Syria next?

Syria is providing a safe haven for terrorist fighting in Iraq, they attack our troops then cross back to where they know we cant follow. They funnel weapons and men, then cross back to where they know we cant follow.
We cannot allow this to happen, our troops are paying in blood for our inability to face this issuer head on. All the President would have to do is give the generals the go ahead to cross the Syrian border and attack targets on their side of the border to disrupt terrorist operations. This would send a clear message to Syria, and any other country in that region that is allowing terrorists to stage attacks into Iraq form their borders. The president wouldn't even need congress' approval to launch this kind of operation. I’m not calling for a full out war on Syria, just a clear message that we are willing to cross, and enforce your border for you. If they continue to do nothing, other options should be considered.

Im not talking about rhetoric. I'm talking about actions like sending fighters and equipment into Iraq for use against our forces. The fact Iran is going ahead with its nuclear projects when the world says "NO!", is another head slapper for me. If they dont want war, then why does everything they do suggest otherwise?

Just because U.S and a couple other countrys are saying NO doesnt mean it will make any difference. For example most countrys that said no were most likely our enemy or just jealous because they cant get any. This list which is noted with countrys that support Irans n.program dont seem to be the world saying no.


1.China
2.Russia
3.Pakistan
4.India
5.Vietnam
6.Syria
7.Venezuela
8.South Africa
9.Syria
10.U.A.E
11.North Korea
12.Sudan
13.Yemen
14.Oman
15.Cuba
16.Brazil
17.Khazakstan
18.Armenia
19.Uzekhistan
20.Thailand
21.Nigeria
22.Libya


would you like me to continue?.....


[edit on 5-11-2005 by NR]

Originally posted by NR
4.India

Hmm...I seem to remember you yourself decrying India for voting against Iran in the IAEA not long ago...

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by NR
4.India

Hmm...I seem to remember you yourself decrying India for voting against Iran in the IAEA not long ago...

Sure they did but they are still against us refering to UNSC you also should check Russias latest meeting with India about our nuclear program.

India, Russia for resolving Iran issue within IAEA framework

Russia just spoke out against their nuclear program the other day.

Originally posted by Dronetek
Russia just spoke out against their nuclear program the other day.

Russia is building the reactors for theM

Putin isa smart man

The UN and the US wants to place economic sanctions on Syria after they were involved with the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister just recently.
With Lebanon being an ally of the US, I think the US would rather just bomb the clap out of them instead.

Originally posted by Thatoneguy
Is bush talking about going into syria? He says they are providing safe haven for iraqis... And warns them.


Think back to 2001.

Taliban providing safe haven for al queada (sp) and Osama bin Laden and he warned them....

2002-2003. Saddam and his regime providing hiding wmd (although not found by anyone but they will probably turn up eventually) and he warned them.....

Now he is "warning" Syria.....

interesting....

I strongly believe that the invasion of Afganistan wasn't a bad idea. The Taliban was a very dangerous group and certainly supported global terrorism. Taking them out - in my opinion - was a legitimate strike.

For the life of me, I can't figure Iraq. The cost in money, resources, and American lives makes renders the swift campaign a victory without any true gain - Pyhrros redux.

Syria has been a longtime bugbear for the US and Israel - as far as Bush is concerned, I guess this makes it a legitmate target. Certainly Syria has played a major role in destabilizing the region - it's occupation of Lebanon turned the Paris of the Middle East into a wasteland. It's support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is a known fact. However, invading Syria is about as dangerous as invading Iran or North Korea. As it stands, the insurgency in Iraq is breeding a new generation of anti-American terrorists. Invading Syria or Iran would certainly start a firestorm. Worse, we certainly would face it alone. I don't think that Tony Blair would dare to stand with the US in this event.

Bush has talked tough before. On more than one occasion, he has carried out his threats. I am hoping - praying, actually - that this is just bluster. On a political level, invading another nation - however vile it may be - would almost certainly launch violent opposition here at home. Impeachment would be the least of Bush's worries. On a military level, we are barely able to sustain the actions we are currently engaged in. Another campaign would stretch us dangerously thin, and the disaffection in the ranks would be rampant. On a monetary level, I have no idea how we are going to come close to paying for the horrendous expenditures we've incurred already this year. Another action? This would be disasterous.

Let's pray that - for once - cooler heads prevail. Bush used the overhelming support he garnered from the September 11th attack to persecute his campaigns. He spent all that capital and - like the nation's treasury - has not a red cent left to spend.

Ok look, I'm confused now

so which is it ? Iran or Syria ? or both ??? any others we can add to the list right now? shall we just wait a lil longer and wait and see ?

no, seriously, which ? or both ?



[edit on 7-11-2005 by ImJaded]