Syria next?

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....

Poo has hit the fan!! The midle east is going to explode. If we go into syria Yuo better believe that we are going to have another 9/11. They saidn the Al-queda has allready targeted the metro rail system in D.C. I have ridden the metro system and there isn't that mush security, s sucide bommer can easily blow some poo up

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

A foreman at work came up to me and said, "You know, I think you were right when you told me several months ago that Syria was going to be after Iraq." I like it when I'm right. Don't jinx it!!

Don't you think Syria would be the next logical stop on the War on Terror? It is a terrorist hotbed and doesn't seem to mind. As a matter of fact, I don't think they believe themselves to be on the short list!

if you want to blow up a subway do it like this. instead of a suicide bomber, merely set charges on the tracks themselves. in the area before the station, set a few charges and a ball of flaming metal will hit the station. but that's just a suggestion. i hope it doesn't happen.

I hear by declare CIVIL-LAW:
In accordence with civil law: the civilian rules and regulations by which the military authority is superseded in time of war or during public emergencies; established and enforced by the officer in charge in accordance with civil law and the usages of war. - ADVISOR's Unabridged Dictionary

i support bush but syria would just really screw things up in this world

Honestly if Syria is next then i am not sure when bush will stop.

the middle east can't be saved. only when north korea comes into it will the others stand up. i doubt nuclear war, but i know something will happen. for some reason i see every mig and every USAF fighter going somewhere over the pacific and blowing the poo out of each other.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

thats true if north korea launches a nuke or starts to attack more countries will side with the USA

What will the Bush Admnistration's excuse for (possibly) going into Syria be? "They are a haven for terrorism" or "They are building or already have WMD's and are a threat to the national security of the U.S."




What bull.

Originally posted by TheCatalyst
What will the Bush Admnistration's excuse for (possibly) going into Syria be? "They are a haven for terrorism" or "They are building or already have WMD's and are a threat to the national security of the U.S."

A good reason to overrun Syria ?

" We know that Saddam is hidding in Syria. Give us Saddam, or we come to take him "

Do you remember Bin Laden and Afghanistan ?

It is time perhaps to stop and look at what evidence has been found to date.

While it is true the Syrian's Histroically have been known as supporters of terrorist acts.

To quote Leveller

The US hasn't revealed a figure of Iraqi torture victims. The number is so high according to Amnesty International that calculations are not possible.

Torture is one of the instruments that kept Saddam in power. The fear that fueled his regime was of being taken to a police station and tortured.

Even the Olympic Stadium had a torture chamber built in it's grounds. Uday Hussien would often take Iraq's national soccer players to these chambers if they played badly in the game.

Every Iraqi exile has a tale of torture. Most have experienced it for themselves. Their scars bear all of the proof that you need.

To suggest that torture does not exist in Iraq is a blindness to cold, hard logic and factual evidence. The whole regime was kept in place by the use of it.

Same thing applied to Afghanistan as well as Bosnia. The Syrians are claiming they have not the personnel to deal with stopping Iraqi criminals (by virtue of there acts against Iraqi civilians) from entering their country. But at the same time they are saying that none have entered.

The UN should really have had no problem in ascertaining the lifestyle of
the average Iraqi citizen. And in light of the average Iraqi citizens response of coalition forces taking over. That this is reality points directly to the incompetence lack of responsibility of the UN.

Specifically member nations of the UN who are the most culpable are those
who are closest to the territories in question.

As a whole though the UN has failed miserably but not because of the recent actions of the US and coalition forces.

Thomas not sure if we will attack Syria but my impression is, given what I heard. The current response of the US to Syria is "WE ARE WATCHING YOU"!!

Troops have now been mobilized into Syria. Thatoneguy called it, and it is true. Just heard it live this morning on NBC news.

Waiting for more, any one else have links on this?

[edit on 5-11-2005 by ADVISOR]

We have been fighting them in Iraq for a while now. One of my good freinds got into lots of fights with orginized Syrian army when he was in Hit, Iraq.

edit: Here is a picture of the exact area he says these fights happened. I even have some videos of these fire fights.


