Will Bush go after syria in 2005

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2004-09-29 10:45pm

With all this news about Syria being the terrorist haven and the government being corrupt and also hearing that Saddam may have hidden his weapons of mass destruction there. I wondered will we be hitting them in '05

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-09-29 10:50pm

Dennis Toy wrote: I wondered will we be hitting them in '05

The military is in no shape to launch another OIF-scale operation by then (or even before the '08 elections), and Syria would require more effort to defeat than Iraq.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-09-29 11:33pm

It would seem to me that Iran would be next on Shrub's shit list.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-09-30 12:03am

The Military is not in any shape to invade another country, we can bomb the hell out of two other countrys but not invade one

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-09-30 12:04am

People have been claiming Syria is next since before Iraq was even invaded. Its a load of bullshit.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-09-30 12:21am

Invade Syria and still find no evidence of Saddam's WMDs? I doubt he wants to take that chance.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-30 12:42am

Dennis Toy wrote:With all this news about Syria being the terrorist haven and the government being corrupt and also hearing that Saddam may have hidden his weapons of mass destruction there. I wondered will we be hitting them in '05

No, for the simple reason that it would actually make sense.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-30 12:55am

I'll paraphrase Bill Maher ... "With all the talk of Vietnam in the presidential campaigns, I say that we just go back and invade Vietnam. After all, they have no ties to al Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with September 11. They're practically asking for it!"

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-09-30 07:01am

Durandal wrote:I'll paraphrase Bill Maher ... "With all the talk of Vietnam in the presidential campaigns, I say that we just go back and invade Vietnam. After all, they have no ties to al Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with September 11. They're practically asking for it!"

Can I have that in my signature?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-09-30 01:52pm

I'm thinking that after pretty much comitting political suicide with Iraq, there wouldn't be much support for yet another invasion, so I'd say no.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-09-30 02:28pm

Ma Deuce wrote: The military is in no shape to launch another OIF-scale operation by then (or even before the '08 elections), and Syria would require more effort to defeat than Iraq.

Although our Air Force, which isn't so busy in Iraq now, could do a helluva number on Syria if we wanted/needed to. But I doubt this will happen due to the political ramifications.

But I doubt the military would have trouble with Syria, really-- they have (last I heard, please correct me if I'm wrong) 4 armored divisions of low quality and poor training with few parts or upgrades, and lots of troops tied down in "greater Syria" ('scuse me, I mean, Lebanon)...

I think physically it could be done by activating what is left of the military and every IRR person that reports for duty, but politically it is wholly untenable. The world would throw a fit, especially with everyone (even the French and Germans) currently having ants-in-the-pants over Iran's universally agreed-upon nascent WMD program.

I think Syria will wait and see what happen to Iran. If the global community stands up to Iran, seriously, and the Ayatollahs back down, then Syria will backpedal from Iran and end up going Libya's route. Syria and Iran are close partners, working together on Hezbollah and all that, and conspiring against Iraq both then and now. Strangling Iran will make Syria choke as well.

But if the Ayatollahs call the world's bluff and nothing happens, then Syria will see no reason to back down and continue to play their games.

If there is a showdown with Iran, look at Syria to spread trouble by bringing Israel into it-- they have reason, with the recent attack on the Hezbollah leader in their borders.

It will force Turkey to take sides-- Turkey tries to maintain good ties to Israel but wants to be a force in the Muslim world, while also joining the EU. They have been decent US allies as well, but that is severely strained. Turkey, trying to serve too many masters, will have to make a choice. And there are enough radicals in Turkey's borders to make them suffer if they make the "wrong" (ie, "anti-Muslim") choice...

But if Iran blinks and Syria backs away from them, then look for a land deal in the UN: Syria will unass Lebanon if they get the Golan Heights back. Ariel Sharon himself once hinted that, in exchange for a full peace with Syria, he'd consider this to be worth it.

We livein interesting times.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-30 02:55pm

Gustav32Vasa wrote:
Durandal wrote:I'll paraphrase Bill Maher ... "With all the talk of Vietnam in the presidential campaigns, I say that we just go back and invade Vietnam. After all, they have no ties to al Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with September 11. They're practically asking for it!"
Can I have that in my signature?

I don't care. It's not my quote.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-09-30 05:28pm

Durandal wrote:I don't care. It's not my quote.

Thanks

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Will Bush go after syria in 2005

Will the missiles fly in Syria in 2005

Will Bush go after syria in 2005

Re: Will Bush go after syria in 2005

Re: Will Bush go after syria in 2005

Re: Will Bush go after syria in 2005