how long before war with Syria?

aine

was just wondering if anyone would like to hazard a guess as to how long it will be before George W goes into Syria claiming that either they are harbouring Saddam et al or else they have his chemical weapons??!

just a couple of articles I read this moening......


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/14/international0312EDT0448.DTL

http://www.paknews.com/flash.php?id=3&date1=2003-04-14

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_832123,00.html

daveg

I laughed out loud last night when I saw Bush on the news declaring his attentions on Syria because they supplied weapons to Iraq (as did everyone else FFS) and he suspected they had weapons of mass destruction . What an asshole.

bertiebowl

Hmm Syria are probably safe for a month or so until the Americans secure Iraq.....then they'll have those 250,000 troops starting to get itchy feet........

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by daveg
I laughed out loud last night when I saw Bush on the news declaring his attentions on Syria because they supplied weapons to Iraq (as did everyone else FFS) and he suspected they had weapons of mass destruction . What an asshole.

Even better, this is the quote from his speech the Indo. carried today:

"I think we believe that there are chemical weapons in Syria. Each situation requires a different response. Of course, first things first. We're in Iraq now," he said.

He thinks he believes, that's a pretty rock solid reason for attacking a country, they're not even trying now.

Dr_Teeth

I really doubt the US will try to attack Syria. Iraq was easy, its military was in bits after a decade of sanctions and its people were crying out for regieme change. Syria though is totally different..

Teeth.

The US & the world will see what they want to see. If they believe that Syria is mistreating their people, they'll use that as an excuse, simply because they want to. Think of Iraq. Iraq wasn't invaded for decades. Are we to believe that the cries of the Iraqi people suddenly were heard>? Hardly.

Bush will invade Syria if his advisors tell him to do so.

Hobbes

They haven't even been able to prove Iraq has WMD yet. :rolleyes: Even the head scientist they captured recently has publically said (after now being safe from being killed by Saddam) that there are no WMD.

Samara

Bush is just trying to divert attention away from the fact that there have been no proof of WMD's in Iraq and the most probable reason, the oil saga is foremost in everyone's minds as cause of the war. The US doesn't give a toss about the Iraqi people, if they did they would have done the job properly first time round instead of putting Saddam back in power. Syria is no threat to the US, why aren't they looking to other countries who are in breach, North Korea, their best buddy Israel??? Surely the international community will not stand for another invasion based on vague accusations!?

Amnesiac_ie

Oh don't worry... there will a MAJOR WMD FIND within days... planted of course by the American forces in an effort to justify the invasion of Iraq. Which had absolutley nothing to do with securing access to some of the biggest oilfeilds in the world.

bug

... there will a MAJOR WMD FIND within days...

Yeah, I'd say so, I think the Russians said something to the effect that any "finds" would have to be independantly observed, earlier in the conflict, well something to that effect. If they do "find" WMD then there will hopefully be an independant inquiry/observation. As far as Syria is concerned. They'll find something else, WMD, harbouring terrorists, "proof" that osama BL/Sadam's mother, is hiding there, dredge up some "history" of Syria's leader. wait and see, I give it 2-6mths. Are they trying to build a circle of "frendlies" around Israel or someat?

""

If they do "find" WMD then there will hopefully be an independant inquiry/observation

There will be. They brought in independents to check the fertilizer find a few days ago. They know that there are alot of nations that won't accept american claims in regards to WMD's.

aine

"I think we believe that there are chemical weapons in Syria. Each situation requires a different response. Of course, first things first. We're in Iraq now," he said.

He thinks he believes, that's a pretty rock solid reason for attacking a country, they're not even trying now. [/B]

its better than him believing that he thinks!!!!

aine

Originally posted by Samara
Bush is just trying to divert attention away from the fact that there have been no proof of WMD's in Iraq and the most probable reason, the oil saga is foremost in everyone's minds as cause of the war. The US doesn't give a toss about the Iraqi people, if they did they would have done the job properly first time round instead of putting Saddam back in power. Syria is no threat to the US, why aren't they looking to other countries who are in breach, North Korea, their best buddy Israel??? Surely the international community will not stand for another invasion based on vague accusations!?

dont you get it....they havent found any WMDs in Iraq coz em doh! they've all been shipped in the dead of night across the border into Syria!

Wook

Oh yes they will follow Mr Bush and his foreign policy.
As long as USA has the money and the companies, many people will be able to forget or ignore the real reasons for war.
Little countries will be bribed (read intimidated) for their support and vote and the others are just willing to ignore the public in total.

Since the UN, has some real major issues and are indeed a big dog with no teeth, who's going to stand in their way ?

Don't get me wrong , i am totaly against war and despise Bush and Co. But the things that happend recently just showed us that politicians these days are often just a bunch of silly old man with no backbone.

bug

If they did decide they wanted to go into Syria do you think that they would approach the UN. I was just looking at the Security Council Website its good to read all the resolutions about the middle-east

Originally posted by klaz
Think of Iraq. Iraq wasn't invaded for decades. Are we to believe that the cries of the Iraqi people suddenly were heard>? Hardly.

