Author Topic: Anyone else worried about Syria? (Read 2771 times)

muckmaw · « **on:** April 11, 2003, 11:47:23 AM »

I'm hearing rumblings, and I don't like what I hear.

I was for the Liberation of Iraq, but I sure hope the government is not thinking about doing Syria. We can really end up in a S*itstorm.

Anyone else worried about this?

hawk220 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:08:06 PM »

its hard to tell. I thought that if we stormed into Iraq we would piss off more of the Arab world, but other countries didn't come to Iraq's defense. granted, everyone knew that Saddam was a diptoejam. maybe no one would do more than piss and moan if we stomped into Syria.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:10:25 PM »

Only time I get worried about my cereal, is when I get close to the bottom of the box and there is no backup to cover it.

Hortlund · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:11:10 PM »

Might as well take out Syria too. Another moslem dictatorship...who would miss them?

Charon · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:12:51 PM »

I don't know Muck, I've been worried about this for almost a year now. Iraq was a rumbling in its own right. We'll just have to see how far the doctrine that brought us into Iraq can be carried out without the public justifications that paved the way for the action. WMD is certainly a reality for the Axis of Evil, but as bad as Iran, Syria, etc. are, there is no formal 1441 stuff to add legality. It would be a much harder sell. It doesn't mean we won't at least see some testing of the waters.

Charon

Monk · « **Reply #5 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:15:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Only time I get worried about my cereal, is when I get close to the bottom of the box and there is no backup to cover it.

LOL, thought I was the only one.

midnight Target · « **Reply #6 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:15:36 PM »

Weird... wasn't Syria part of the Coalition during the 1st Gulf War?

Rasker · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:16:42 PM »

hmm Syria is the flip side of Iraq; Syria run by Shiites, tho Sunnis are in the majority. Havent heard as many atrocity stories coming out of Syria, nor WMD allegations either. Very little oil, so not as much money to spend on weapons. I vote no, for now. North Korea, however.....

muckmaw · « **Reply #8 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:19:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
I don't know Muck, I've been worried about this for almost a year now. Iraq was a rumbling in its own right. We'll just have to see how far the doctrine that brought us into Iraq can be carried out without the public justifications that paved the way for the action. WMD is certainly a reality for the Axis of Evil, but as bad as Iran, Syria, etc. are, there is no formal 1441 stuff to add legality. It would be a much harder sell. It doesn't mean we won't at least see some testing of the waters.

Charon

That's my main concern. As far as I know, we have 0 backing on Syria. At least in Iraq we had 1441, and 12 years of Iraqi Violations.

All we have in Syria is the fact that they harbor terrorists. I would think we need to let them try and root out their own house before we would go in. I would need some serious justification before I could support a war wth Syria.

Plus, if we do Syria, we're going to have to do Iran. If we start invading all these countries, we're going to look like an aspiring empire, and not a liberating force.

hawk220 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:22:54 PM »

All we have in Syria is the fact that they harbor terrorists

yikes, if that's all it would take to warrant an invasion, then Canada is in deep doo-doo. Canada is considered a main jumping-off point for terrorists slipping into the US

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:36:10 PM »

To tell the truth, I was more worried about "Short Duck Dong II" in North Korea. With all the crap that came out of his mouth before the war started. I felt it was his best time to hit the border with the south. If ever.

Syria now wants to take it's place as the Big Bad Arab bogeymen. Nasser was first. Then the Shah, Khomeini, Qadhafi, Saddam. You'd might say, They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

gofaster · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:40:08 PM »

I doubt we'll move into Syria until we've shored up Iraq, which probably won't be until after this presidential term is over.

john9001 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:42:18 PM »

TODAYS NEWS
at the request of the US , syria has closed it's border with iraq, alowing only iraqis returing home to iraq to pass.

syria also said if they catch any of saddams gang of 55 , they will arrest them.

Steve · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:46:49 PM »

We've got the troops there already... I absolutely love the preemptive idea. Call it aggression... we are the only world super power... since the beginning of time the most powerful have been able to do what's best for them...now it's our turn.
I don't care who likes us, I don't care about world opinion. Kill any who would aid our enemies. I don't now what the number is, but after we've killed enough, the remaining would be cowed.
Some would argue: but Steve, that will just create more terrorists. Terrorism is here to stay, to one degree or another. Let's start killing all who oppose us, this is our planet to do with what we choose, if we choose.

muckmaw · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2003, 12:49:32 PM »

North Korea strikes me as a spoiled child, screaming for the attention of an authority figure.

They are purposely making threatening overtures in an effort to frighten the United States into opening it's wallet.

I do not think any country on Earth would dream of engaging the US, or any of her allies in a Nuclear Exchange.

We're doing the right thing with Korea by letting them talk all they want, and just telling them to deal with the UN as we'll have none of it.