It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to the (NY) Times, the letter outlined a four staged battle plan, beginning with the American military's expulsion, followed by the creation of a militant Islamic caliphate in Iraq, and then in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.
The final step, the Times reported, quoted unnamed US officials, would be a battle against Israel.
Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Syria an Iran have alliance. You can't take us both at the same time.
[edit on 10-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]
Washington, August 22, 2005 -- With more than 250,000 American troops deployed in nearly 130 countries, many analysts are questioning whether the United States military is stretched in ways that could undermine its future capabilities should new threats arise.
In his annual report to Congress last May, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the military to a point where it runs a higher risk of not being able to quickly and easily defeat potential enemies.
U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recruitment shortfalls in some branches of the armed forces, such as the Army and National Guard, have alarmed some observers who warn that the military is overburdened and overstretched.
WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials say it's not a crisis, but it is a major concern — a battle here at home to win the hearts and minds of potential new recruits.
After more than three years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the all-volunteer military is facing its toughest test yet.
In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal for the third month in a row, short by nearly 2,800 recruits, or 42 percent off its target.
And for the first time in 10 years, the Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal for the last four months.
We all know who Condi is right?
The only force on Earth capable of preventing Sen. Hillary Clinton from winning the White House 2008
Originally posted by Heartagram
If my country were to be in this state, I'd be humble and say "we love peace, man!woooo!".
Originally posted by American Mad Man
The funny thing is, the left over US forces comprise about 1 million servicemen, and thousands of tanks, aircraft, and war ships.
Our 'leftovers' could take any nation in the world.
Originally posted by xmotex
The US is capable of handling multiple wars on a larger scale if the citizenry is behind it, that's what WW2 proves. In WW2 we were faced with clear enemies waging wars of agression. That's not the case now.
Who is to say what citizens will support and for what reasons come the future if a war occurs between the US and these two countries.
Originally posted by AceOfBase
Syria has been surpressing radical Islamists for decades now, even fighting on the side of the Christians during the Labanese civil war.
Originally posted by xmotex
Who is to say what citizens will support and for what reasons come the future if a war occurs between the US and these two countries.
The idea that the US is an omnipotent force able to take on all challengers at once is sheer nationalistic fantasy.
[edit on 10/12/05 by xmotex]
Originally posted by Heartagram
I don't suppose the 1 million left serviceman and your tanks and stuffs are in good condition if it has undergone lots of battle right?
Originally posted by Souljah
If you ask me its just a Matter of time befor Bush starts to wage war against Syria - maybe only a limited war, but still Syria must be Secured! And by doing that, the Road to Teheran is open. After all, the Project for the New American Century is a Big one - and war in Iraq was just the First Step in "rebuilding America's defences". Why? Because "America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."
Originally posted by American Mad Man
And what if the US never invades Syria, Iran, or NK? What if the US doesn't do a thing and WESTERN EUROPE takes out Iran? What if Syria were to agree to terms with the US because, *GASP*, it WASN'T securing it's boarders as it should?
Will you say "I was an American hating Arse jockey who wanted to blame the worlds problems on the US because of my Yankee hatred"?
Originally posted by Seekerof
Bust!
There will be no war with Syria.
Why?
Because Condi does not support it.
US weighed military strikes in Syria
Rice Favors Diplomatic Isolation Over Attacking Syria
We all know who Condi is right?
The only force on Earth capable of preventing Sen. Hillary Clinton from winning the White House in 2008
You go gurl.
seekerof