Pentagon Plans: Next, War on Syria?

Originally posted by Souljah
Yes, I am sure the Western Europe really wants and needs a war with Iran. Who? France? Germany? UK?

Your hanging to straws here MadMan. I hope you know that.

Despite what you may believe, western Europe has just as much of a problem with Iran having nukes as the US does.

Obviously, no one WANTS a war. But sometimes there is no alternative, and in Irans case, this may aply - and not just from the US and Isreals point of view.

Do I even need to Comment that?

Yeah. Will you admit that you were wrong, or keep blaming the worlds problems on the US like a 3 year old brat?

I think Insults go against the Rules of this Board.

They do, though I did not insult anyone.

Wanna get Warned?

Sure, go ahead and warn me.

Then again, what can I expect from a Guy that has a Signature like this:

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

H. L. Mencken?

You mean the guy that said this:

"The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown."

Thats a bit RACIST, ey?

Does racism have to do with anything I said? Anything at all? Because I quote someone who was racist, it somehow reflects that I am racist? That has got to be one of the dumbest suppositions I have ever heard.

I guess no one can quote people like Thomas Jefferson or Malcom X anymore without being a racist or losing some sort of credibility?

Don't you have some anti-american propaganda to pollute these boards with, or are you done trolling?

[edit on 13-10-2005 by American Mad Man]

Originally posted by Souljah
Yes, I am sure the Western Europe really wants and needs a war with Iran.

No one wants a war.

Who? France? Germany? UK?

Your hanging to straws here MadMan. I hope you know that.

So explain why the EU (Europe) supported the IAEA in iran and tried negotiating.
Also, why WOULDNT we have a problem with a country that has the ability to nuke me and my family and is living under a very religiosly controled country?

Originally posted by rogue1
Umm no... the Syrians never fought with the Christians

Syria was aainst a Christian state as they saw it as a second Israel.

Actually, they did fight on the side of the Christians at one point and the Syrian troops were invited into Lebanon by the Christian President.

COuntry Data

In 1975 Syria played a vital diplomatic role throughout the initial stages of the civil war. It acted as mediator for the many cease-fires declared between Lebanon's Christians, who dominated the country politically and economically, and the majority Sunni and Shia (see Glossary) Muslims. The latter sought to transform Lebanon into a Muslim Arab country; their drive for greater power was afforded a military option by the presence of thousands of armed Palestinian guerrillas who had relocated in Lebanon after the PLO's 1970-71 defeat in Jordan. It was not until January 1976, however, when a detachment of fifty Syrian officers was sent to Beirut to help police the twenty-sixth cease-fire, that Syrian military personnel entered Lebanon. On March 16, Syria escalated its involvement by ordering Syrianbacked units of the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA, the standing army of the PLO) and As Saiqa to stop rebel leftist Muslim officers of the Lebanese Army from attacking the palace of the country's Christian president, Sulayman Franjiyah (also spelled Frangie, Franjieh, or Franjiye) (see Special and Irregular Armed Forces , this ch.).

Lebanese Muslims and the PLO opposed the Syrian intervention, which had prevented them from seizing the presidency from the Christians. Much of the Arab world was outraged. The Syrian intervention also gave rise to a crisis of allegiance within the PLA and As Saiqa units, which found themselves battling forces closely aligned with the PLO. For their part, Syrian leaders talked of peace and stability in Lebanon, while privately acknowledging that their concept of Syria's own security interests made it necessary to have a moderate Lebanese government compatible with Syrian interests. In their judgment, a radical left-wing Muslim Lebanese government would have been a security risk to the Assad regime, which preferred a Lebanese state subservient to its own regional interests.

[edit on 13-10-2005 by AceOfBase]

There will be no war with syria because assad is capitulating to US demands, writ large, anyway. At least thats what I suspect the "suicide" of Kannan was in part about. Iran will be the focus.

Great Timing!

GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border

Originally posted by Souljah
Great Timing!

GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border

Nice try, but has not this occurred before?

What of the ‘100 yard’ wasteland in-between?

Why do you wish to attempt showing something like this in such a dim light?

Is this an international incident of incursion? No, no it is not.


.

Also, why WOULDNT we have a problem with a country that has the ability to nuke me and my family and is living under a very religiosly controled country?

Does that mean you have a problem with Israel?

They actually are capable of nuking you and your family while Iran is not.

In relation to this hyped and alleged coming Pentagon war with Syria, the latest offer from the US to Syria suggests four critereia that Syria must meet:

1) Syria must cooperate fully and adhere to any demands by the UN inquiry into Hariri's death. If any members of the regime are named as suspects they would have to be questioned and stand trial.

