for Syria to withdrawal ALL military and intelligence forces from Lebanon. Had President Bush wanted war with Syria, the US would have called on the Security Council to follow up resolution 1559 with strong sanctions, and the threat of force. They did not.

Syria has a long and sordid history of ties to terrorism. President Bashar Al-Assad’s father Hafez used terrorism as “a (political) tool with which to further (Syria’s) strategic objectives” For a better understanding of Syria links to terrorism, read these links:
ICT.org Overiview of Syria and terrorism
The Peace Encyclopedia: Syria and Terrorism

So, while it may be that military force will someday be used against Syria, this latest allegation is by no means the catalyst that will bring about that end. It is merely another twisting of the proverbial arm to get al-Assad to “play ball” and crack down on Islamic militants inside of Syria. Although given the fact that the "hardliners" in Syria's intelligence forces are so heavily tied to the world's terrorist organizations, I doubt Assad could do too much cracking down even if he wanted to.

-Cypher



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
We are not going to war with Syria for one simple reason. Both the US and Israel are worried about Islamists gaining power if they take out Assad's regime. Islamists are Assads main opposition since he is secular. It looks like we(US) are trying to isolate Syria until they begin to comply with US demands. Syria has already began to help more in recent weeks behind the scenes. Here is a good story on Syria's recent turnabout.Link



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
The US has been applying pressure to Syria on the diplomatic and military side recently. And they have begun to comply or cooperate more with us the they have in the past, as long as they do that there will be no war. Troops close to the Syrian border is only a show of force not a preparation for an invasion.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I tend to agree, now that the war machine is rolling the only way to satiate the carnal desires of destruction and death is to destroy it all. From the ashes rises the Phoenix.

Global thermonuclear war will be the end of the means.
To me it's not a matter of if, but....




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Regenmacher have you been having another late night with the ‘shrooms again?
C’mon, we're talking about a speculative claim at best about the US declaring war on Syria, and her you post about thermo nuclear war.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Regenmacher have you been having another late night with the ‘shrooms again?
C’mon, we're talking about a speculative claim at best about the US declaring war on Syria, and her you post about thermo nuclear war.


I do long range projections and modeling based on a variety of geopolitical, historical and economic data. Sorry, not playing a fantasy idealist today, but a pragmatic realist.

Global War - WWIII: How close are we?

So no Spicolis here... anti-drug zealot. I'll excuse your ad hominem verbage and laugh at it, cause you haven't heard my blitzkrieg about the social downfall and human fallacies of drug use yet.




[edit on 22-10-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Ok, it’s just that I don't think were even going to war with Syria let alone use nuclear Weapons on them.


cause you haven't heard my blitzkrieg about the social downfall and human fallacies of drug use yet.


If your long term projection of thermo nuclear war is an example lets keep your views on society’s drug use quiet



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

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.


Please, provide me with links to this plot.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   


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.



I think it's you that is unaware of how the UN works. First of all, when you say "sanctions" what I think you are referring to are "United Nations resolutions." Resolutions can include things such as sanctions. The United States cannot independently pass a UN resolution against Syria. It would require first and foremost approval by the UN Security Council. If the resolution includes these "unagreeable demands" then it is very likely that China and/or Russia will use their veto power against the resolution. Even without unagreeable demands, it is likely they will use their veto anyway as allies of Syria.

While a resolution condemning Syria for the assassination may eventually be passed, it's highly unlikely that it will include any significant sanctions or objectionable demands. It most certainly will not include the option for the use of force against Syria.

Now onto the original premise of this thread... I think its rediculous to think that Syrian involvement in the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister is enough of a pretext for the US invasion of Syria. For starters, the American people could care less about the Prime Minister of Syria or whoever ordered his killing. Without at least a small amount of domestic support, an invasion of Syria just won't fly.

If we really wanted to invade Syria right now then we'd have no trouble producing evidence of the transfer of WMD from Iraq to Syria prior to the invasion of Iraq. We'd also have little trouble showing support of the insurgency and terrorist attacks in Iraq coming out of Syria, via financial support, logistical support, and even boots on the ground. Not to mention the icing on the cake- Syria's decades of support for terrorists both in Israel and Lebanon, as well as abroad. I'm sure there have been a few terrorist attacks on US interests in the past that we could find some Syrian DNA on.

The bottom line is that this is not a case of President Bush trying to use the assassination of Lebanon's PM as a pretext for invasion of Syria. Rather, it is the case of President Bush doing what is right and urging the free world to hold the Syrian government accountable for the assassination of a foreign leader. Remember... only we get to assassinate people!



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006


We would occupy Syria within weeks. They are nothing.


I seem to recall hearing the same thing about Iraq. Been there for, what, 2 1/2 years now?

I say NO to invading Syria. Or any other nation for that matter. Let other nations duke it out. We should stay out of it.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006


We would occupy Syria within weeks. They are nothing.


I seem to recall hearing the same thing about Iraq. Been there for, what, 2 1/2 years now?


Yup, and it took the US a matter of weeks to occupy Iraq. Thus what you said actually supports his statement.

Occupation is different then ending an insurgency.


I say NO to invading Syria. Or any other nation for that matter. Let other nations duke it out. We should stay out of it.


Bush will not want to invade Syria over this. If he wanted to invade Syria, they'd already be under our control.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
First of all I'd like to reiterate in my other post that I believe we will not go to war with Syria for many reasons. The world and US community would not stand for another invasion unless we had solid proof of Syria doing some really bad things and from what I saw of the report it did not present solid evidence that Syria assasinated Hariri yet. Also another pretext for an invasion of Syria would be if they openly attacked the US. With all that being said and since I am somewhat of a student of history lets not forget that World War I started with a single assasination. Its a slim chance that would happen but its not impossible to think that could happen again.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by USAF6933
The world and US community would not stand for another invasion unless we had solid proof of Syria doing some really bad things


When has that ever stopped the US?

It didn't with Iraq.....everybody was pissing at the US for planning to invade, and god knows they had no solid evidence, but they still went through with it.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Why not invade Syria this is not the only problem we have had with them. Where do you think the WMD's from Iraq went?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006

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.


oh yeah, syria would be a pushover, then we'd move straight into iran, right?

must be some goooood stuff youre smoking dude.

in the first place, the worst we would probably do in syria is to attack terrorist training camps the syrians claim not to know about, and therefore would probably just whine a little and that would be the end of it.

second, if, as you say, we attacked syria, it would not be a simple operation over in a couple of days. they are much better equipped than iraq was after 10 years of sanctions. and there is no "evil regime" to topple. syrians are quite happy with their government.

third, if you actually think that iran will stand by and wait while we take on syria, then you really need to put that pipe down. we might could handle one if we werent already tied up in two other countries, but not both at the same time, and they full well know that.

fourth, two words: chemical weapons. both countries have them, and would not be afraid to use them to repel infidels.

bottom line....it just aint gonna happen. like i said, maybe a few strategic strikes here and there, but no invasion.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join