Is Syria Next?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rs7, Mar 29, 2003.

  1. rs7


    If Syria contributes to the Iraqi cause, will we consider them a part of this war?

    And if so, will that mean Israel will be drawn in as an active participant?

    Kuwait hit by a Chinese missile. Iran crossing the border. Demonstrations against the US all over the arab world.

    Is this going to be WW III? Sure seems like there is a lot of potential for this.

  2. Syria is a greater threat to Israel than Iraq is... we should be bombing the Syrian scum, and not the Iraqi assholes...
  3. msfe


    while you´re at it - why not liberate and democratize Syria & Iran ?
  4. Get lost, you evil arab loving scumbag...
  5. rs7


    Seems not to be much effort on the behalf of a real solution here.

    I started this thread because the whole situation seems to have possible ramifications beyond what we thought we had bargained for.

    No matter what one's stance is on this Iraqi campaign, I see potentially devastating escalation if we (the US) cannot accomplish our goal of deposing Saddam (which I believe is necessary) without alienating the entire arab world. It seems from what I read and the television reports I see, our "high road" approach does not seem to be going over quite as well as planned.

    Our guys are in battle situations that should have been but were not anticipated. Our expected welcome as liberators has been hampered by the brutal tactics of Saddam and his henchmen.
    Again, why was this not anticipated? We knew about this guy. We knew he is capable of anything evil.

    Syria is supplying arms to Iraq. China apparently is as well. Kuwait has been attacked. Iran is creeping in. Demonstrations all over the place, including here in the states (weak and minor, but still there). Large demonstrations in the Middle East.

    Israel not likely to "show restraint" if either attacked by Iraq like in Desert Storm, or by Syria, who is always happy to do anything they can to make progress on their official government policy...which is to eliminate the State of Israel.

    And on top of all this, we now are hearing that Al Qaeda fighters are assisting the Iraqis. Which most likely means financial backing from out loyal pals in Saudi Arabia.

    This does not look like a scenario that is under control.

    A war between America and it's allies and the entire Islamic world can lead to no where good.

    Seems to me, we need to wage a stronger war of politics of humanity and the kind of propaganda to make it clear to the world exactly what our objectives really are.

    How much, if anything, does this campaign have to do with American frustration of not having found Bin Laden?

    Where do we go from here?


  6. Actually, I think making clear what the real objectives (as opposed to the feel good reasons your adminsration sells to you at home) are would be a fatal error. In fact, people in these other countries, viewing the situation without the distortion of patriotic frenzy, can probably easily see that see it for what it is -- brute force economic expansionism.
  7. rs7

    rs7 is a prime example of how divisive this escapade is. Alfonso seem to believe what he says. How do we overcome such mistaken impressions of our intentions?

    Does Alphonso believe there is no danger posed by Saddam and his weapons programs? Does Alphonso really believe the Iraqi people have any freedom to dissent? Does Alphonso think the Iraqi people have a fair system of justice? Humans rights mean anything in the equation?

    Or is Alphonso, as someone else mentioned, an alias made up just to stir the kettle, and really has no feelings about this one way or the other. Of course, we all know the official anti-American response to this campaign is "brute force economic expansionism". However, there is nothing in our history to suggest we are a "conquer and keep" empire.

    Again, if Alphonso is for real, then he's a perfect example of what makes this situation so dangerous.

  8. I'm worried that this war, originally perceived as a relatively quick and painless campaign, will degenerate into a Vietnam-like quagmire with large coalition casualties. It is apparent that even Iraqi civilians don't want us there and, in many cases, are hindering the coalition effort. US forces are searching children for possible explosives and weapons. Suicide bombers in Iraq killed 4 soldiers today. Supply lines are too long and fragile to effectively sustain a prolonged siege. Syria, Iran and Russia are meddling. Anti-American sentiment overseas is reaching an all-time high. Things are not looking good.

    Despite huge losses to the Republican guard from allied bombing, the real battle for Baghdad will be a messy affair that will try the American public due to the proliferation of bleeding heart, left-wing, anti-war media coverage (i.e., see Saddam's propaganda mouthpiece in the US, the New York Times) that our media is cramming down our throats. Thank god for the Fox News channel!

    Although originally I was a proponent for this war, it's beginning to look like a very bad idea. The Administration is trying to put a positive spin by defending Gen. Frank's plan as "brilliant" but Lt. Gen. Wallace's concerns that we underestimated the savagery and appalling tactics of our opponent are very credible. This war could ultimately destroy Bush's presidency and become the catalyst for the Third World War.

    God save our souls.

  9. rs7, who, in the last 12 years that he's allegedly had these WMD, has Saddam attacked or posed a threat to? Which terrorist organizations did he supply? Where is the evidence of the imminent threat posed to America?

    Important questions, no? I assure you that if I, armchair international affairs expert (hehe), can think of them, you bet your bottom dollar the people closest to this invasion (ie, the Arabs) can too!

    I see the other questions you raise are the standard American patriot retreat: the Saddam regime is yucky.
    To quote your Big Chief's dad: Read My Lips -- that's an Iraqi problem. The terms of the '91 ceasefire -- ostensibly why you're attacking Iraq -- were to disarm, not be nice to your people.
    #10     Mar 29, 2003