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.


Okay... who's next? Oh, Syria... right!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 11:13 PM
there is no need for war with syria. they'd punk out in a new york minute after seeing how coalition forces DESTROYED saddam's "army."

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 12:37 AM
Astro says,
Don't be fearful. Nobody else over there has anything close to what Saddam had militarily speaking

Iraq and Iran have been fighting for a long long time, thus, they have to have simular capabilities. Actually Iraq has been fighting the US allot recently, and Iran has not, so Iran has more strength. They also have captured and are not releasing several Iraqi weapons of war. Add in the fact that many troops are in Iraq to keep control, Afgan, and all over the world. We also spent allof of resources bombing Saddam. While I doubt we would loose a conflict with Iran alone, or for that matter anyone in the Middle East, every country adds a heafty price. Not to mention the higher ammounts of terrorism as we attack countries that have simular links. We attack one, the other WILL join in, so we cannot just attack one, we have to attack them all. Leaving us sorrounded. This would not be a wise move, we may be able to defeat the entire Middle East, but are we willing to pay that cost or risk the results?
If we attack Syria, Iran will see them as next, and jump in, if we attack Iran Syria will jump in. They are not stupid, and will realise we are going after them all, and join in when they have the advantage of a divided front. Any move the US makes will stir a nest.

The enemy of my enemy is my ally.

Do not attack before checking your flanks.

A man who rushes into battle before thinking will find he knows not the terrain he fights, the enemy he faces, and the weapon with which he will die.

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 12:52 AM
First, a quote, I don't remember who said it, but it was from the Middle East.
Americans are afraid of death, that is their greatest weakness.
We push our fears and morals on others. Syria wont attack after what we did to Saddam. But then why not? If we fight Syria, it is not a matter of who will back them, it is a matter of who will go against us. We become insta tyrant, worse than we already are there, and the people grab sticks to fight off our tanks.
I coudl just see it now, "Coalition forces irradicate Iraq killing civilians in their path, now attacking Syria." The people will be baffled with BS, and fight to the death. Are we ready to kill every last Syrian? (whatever you call them). The problem with most things both Bush is stating and others is, polotics is a huge part of war. If you can convince your people that they will die if they do not fight, they will fight, to the death if need be.

Now add in the other countries that are led to belive this. Iran now holds the strongest army to my knowledge in the Middle East. And while their "ships" are small, they are also fast and manuverable. I had the luxery of seeing them first hand.

I am unsure which countries have nukes, which have nukes hidden, and which do not, but I can say, the Middle East has more fanatics than America, and their values are far different than ours, they truely believe they will go to heaven if they fight for their people. This adds up to be trouble. I wish everything would just calm down for a good decade or so. Let things get sorted out, and have the UN put the right pressures on whom ever needs it. But if Bush acts as hastely as he speaks, I fear the worst is possible, whether it is likely or not, is the risk worth it?

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 01:06 AM
Damn man f*ck, I got the ultimate idea to end all this war and terrorism and fighting in the middle east, just nuke the sh*t out of it and get rid of every single middle eastern country. That way the world will be free of worries.

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 02:08 AM
Both France and Russia would probably make a stand on Syria.Estragon was right about Frances colonial history being troublesome,however France and Russia both have a lot of financial ties with Syria.It appears Iraqs debt is to be wiped.Guess who the big losers are there?Syria would be worse.In short neither France nor Russia can afford not to safeguard the other interests they have in the region.
As for Nukes.It may be that Russia gave Syria an atomic weapon to set a balance in the region but if it were to be a balance it would have to be not a secret to be a deterent.

Syria has a large, and in comparison to Iraq, who remember had 12 years of sanctions,well equipped army

[Edited on 15-4-2003 by John bull 1]

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 03:12 AM
I know its old hat but I thought its was a suspicious that you could run a pipeline from Afghanistan, through Iran, through Iraq and into Syria. Syria has a coast in the Med. It would save some time shipping from there. The ships would be protected as there is coalition bases in Cyprus and Gibralter?.

[Edited on 15-4-2003 by Lexus Panther]

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
I guess it is too late for that!!!

Syria is not a threat, only a menace. They support terror. They are guilty of that. Yet war is not the way to handle that situation. War is blind punishment upon humanity. Terror supporters are not humanity.

War is a means to an end. It is not the most wanted means to an end, any rational human loathes the idea. But it is a means.

Syria is not on ly a menace, but it is also a threat because of the fact it is a huge terrorist state. You seem to miss the point that it is the preferred method of conducting war by some folks. We have many dead now because of that.

Syria has been asking for a butt-stomping for a long time. I've been waiting for the day when they get stomped. There are problems associated with the righteous attack againt them, though.

It seems the large chunk of the world would rather us take more civilian casualties to terrorists than for us to attack and kill our enemies who cowardly attack our women and children. My first instinct is to tell the world to stand in line if you want some, but maybe that is not the best way to do it.

Secondly, the people of Syria aren't going to be as receptive to a regime change as they were in Iraq. If this be the case, we'll find ourselves fighting the civilian population as well. Being Westerners, we have a moral dilemma with that. It'll be nasty.

The fact is, though, Syria is the logical target, and some would say it was more logical than Iraq was.

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 06:40 AM
Look people, just because these little third world countries can give each other grief doesn't mean they fall into the same catagory as the US. This country hasn't became the land of the free by running and burying our heads in the sand everytime some bully started up with us. All I can tell all those countries aiding these terrorists is that if you didn't want the US involved then you should have had those guys stayed home on 911. No one forced them to fly those planes into the buildings but they did. No matter whether the countries were fully aware of their intentions or not, if they aided them in any way, they are guilty. Now doesn't mean they have to be brought down. It just means they HAVE to step aside or be moved aside while we clean them up. Argue all you want against it but its is happening and will continue to happen until they are all accounted for. Call us the bullies and scream we are practicing imperialism all you want but trust me, it will be taken care of. I don't think military action against Syria's gov. will be the case here. i do think we will go in and hunt the terrorists. I think Bush needs to try for piece between Israel and the Palestinians but Arafat has to go and probably Sharon too. Ararfat is the trouble maker here and has been for going on 33 years. Think about it, he is the constant in all this blood shed. He's the one who would not sign the treaty and agree to it. The Palastinians need authentic leadership.

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 08:27 AM
actually that not right
for the america to enter a new war with syria,one after another what will come after this. if the america want to export their democratic style it ok just go a head but to force other nation to except it that was not the real good thing

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 08:52 AM
er umm okay. As for forcing democracy, do I really have to comment on it? Forcing someone to be free. Give me one person in the world, including Saddam Hussein who would reject the right to have a voice in their own lives. I will say it again. Its easy to say that these people didn't want their freedom and its easy to say let them stay in oppression. Its easy to say WHEN ITS NOT YOU! The only people I see mad because freedom was "forced" on the Iraqis is the people that did and stood to profit from their continued suffering. Its easy to say that Africans don't need electicity because it would harm their culture when you're bellied up to a buffet as far as you can see because its NOT YOU spending days looking for clean water. All these things we "force" on others is so appauling to all those who seem to already have them. I think its just politics and I think its just sad.

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 09:11 AM
yes it is not me that why i not concern about it
but that should be an united nation job to settle all the other country invade other country since when the america playing his sherrif power part in this modern world so what the use of the united nation it self just a stupid idiot

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 09:13 AM
Since Now!

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 04:50 PM
they cut off the iraq/syria oil pipeline. they said it provides up of a third of syrias oil. don't have a link yet, saw it on cnn... sucks to be syrian. the is the first step in pissing them off that'll lead us to war.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in