{sarcasm} Ah for heavens sake, is a person or a country not allowed to change their invasion policy for the better...the Iraqi people are now freed of a brutal regime, the last couple of invasions were ostensibly for ethical reasons, ie Kosova and that other place moga dish who...so they are getting better {end sarcasm}
mm

halkar

Syria has no OIL
Made me sick that the oil was always between the words through out this war and oil fields were the first things that was secured when US entered Iraq and yet they couldn't secured the hospitals from looters While hospitals being looted they were too busy at north securing the oil fields there :rolleyes: soo much for humanity!! I don't care what anyone thinks but Bush and his administration doesn't give a sh!t about the humanity. How many starving Africans would they have saved with the money they spent on the war if they wanted :rolleyes:
I guess Bush and his administration got their retirements sorted out
It is so stupid to see Bush on the tv accusing other countries of having nuclear and chemical capabilities where as US is the country that has more than anyother country. So if they can have whatever weapons as they want for their defence , why shouldn't other countries do the same? And now they have showed their capabilities in Iraq, it wouldn't surprise me that seeing other countries in the middle east starting to spend more and more on their defences with nuclear and chemical weapons or whatever.

bonkey

Originally posted by halkar
Syria has no OIL
Made me sick that the oil was always between the words through out this war and oil fields were the first things that was secured when US entered Iraq and yet they couldn't secured the hospitals from looters While hospitals being looted they were too busy at north securing the oil fields there :rolleyes: soo much for humanity!!

Go and read up on the environmental disasters which were caused from the deliberate torching of Kuwaiti oil fields in the Gulf War.

Now go and compare the size of the oil-field which was torched, the fields which Iraq has, and work out the potential for damage.

Now when you've done that, check the number of troops actually used for those operations who are still "tied up" down there, and check out how much of a city the size of Baghdad they could effectively police.

I think you'll find that an economic disaster which would ruin Iraq's economy for decades, as well as have a massive environmental impact is a slightly bigger risk - from a humanitarian and ecological point of view - than the couple of blocks the same number of soldiers would have been able to police.

There are plenty of credible reasons to be for or against this war. We dont need extra ones made up thanks.

jc

p.s. Go do a google search for "Syrian oil reserves" and come back and tell us that Syria still has no oil.

halkar

If Saddam had torched his oil fields then there would be no one to blame only US, of course they will protect their investment and effort, but going on about humanity and freedom to people is just makes them look like idiots while there are many countries in the world which are probably worse of than Iraq could ever been, so you close your eyes to one and invade for your own benefits and expect the world to beleive? I guess Bush administration doesn't give a sh!t if you beleive him or not and go on the tv like a parrot to repeat themselves all over again.
Now the talks about putting sanctions against Syria and in 10 years time, after they dry Iraq out, it will be same thing all over again , time to dry out Syria. First we make them live like misserables and make them hate their government and maybe the next junior Bush and junior Blair will invade Syria for the same reasons. They have won the battle in Iraq but the war is still on and probably be on for many years.

bonkey

Originally posted by halkar
If Saddam had torched his oil fields then there would be no one to blame only US, of course they will protect their investment and effort, but going on about humanity and freedom to people is just makes them look like idiots while there are many countries in the world which are probably worse of than Iraq could ever been, so you close your eyes to one and invade for your own benefits and expect the world to beleive?

Thats a perfectly valid point. I was just showing why your "oilfields vs looters" argument wasnt. Like I said...plenty of credible reasons.

Now the talks about putting sanctions against Syria and in 10 years time, after they dry Iraq out, it will be same thing all over again , time to dry out Syria.

Last time you posted you thought they had no oil. Now its all about drying them out? Drying them out of what exactly?

jc

mike65

Its just as well most on the thread are'nt out of school and in positions of power yet...(at least I'm assuming most posting here are children as the arguments are childish.)

First off, the US will not be invading Syria as there is no need to.

Second, the military many be big but they'd need to move vast ammounts of fresh machinery/ammunition/men etc to make it possible.
Those 250,000 want to go home not trudge around the desert again...

Third, the Syrian history is a dreadful one. Someone (bug) seemed to think "history" needs to be invented, it does'nt. The government of Syria under Assad the elder killed tens of thousands of its own citizens in Hama and sponsered just about every mad dog terrorist group in the middle-east region.

Some reading -
http://leb.tonysky.net/ee/terrorsy.htm
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/syrian_terror.htm
http://www.geocities.com/terratck/

I could go on....

Mike.

Hobbes

Syrians government has a bad history. However any actions the US take against the country active or covertly will not be seen as friendly after the mess in Iraq.

davelerave

war is expensive and the us i'm sure hopes the 'iraq lesson' will provide leverage in it's dalings with syria.good dictatorships are easier for the us to deal with than bad democracies anyway and they hope to bring assad round to their way of thinking.With the election coming up the economy is to the fore and one war is enough to be going on with

bug

Someone (bug) seemed to think "history" needs to be invented, it does'nt. The government of Syria under Assad the elder killed tens of thousands of its own citizens in Hama and sponsered just about every mad dog terrorist group in the middle-east region.