2) The Syrians would also have to stop any interference in Lebanon, where they have been blamed for a series of bomb attacks.

3) Washington wants Damascus to cease alleged recruiting, funding and training of volunteers to take part in the violent insurgency in Iraq.

4) Stop supporting militant groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

America offers 'Gaddafi deal' to bring Syria in from the cold
And:
Syria Denies Deal Over Hariri Probe

Syria denied a British newspaper report that it was negotiating with the United States in an effort to end its isolation in return for a "list of painful concessions," including blocking the flow of foreign fighters into neighboring Iraq.

Considering the increasing international pressure on Syria on a wide-ranging number of issues, Syria has the opportunity before them to comply with the concessions offered by the US, which will require action, not simply talk, but are far from being unreasonable or unobtainable demands. Furthermore, they are rather quite matter-of-fact and offer Syria a respectable ticket out of that hyped and alleged coming Pentagon confrontation, should they comply.






seekerof

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Also, why WOULDNT we have a problem with a country that has the ability to nuke me and my family and is living under a very religiosly controled country?

Does that mean you have a problem with Israel?

They actually are capable of nuking you and your family while Iran is not.

That statement is wrong. Iran IS capable of hitting Europe.

TEHRAN, Oct. 5 -- Iran has increased the range of its missiles to 1,250 miles, a senior Iranian official was quoted as saying on Tuesday, putting parts of Europe within reach for the first time.

Washington post

The Shahab-4 missle is very capable of hitting Europe. In addition, that is not the method that Iran would use, as has been pointed out in this thread. Their method of deployment would be by using terror cells, as there is no way to link the weapon with Iran.

As for Isreal - what reason do they give Europe to be wary? Iran gives the Western world many legit reasons to be concerned over Iran gaining nuclear weapons.

That statement is wrong. Iran IS capable of hitting Europe.

I said nuking, not hitting so it is correct.

If Iran were to use its missiles it would be against Israel, or India, not Europe.

Any supposition that future nukes would be employed as anything but a deterant are conspiracy theories.

They want nukes to counter Israels nuclear threat.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

That statement is wrong. Iran IS capable of hitting Europe.

I said nuking, not hitting so it is correct.

Except that the Shahab-4 is nuclear capable, thus if/when they gained nuclear weapons (the whole point of this discussion) they would be able to nuke Europe.

If Iran were to use its missiles it would be against Israel, or India, not Europe.

Isreal would be nuked ASAP, followed by Europe. Iran wants to trade with India, not attack it.

Any supposition that future nukes would be employed as anything but a deterant are conspiracy theories.

They want nukes to counter Israels nuclear threat.

Simply stated, you are wrong.

Iran has stated publically that the destruction of Isreal is a primary national goal - thus, they publically dissagree with you.

Frankly, they don't need to counter Isreals nuclear arsenal, because Isreal would not attack Iran...Unless of course Iran was trying to produce nuclear weapons, which would be for the singular purpose of attacking Isreal with.

Isreal would be nuked ASAP, followed by Europe

And they would escape the inevitable retaliatory attacks how, exactly?

Even with nukes, I don't expect Iran to start launching them out of the blue.
They are certainly fanatics, but they're not entirely stupid.

They could probably VX all of downtown Tel Aviv tomorrow morning if they wanted to, except they haven't done so. Why? Because even if they wanted to, they know their cities would be vaped 15 minutes later. That holds just as true whether they have nukes or not.

And the chance they will choose to take on Europe is about 1/1000th of the already slim chance they will take on Israel. They simply have nothing to gain by it, and quite literally everything to lose.

Iran wants nukes for a very simple reason: to deter US and Israeli attacks.
The more noise we make about "preemptive" attacks, the more determined they are to get them.

The threats toward Israel are also made for very simple reasons: domestic political gain. The theocracy is on shaky political ground and they know it. What better way to silence political opposition at home than by working up a public hysteria about foreign enemies?

It's hardly a political strategy unique to Iran, either...

[edit on 10/17/05 by xmotex]

It would not suprise me if we did hit Syria. But where are we going to get the troops to do it. Bombing them into the stone age will not do. Limited warfare is not the answer either. We really need to think things out before we jump. The six P's need not to be used-PEE POOR PRIOR PLANNING PREVENTS PERFECTION.

Why Syria and Not Isreal?

So, what's so Special about Syria?