Edit: In fact, I'll share one with you. This was taken after a fire fight on the bridge you see in the picture. Some Syrian fighters drove this truck onto the bridge and ran out of it. They were of course killed and this is what happens afterwards. This video was taken by my buddy who is a marine. He is home safe now.

external image

edit: I uploaded the video through google video. It is being verified as we speak. As soon as it goes through ill post it.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Dronetek]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

The cynic in me really wants to see the neocons get the wars they want in Iran and Syria. The resulting carnage & chaos will ensure that their kind are drummed out of power in the US for a hundred years, and perhaps this country can again be the peaceful Republic it was meant to be, and not the twisted Empire the neocons are gunning for.

Most Americans don't want "gobal dominance", they don't want to rule people on the other side of the planet, they want peace and prosperity at home. The more disastrous the neocon cabal's mistakes become, the more Americans will realize that military adventures overseas are not the path to the peace and prosperity they want. The cost of the lesson may prove to be high, but less so if it is learned now rather than later.

Just like the Left needed to learn the limitations of government power to tackle social problems at home, the Right needs to learn the limitations of the use of armed force abroad.

[edit on 11/5/05 by xmotex]

The cynic in me really wants to see the neocons get the wars they want in Iran and Syria.

Does the objective person in you want to admit Iran and Syria are egging the US on? Or to a larger extent, the world?

Iran is reacting with classic "threat display", like any cornered creature.

It's amazing how our evolutionary heritage is writ large in our political machinations.

You people all seem to believe that when we threaten war with Iran, or Syria, or whomever, they should behave like good little subjects of the Empire and back down meekly. Unfortunately it goes against human (and animal) nature. Corner any creature and it will attack, even if it stands little chance of winning.

Funny that those who are so full of "national pride" in their own country cannot seem to understand it in others. By threatening Iran and Syria we are simply soldifying the domestic political support for those (otherwise teetering) regimes.

Originally posted by xmotex
Iran is reacting with classic "threat display", like any cornered creature.

It's amazing how our evolutionary heritage is writ large in our political machinations.

You people all seem to believe that when we threaten war with Iran, or Syria, or whomever, they should behave like good little subjects of the Empire and back down meekly. Unfortunately it goes against human (and animal) nature. Corner any creature and it will attack, even if it stands little chance of winning.

Funny that those who are so full of "national pride" in their own country cannot seem to understand it in others. By threatening Iran and Syria we are simply soldifying the domestic political support for those (otherwise teetering) regimes.

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?


edit: When you say "we", who do you mean? I ask because it isnt like the US is alone in our calls for Iran to end their nuclear program. We are also pretty popular in our opinions of Syria as far as the UN goes.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Dronetek]

syria and iran DO need to be taken out.

Originally posted by xmotex
The cynic in me really wants to see the neocons get the wars they want in Iran and Syria. The resulting carnage & chaos will ensure that their kind are drummed out of power in the US for a hundred years, and perhaps this country can again be the peaceful Republic it was meant to be, and not the twisted Empire the neocons are gunning for.

[edit on 11/5/05 by xmotex]

Well said. It is a sorry day when I have to say this, but in terms of the long view, one of the few good things that we can salvage from Iraq is a reintroduction of some sort of Vietnam syndrome where America once again learns the dangers of getting involved in unpopular wars. I certainly don't want to see my country with a "black eye" again, but at the very least we can learn from our mistakes (even if we have to do once a generation.)

Unforunately, I see the beginnings of the next cycle of militarism already in many of the neocon commentators and even posters on this board. Like Hitler said regarding Versailles and like the far-right still says about Vietnam, "it wasn't us who lost, we were stabbed in the back at home."

I think these sentiments will be fuelled by the neocons who remain in power after this administration passes. Many people talk about what motives the US had for invading Iraq. Some say oil, some say the OPEC switch to the Euro as a trading currency, some say WMD's and freedom. These are all material benefits, secondary to the ideology behind the ideologues in power. Iraq was meant to be a cake-walk, and it was meant to revitalize the American public's willingness to use war as a foreign policy tool.

This is one of the most basic and fundamental tenants of neoconservatism, it comes before oil and profit and before geostrategic dominance. And this is why when the oil never flows from Iraq and we find ourselves 5 years from now seeking some sort of "peace with honor" the neocons will go back to their desks and look for the next war to thrust upon the country. They simply will never admit to their most fundamental tenant being wrong, they will shift the blame on the "liberals" and "traitors" and let the conservative voter base who doesn't know thing #1 about neconservatism to guard their legacy for them until the next time.

EDIT: sorry for the crap grammar here, I'm in a hurry but wanted to get my thoughts out.

-koji K.






[edit on 5-11-2005 by koji_K]