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.


Syria building up to something?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 08:56 AM

Syria's leader says that he won't wait for the US to attack Syria, but didn't elaborate. I think it's starting to look a bit like Syria will attack the US forces from the Western desert.

How many countries have to get involved before the US/UK pull out?

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 09:07 AM
I just read a report on that lead me to the same idea. I think we are going to be at war with Syria in the next few weeks. I hope I'm wrong though.

Link to CNN article

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 10:40 AM
If so many people are already dying..and say we go to war with syria..we are gone..because the more ppl get involved...everyone will be rushing into the war..and before you know it ..this war to get rid of terrorism..(the amount of bull it is) can actually turn into a third world war...and i believe US is not that arrogantly stupid to get into that cuz they ..when it comes down to it...many countires will be uniting against their actions!

BTW...Syria is a passage way to get weapons to iraq from russia ..our gov was of course not expecting them to have such weapons...they thought it would be tanks against rocks...ha...well..its still not fair..but if such an unorganized military can give us a hard time...we can think we know whats coming.


posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:10 AM
I've been commenting for 3 months that the U.S. would be advised to keep a close eye on Syria. The Syrians know full well what they've been up to by receiving Husseinís WMD and that would put them in the line of U.S. fire. I have no doubt that behind the scenes our politicians & military advisors have been giving Syria stern warnings of a future confrontation if they persist. It is not inconceivable that those discussions became heated and threats have been made by both sides. Itís well known that the Syrian President was against an invasion of Iraq and was one of the first to confront Mr. Bush in Washington.

The fact that Iraqi soldiers can destroy American tanks, helicopters and drones sends them the message that America is NOT invincible and can be destroyed. Given their fanaticism and fervour / willingness to die in a Jihad itís no wonder that suicide bombers are coming out of the woodwork from other Mideast Nations.

If Syria is serious (and I believe they are) about attacking coalition forces in a pre-emptive manner, then the entire Middle East could go up in smoke quickly, because Israel could be considered a primary target, even before coalition forces. Why attack American & Coalition forces and leave a long hated enemy next door? A friend told me several years ago that Syria has been building a very strong military infrastructure for many years.

Letís not forget Libya, Iran, the Palestinians, Turkey and the silent Arab nations that despise the West. The coalition forces are literally surrounded by antagonistic enemies who seethe for Western blood and destruction.

If one were to consider current events, including the Asian issue of China & North Korea ñ then the battle of Armageddon seems a very realistic scenario given the present situation and world players.

Hereís a quote I got today from the New York Times from an artillery officer: "I've got 30 cannons, and I'm shooting them all. I never shot so much in my life. I need some more bullets."

More food for thought,

[Edited on 1-4-2003 by deepwaters]

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:30 AM
Quoted from Deep
Letís not forget Libya, Iran, the Palestinians, Turkey and the silent Arab nations that despise the West.
I would agree with all of this statement except the inclusion of Turkey in the list. I see no evidence that the Turkish government holds a deep and abiding hatred of the West and the US in particular. On the contrary the Turks have been our ally for a rather long time (soon after WWI I believe). They are a stable democracy trying to join the EU. Just because they were not for us using their land as a jumping off point does not mean they are against us. They just don't want their economy crushed the way it was after Gulf War I.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:46 AM
I'm inclined to agree with you that Turkey is looking for a self-serving way to meet their own needs & as long as it serves Turkey, they will remain America's ally.

I suppose that I'm still a bit miffed that they refused to let U.S. ground forces access to the Northern front, but tried to interject their own military presence to protect their interests in that region. It is a concession that over flight permission has been given, but how much did the U.S. pay for that privilege?

I believe deep down inside that self preservation and personal agendas fuel much of human choices & behaviour. I think that Turkey will be America's friend, as long as it serves Turkeyís best interest. After that, we'll be discarded like yesterdays dirty linen. Don't forget that they are an Islamic nation and have different values to the West.

Political / economic bedfellows can be transitory at best,

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:53 AM
Anyone could say that they are going to the Zoo and punch a 300 pound Gorrila in the face, but it's all talk until they actually do it.

All talk, no action. I'll beleive it when I see it.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:53 AM
American foreign military presence is known to further organized crime and prostitution. That may also be an important point why Turkey refused, aside from an america-hostile public opinion after the "election" of GWBush.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 12:47 PM
The NATO defence treaty will then become inforced.

An attack on one is an attack on "ALL"


posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 12:50 PM
Nope, the NATO treaty has no relevance in this case because Syria's action would not be an attack, they would be in defense of Iraq.

You can guarantee NATO will not get involved to help extract the US from any potential mess in the region.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 01:35 PM
Quote by jims88: Anyone could say that they are going to the Zoo and punch a 300 pound Gorrila in the face, but it's all talk until they actually do it.