For example, the United States has demanded that Syria eliminate its long-range and medium-range missiles, while not insisting that pro-Western neighbors like Turkey and Israel – with far more numerous and sophisticated missiles on their territory – similarly disarm. The United States has also insisted that Syria unilaterally eliminate its chemical weapons stockpiles, while not making similar demands on U.S. allies Israel and Egypt – which have far larger chemical weapons stockpiles – to do the same. The United States has demanded an end to political repression and for free and fair elections in Syria while not making similar demands of even more repressive and autocratic regimes in allied countries like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.

Why indeed? Because they are "Supporters of Terrorism"?

Contrary to U.S. charges that Syria is a major state supporter of international terrorism, Syria is at most a very minor player. The U.S. State Department has noted how Syria has played a critical role in efforts to combat al-Qaeda and that the Syrian government has not been linked to any acts of international terrorism for nearly 20 years. The radical Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have political offices in Damascus, as they do in a number of Arab capitals, but they are not allowed to conduct any military activities. A number of left-wing Palestinian factions also maintain offices in Syria, but these groups are now largely defunct and have not engaged in terrorist operations for many years.

Again - why Syria, and Not Isreal? Or Worse - Saudi Arabia, the MAIN Country fo State Sponsored Terrorism in the Middle East? Again, the Plan of the Bush is simple: Syria, Iran, North Korea. Never mind the Saudi's - they are our "Friends". And never mind if Isreali stockpile a mountain of Biological, Nuclear and other Weapons, which break the Balance in the Middle East. Western Imperliasm has got a firm grip on countries of Middle East and it's not letting go so easily.

Source:
All Set for War with Syria

[edit on 17/10/05 by Souljah]

Originally posted by xmotex
And they would escape the inevitable retaliatory attacks how, exactly?

Send them in via a terrorist network or spec-ops team.

all the hardware and nuclear material is Russian, so it's not like they could be blamed.

Even with nukes, I don't expect Iran to start launching them out of the blue.
They are certainly fanatics, but they're not entirely stupid.

They could probably VX all of downtown Tel Aviv tomorrow morning if they wanted to, except they haven't done so. Why? Because even if they wanted to, they know their cities would be vaped 15 minutes later. That holds just as true whether they have nukes or not.

And the chance they will choose to take on Europe is about 1/1000th of the already slim chance they will take on Israel. They simply have nothing to gain by it, and quite literally everything to lose.

As I said, it would probably NOT be in the form of missles.

Believe me, if they get nukes the chance of Europe getting nuked is 99.999% - it's just a matter of if it's the day thy get them, or 15 years later.

Their leadership does not have a lot to lose, and has everything to gain - they are rabid Islamic lunatics, who want nothing more then to kill the heretics in the name of Allah. Thus, going to heaven with 72 virgins out weighs getting millions of their country men killed.

Iran wants nukes for a very simple reason: to deter US and Israeli attacks.
The more noise we make about "preemptive" attacks, the more determined they are to get them.

They wanted nukes before the US put them on the axis of evil. They have wanted them ever since the revolution, and the reason is singular: to nuke Isreal.

The threats toward Israel are also made for very simple reasons: domestic political gain. The theocracy is on shaky political ground and they know it. What better way to silence political opposition at home than by working up a public hysteria about foreign enemies?

It's hardly a political strategy unique to Iran, either...

I agree with you hear, but frankly they have had this ambition far to long to say that it is only to keep the peons in line.

That is why I have been in favor of inciting a revolution. The young generation of Iran wants a more open, Westernish society. Someone needs to tip the first domino...

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Does that mean you have a problem with Israel?

Isreal is not ruled by religios maniacs IMO, plus we have them in our pocket or atleast the US does.

They actually are capable of nuking you and your family while Iran is not.

Iran is capable of hitting me and my family with out the need for nukes.

Are not "islamic fundementalists" whatever the hell that term means anway.

They where teh lebanese resistance against israeli occupation. And they have a very influencial place in lebanese parliament as a political party!

Syrian government is technically socialist remenant of the Cold war Soviet satelite states.

----------------------------

Syria Iran Alliance, You can't take us both on!!!

Oh and as for you "diplomatic" isolation LOOOLLL. ooooh the pain the pain!!!!

Especially since, we have already put isolations and sanctions on you in the first place.

Your going to ignore someone who is already ignoring you? nice

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by rogue1
Umm no... the Syrians never fought with the Christians

Syria was aainst a Christian state as they saw it as a second Israel.

Actually, they did fight on the side of the Christians at one point and the Syrian troops were invited into Lebanon by the Christian President.

