It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by snafu7700
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.

Iraq was more powerfull during GWI then Syria is now. The US obliterated Iraq then and we are much more advanced now.

Sorry, but the US fighting Syria is like Rocky Marciano picking a fight with a 6 year old kid. Or like the Raptor Pilot in my profile says, it would be like clubbing baby seals.

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.

If this is so obvious, you don't think the US would think of it?

And I hate to break it to you, but the US could take on both Syria and Iran - go check US military doctrine. Our current military is able to fight a TWO theater war.

The whole middle east would be just one theater. We could handle that whole area and still be able to deal with a conflict in Asia, for instance. Would it stretch us very thin? Absolutely. Would it be a problem? No.

Also, why in the hell would Iran want to get involved in a war with the US? They are trying to AVOID war with the US, and now they are going to jump into it when they know they would lose?

I don't think so.

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

One word. NUKES. They go chemical, we go nuclear, and in that case we don't need a single ground soldier to beat them. Saddam had nukes in GWI. Why didn't he use them if they were such an equaliser? Simple - he knew we would nuke him to hell.

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

I agree with that.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:00 AM
I hate to interrupt guys, but what happens to the local population when nukes are involved?

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Baxter
I hate to interrupt guys, but what happens to the local population when nukes are involved?

thats why i didnt bother responding. anybody who seriously believes that using nukes is ok need to have his head examined.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:50 PM
Want to see what happens to the population when the Nukes go off ???

Check out this old USA Military Video...with a mock city in the middle!

[edit on 23-10-2005 by Where2Hide2006]

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:56 PM
In Iraq the US was limited to invading from Kuwait, we had to drive one away thru and thru. If we can open multiple fronts with Syria through the long Iraqi border it would make it that much easier. It wouldn’t be a cake walk, but we would win fairly easily.

BTW, folks, this is all pointless as the US is not going to war with Syria, I suggest you focus on Iran.

That video does not represent what tactical nukes would do. Tactical nukes in the small KT yield would destroy troop formations and harden targets easily, but they aren't powerful enough to destroy a city. Not that they would be used on city's anyway.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by WestPoint23]

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:05 AM
Where are we going to get the people, equipment, etc. We do not have a large enough military to keep invading all of these countries. I know they asking retirees to come back, but they need young new soldiers...

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by pfcret
Where are we going to get the people, equipment, etc. We do not have a large enough military to keep invading all of these countries. I know they asking retirees to come back, but they need young new soldiers...

Let me ask you a question. Do you know how many people and how much equipment makes up the US military?

Do you know what of that is deployed in Iraq?

Find the answers to those questions and you won't make statements like you just did. The FACT is the US is using a relatively small part of it's forces in Iraq.

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 05:23 AM

Originally posted by gobucks2073
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?

Nowhere, there never existed any.

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:46 AM
To American Mad Man- You need to find these answers. I have 20 years of the military and I do know what it takes and what it has. Enlist, do a tour, come back and we will talk about it.

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:11 AM
I still think that America really can't afford a new war...they are just 2 busy with themselves in Iraq....

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:13 AM
To Abu Hamza- You are correct. We need to finish Iraq before going somewhere else.

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:18 AM
The evil Bushies are at again, oh wait; I meant the evil Rovites, oh wait;
I meant the evil Chaneyites ( oh whatever), picking on the poor innocent Syrians.
Syria supports the terrorists with both money and material, gives safe haven to them. Yeah, they are sooooo innocent of any wrong doing, and are being picked on by the U.N. Oh I forgot to mention the fact that the Syrian government assassinated the leader of Lebanon. Yeah, fairly self evident that they are so innocent.
If a war does come between Syria, and the U.N. (the U.S. carrying the load, as usual.), it will have had it coming to them for past misdeeds, not because of some silly NWO/Bu#es fantasy.

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:18 AM
US troop deployments, as of Nov 2004.

There is a large reserve of troops not deployed overseas, and one should also include the troops in germany

Earlier that year


Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists...130,000 Army troops are in Iraq.
Pentagon officials had hoped to reduce that number, but the ongoing insurgency prevented it; 9,000 Army troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia, as do 37,000 in South Korea.
[emphasis and ellipsis added]

Notice this is ignoring Marines, the airforce, and the Navy.
And also, in terms of Combat Brigades in the Army:

Where are the Legions

Of the 37 combat brigades and Armored Cavalry Regiments in the US Army's active component, some 12 are currently deployed

There currently are 37 Brigades: 10 in Iraq, 1 in afghanistan, 1 in south korea (the NKs have a million man army on the border).
From that same page, for 2007, there are planned to be from 43-48 of them, with only 9 in iraq, no change for the rest.
Thats not counting the National Guard.

Of the Army National Guards 37 combat brigades 4 are currently deployed with 4 more slated to deploy in the near future. The National Guard has one Armored Cavalry Regiment, it is not deployed but it has been alerted for a possible deployment.

With respect to the Navy

Of the 12 aircraft carrier strike groups that are in the fleet the Navy has 2 currently deployed, 5 in pre-deployment training, and 5 receiving extensive yard periods that would make the strike group unavailable for deployment within 60 days. Of the 295 ships and submarines in the Fleet roughly 99 are currently on deployments.

For non-army/non-guard all together

As of January 2005, there are some 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. This figure does not include those forces normally present in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom or Japan[...]If one were to include these forces [there'd be] 350,000
[emphasis added]
Here is another page that breaks a lot of it down

So if you figure it takes around 10 of these brigades to invade a country, then there's no telling what the US can do, it can invade and conquer 4 countries at a time at different corners of the earth, without having to use The Reserves or Guards (obviously thats a very 'hand wavy' estimate). Occupation isn't particularly relevant, because in a situation like that, there'll always be native peoples that can be organized to control their own public. So the 10 in iraq can, in all likelyhood, mobilize out of iraq and into Iran, while other units can move in from afghanistan into iran, and meanwhile others will be moved from germany and the rest of europe into syria and the like, neverminding that there's, what, 27 others or so to move from the US into the middle east. And, again, thats discounting the Reserves and Guard, and Marines.

Oh, and thats also not counting the robotic flying machines of death, which can be produced in who knows that numbers,

external image

and the invisible planes
external image

and the soon to be released (iow already being used but in secret) invisible flying robot machines of death

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Nygdan]

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:19 PM
There is only one word that will describe how the US will get more troops to have a thrid war front; that word is DRAFT.

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 01:57 PM
Er, no, thre is no need for a draft, because only a third of the combat brigades were used to invade, conquer, and occupy iraq. Heck, those 10 units could just pick up and move to the next battle zone and let the iraqis fight against the insurgents (which admitedly woudl be a rather desperate battle, but doable).

There isn't even close to a need for a draft. They'd certainly up the pay and enlistment benefits to entice new enlistees before they'd even think of having a draft. Besides, a draft would be political suicide for anyone that actually voted it into existence, so none of these political hacks are going to do it, even if it was needed.

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:19 AM

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...

Isnt the plan to take out Iran first and then Syria ? Actually now Sharon is ill there maybe a reshuffle

<< 1  2   >>

log in