Sorry Mike can I just clarify what I meant by inventing history

I'm sure the above is true, I don't dispute that, however the American's will probably decide that Syria's government's past evils are now urgently incredibly important, as they did with Saddam Hussein. I personally, wouldn't trust the US governments view on what evils, WMD etc, a country has or has done, their view is often slanted to their own end to put it mildly. And to re-hash an overly stated point. There are plenty of countries who have corrupt regimes but its not in the US govenment interest to give their people liberty.

In the case of the present Syrian government Tony Blair has even said that the present government is doing all it can to reform the country.

Originally posted by Man
{sarcasm} Ah for heavens sake, is a person or a country not allowed to change their invasion policy for the better...the Iraqi people are now freed of a brutal regime, the last couple of invasions were ostensibly for ethical reasons, ie Kosova and that other place moga dish who...so they are getting better {end sarcasm}
mm

So if Saddam had invaded Kuwait, without the launching of either scuds, or chemical weapons, you would have no problem wiith it? Or if North Korea, conquered South Korea?

The Iraqi peple are freed from a brutal regime. Yes. We have no problem with that. I've never said that i had a problem with that.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by mike65

Syrian history is a dreadful one. Someone (bug) seemed to think "history" needs to be invented, it does'nt. The government of Syria under Assad the elder killed tens of thousands of its own citizens in Hama and sponsered just about every mad dog terrorist group in the middle-east region.

I just love this quote from one of the links you posted

Terrorism is the use of violence in which the objective is to harm states, population groups or single individuals in order to cause panic, and reduce their will and power of resistance, so as to advance the political objectives of those employing the terror

That's just a long-winded way of saying 'shock and awe' isn't it? Does Syria's support for the Western Coalition in the first Gulf War count as 'sponsoring a mad dog terrrorist group in the middle east?

The Assads are/were only in power because they belong to a minority religious sect which was installed in positions of influence in the civil service and army by the French who had helped 'liberate' Syria from Turkey after the First World War. When the French were finally booted out, such a powerful clique was able to snaffle all the power for themselves.

Isn't it great when a small country is liberated from a large alien country by another large alien country? Remember that Kuwait was going to introduce democracy after GW1 by way of saying thank you to the US for liberating them. How's that going? I haven't heard.

mike65

Originally posted by Hairy Homer

Does Syria's support for the Western Coalition in the first Gulf War count as 'sponsoring a mad dog terrrorist group in the middle east?

Obviously not. The first Gulf War was to get a tyrant out of an independent soverign nation nothing else, which was UN sanctioned. Which you should approve of...

The Assads are/were only in power because they belong to a minority religious sect which was installed in positions of influence in the civil service and army by the French who had helped 'liberate' Syria from Turkey after the First World War. When the French were finally booted out, such a powerful clique was able to snaffle all the power for themselves.

Just cos Syria was rules by les Blues in the past does'nt mean it can't and should'nt be democratic now. Even that misses the point, democracy or not Syria has for decades sponsered terrorism, so its on the US radar but as I said above it wont be invaded. There are other ways to skin that particular cat...

Isn't it great when a small country is liberated from a large alien country by another large alien country? Remember that Kuwait was going to introduce democracy after GW1 by way of saying thank you to the US for liberating them. How's that going? I haven't heard.

That Kuiwait is still not a democracy is a failing but not the issue at hand.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
That Kuiwait is still not a democracy is a failing but not the issue at hand.

Why not? I thought that this war was a good thing because it got rid of a non-democratic regime.

How come supporting a non-democratic regime is only a failing, then? I thought the issue was liberating people from oppressive regimes?

jc

mike65

Did I stumble onto a different thread? This is about the likelyhood of Syria being invaded not the failure to impose democracy in Kuiwait...

Mike.

Cabaal

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
I just love this quote from one of the links you posted.....

Talking of quotes, here's a excellent one...

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament.....Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
-- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.


Always liked this quote,

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by mike65
Did I stumble onto a different thread? This is about the likelyhood of Syria being invaded not the failure to impose democracy in Kuiwait...

Mike.

Merely trying to point out that small countries being 'liberated' from one alien power by another often find that it was not in their interest that the 'liberation' was effected.

Will the US invade Syria? Dunno. Depends how mad the current administration is allowed to be by its own people. It's not the first time dangerous belligerents tried to push America into escalating wars. Patton was all for taking on the Russians in 1945, but his own superiors were sufficiently sane to put the skids under him.

McArthur wanted to invade China during the Korean War, but they realised back home that this might not be a good idea and so out came the shepherd's crook.

It's a bit of a worry that there is no superpower to counteract America in the world at the moment. If it feels it can get away with it, and the current loony tunes in charge seem to think 'Hot Dang, why the hell not?' then they might just do it.

God help the next generation.

'A generation that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that gives one'
Bismark