COuntry Data

In 1975 Syria played a vital diplomatic role throughout the initial stages of the civil war. It acted as mediator for the many cease-fires declared between Lebanon's Christians, who dominated the country politically and economically, and the majority Sunni and Shia (see Glossary) Muslims. The latter sought to transform Lebanon into a Muslim Arab country; their drive for greater power was afforded a military option by the presence of thousands of armed Palestinian guerrillas who had relocated in Lebanon after the PLO's 1970-71 defeat in Jordan. It was not until January 1976, however, when a detachment of fifty Syrian officers was sent to Beirut to help police the twenty-sixth cease-fire, that Syrian military personnel entered Lebanon. On March 16, Syria escalated its involvement by ordering Syrianbacked units of the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA, the standing army of the PLO) and As Saiqa to stop rebel leftist Muslim officers of the Lebanese Army from attacking the palace of the country's Christian president, Sulayman Franjiyah (also spelled Frangie, Franjieh, or Franjiye) (see Special and Irregular Armed Forces , this ch.).

Lebanese Muslims and the PLO opposed the Syrian intervention, which had prevented them from seizing the presidency from the Christians. Much of the Arab world was outraged. The Syrian intervention also gave rise to a crisis of allegiance within the PLA and As Saiqa units, which found themselves battling forces closely aligned with the PLO. For their part, Syrian leaders talked of peace and stability in Lebanon, while privately acknowledging that their concept of Syria's own security interests made it necessary to have a moderate Lebanese government compatible with Syrian interests. In their judgment, a radical left-wing Muslim Lebanese government would have been a security risk to the Assad regime, which preferred a Lebanese state subservient to its own regional interests.

[edit on 13-10-2005 by AceOfBase]

I will give you 2 cents of advice: read between the lines and don't be so naive when reviewing history.

Taken from your own "selective*" quote:

[....] their drive for greater power was afforded a military option by the presence of thousands of armed Palestinian guerrillas who had relocated in Lebanon after the PLO's 1970-71 defeat in Jordan.

Could you explain dear Ace how those thousads of armed Palestinian guerillas entered Lebanon? The answer is simple: After being assisted by Syria to mount a coup against King Hussein of Jordan and failing in doing so, those guerillas retreated to Syria, regained forces there, were supported military and logistically and were then helped to infiltrate the Syrian-Lebanese borders by the same Syrian regime that you are praising of having "defended the Christians of Lebanon".

Yes it is easy for me to help you restoring your house after having myself brought fire into it.

Same as how Assad is doing with Iraq. He has readied all those fighters/terrorists to infiltrate Iraq and cause havoc, then he offers his precious help in closing the borders and hunting those fighters down.

Assad does the same in Palestine where he helps the various Hamas and radical Palestinian factions in causing havoc then he offers his assistance for the Americans in taming those lunatics in return for guarantees for him to stay in power.

Enough bull#, it is the same scenario all over again.

NO, Syria could not be considered as a savior of the Christians of Lebanon since it introduced the reasons for conflict in the first place (Armed Palestinian warlords).

NO, Syria could not be considered as aiding the US in bringing peace and stability to Iraq and/or Palestine since it introduced reasons for conflict (Helping Hamas and radical militants in Palestine, infiltrating Iraq with fundamentalists). Syria could not be considered as a doer of good if it tried to tame Hezbollah since it is the one who supported and fueled Hezbollah all those years with Iran.

Wake up and smell the roses.


*Selective: To choose parts of the truth and ignoring others, thus turning a supposedly veridic argument into a lie.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Are not "islamic fundementalists" whatever the hell that term means anway.

They where teh lebanese resistance against israeli occupation. And they have a very influencial place in lebanese parliament as a political party!

Taken from the Hezbollah Manifest:

Our Identity

We are often asked: Who are we, the Hizballah, and what is our identity? We are the sons of the umma (Muslim community) - the party of God (Hizb Allah) the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world.

By virtue of the above, we do not constitute an organized and closed party in Lebanon. nor are we a tight political cadre. We are an umma linked to the Muslims of the whole world by the solid doctrinal and religious connection of Islam.



I would continue if you are still not convinced that Hezbollah is indeed an Islamic Fundamentalist group.


Thank you,
Bx

Syria Iran Alliance, You can't take us both on!!!

Oh and as for you "diplomatic" isolation LOOOLLL. ooooh the pain the pain!!!!

C’mon, I thought you were smarter than that? The US does not want to go to war with Syria unless they absolute have to! Right now Syria is starting to cooperate more with the US so were not likely to go to war with them.
One more thing, do you think Syria will risk certain destruction for Iran? Alliances look good on paper, but when you’re facing the most powerful military in the world on your border, you tend to get a case of cold feet.