Your argument sounds good unless you put this into proper perspective: weíre dealing with Islamic fundamentalists that hate the West and truly believe they will be instantly being transported to heaven if they die as a martyr. I would suggest that itís deluded and grandiose to believe that America is an all invincible power that can defeat multiple enemies worldwide. I appreciate American patriotism and support for Government policies, but the realities of practical warfare often contradict fantasy illusions. I would also suggest that being victorious in the Middle east is going to be much more complicated that excepted. Perhaps youíd be better served to stop listening to & believing in spin doctor hype and taking a realistic view of whatís going on in the Middle East. I may not be afraid of punching a 300 pound Gorilla if I am backed up by hundreds of fanatical people who are willing to die to kill the gorilla also. Of course, if you have relevant links to support your theory and beliefs, then Iíd be happy to read that.

Quote by Quetzalcoatl: American foreign military presence is known to further organized crime and prostitution.

Sounds logical at face value given human biological needs and greed for power and control. But how could that happen without indigenous support - how do you suppose that an Islamic nation would help to facilitate that process when it contradicts their values and beliefs? Would it mean that an American presence automatically means brothels; prostitutes and organised crime would take root and flourish in an Islamic country? If so, how could that possibly happen without greedy & opportunistic Islamic's facilitating the process? Anti - alcohol, girlie magazines and drugs are outlawed and strictly enforced in Saudi Arabia, are you suggesting that Turkey or Northern Iraq may be a different kettle of fish?

May I suggest that idealistic visualisations of what would happen according to personal beliefs or hopes may be misguided? Given that this is a real time scenario with uncontrolled variables, anything can conceivably happen. I believe that itís unrealistic to think that:
1) America is all powerful
2) This war is going to be a calk-walk
3) The Arabic Nations couldnít inflict significant damage upon American forces
4) Asiatic antagonists arenít willing to become involved when America is at her weakest

Having said that, I do hope America comes out victorious and remains the worldís greatest superpower. But hoping and experiencing are very different realities: America must remain focussed on Iraq and remain vigilant to possible attacks worldwide. To do less, is to open the flood gates to destruction of our way of life and liberties.

Food for thought,

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 02:35 PM

I would suggest that itís deluded and grandiose to believe that America is an all invincible power that can defeat multiple enemies worldwide.

You really believe that? I remember I read somewhere that we fought Germany & Japan at the same time and your worried about Syria & Iraq?

Syria really doesn't scare me. You see how we are rolling over Iraq so easily? Syria would be even more of a cake walk. They have an even more pathetic army then Iraq does.

Also, we are playing nice guy going out of our way to reduce civilian casualties in Iraq. I wouldn't want to be on the other side if we decide to pull out all the stops militarily. I think Syria could expect that kind of response if they decide to launch an unwarranted attack on the US.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 05:34 PM
If Syrain troops cross the border into Iraq they will be crushed, and crushed quickly by coalition forces. No way they're that stupid. Come out into the open with an aggressive posture? Very, very bad idea. You got folks wondering where the MOAB is, this would be a place you might see it.

Same thing goes for the supposed suicide bombers on their way to help out. Bring them on, they'll have to come out in the open before they get to Baghdad. This way we don't have to root these folks out. Let them come to us.

Syria would be an example to the rest of the Arab world, and I'm sure that this action would certainly make these folks take pause.

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 06:16 PM
Syria has always been one to sell weapons and instigate others to fight wars, they got what
they wanted.

If Syria wanted to expand this war with there presense on Iraqi soil so be it. Everyone knows who they are and what they have done ever since Isreal was given a homeland.

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 07:20 AM
Britain seem's to be making the point that if it does happen, they wont join in.

The wording in this report is quite strange....

"Jack Straw has ruled out British involvement in any US military action against Syria or Iran."

But his comments in this report only mention Iran, that it is Soverighn nation etc, but he makes no mention of Syria in his comment, perhaps leaving the door open there?

".....the US would hold Syria to account for its actions.

Mr Straw said: "Iran is a completely different country and situation from Iraq. Iran is an emerging democracy and there would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action."

And Syria??

I can see a couple of rifts in this 'coalition' coming up, not least the emerging situation over who gets to rebuild/rule Iraq.

More diplomatic nightmares and countries reputations going down the drain here we come!

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 07:21 AM
Not again...

here's the link:

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 07:26 AM
I think our agorance will be our downfall. If we go to war with all these countries in the middle east won't that weaken our army. North Korea is probaly waiting for the right moment....

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 11:39 AM
to assume Syria would "actively" enter this war...

We would not have the same obligation to be so "surgical" in our retaliation and handicap ourselves if they did. And they know that...

Likewise, this same arguement applies to other would-be join-ins as well.

The Syrian supply line will be cut off in Iraq. You won't see it on the news, you won't read it in the paper, but it will be can count on that...

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 12:14 PM
Even if Syria enters the conflict plainly, i dont think this would entitle the US or allies any use of WMD or civilian extermination bombings, since the US isnt menaced in its territorial integrity. Syria's intervention would just be another preemptive strike without security council backing, and therefore as legal or moral as the US intervention.
They probably have another reason not to openly enter the conflict, and that is the conventional supremacy of the american forces. But will this reason them, given that they fear to be the next target ?

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 12:36 PM
right now...everyone is afraid of taking any kind of sides...but more countries of course are against the war rather than for, i believe personally, that if our gov attacks or gets involved with another country....they are threatening many countries...and this would than lead to "OUR" demise.


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in