• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US and Iraq All Set for Strike against Syria

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

Not Invade....Military Strike....there is a difference

either way it is stupid. i hope they realize the flood gate that they would open.

:thumbsup: I'm hoping so. Losing a few soldiers a week will be a distant memory if they do.
 
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

yes, we are in no way capable SECURING any country. Sure we will beat Syria in a few minutes, but securing the peace will be impossible. Seeing how many problems we are facing in Iraq, thanks to our enemies in Syria, Iran and SA
 
Nostrodomus predicted this mess. He says that a man with the turbin will destroy the world, but that man isn't arabian... it's BUSH!


:shocked:
 
yes, we are in no way capable SECURING any country. Sure we will beat Syria in a few minutes, but securing the peace will be impossible. Seeing how many problems we are facing in Iraq, thanks to our enemies in Syria, Iran and SA

Lots and lots of unpredictable problems...


WAKE THE HELL UP. How many verified attacks per day? A few. How many allied men died in Germany AFTER WWII due to insurgent action - OVER 10,000. Even more in Japan. This is not a new thing here, nor is it unexpected. In all reality, it is actually not quite as bad as most knowledgeble would have expected.

Whenever there is a change of power there is a vacuum. There are always those that have nothing more to lose, as they have lost all of their power. Add to that the less desireable element of terrorists and common criminals (that exist in every culture) and you have the pretty standard mix. Hell, there are still technically NAZI insurgents in Germany - they are called Neo NAZIs. Are you going to tell me that because there are a few violent events every year tied to NAZIs that WWII is not over?



People here need to get their heads out of their a$$es and into the real world.
 
If they decide to neuter Syria then Isreal ought to forcibly evict the Palestinians there. It would be no different than what Jordan and Egypt did. To the losers go the Palestinians...
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Stunt
I thought the US could take Iraq by air.

What is the motive in syria?...regime change?..cuz you usually need ground troops of some sort.

You can't take a country over by air if your goal is to occupy the country. However the US is perfectly capable of absolutely devastating a country through strikes as well as through the use of its own ground forces without entering into urban warfare. It would be more trouble than Iraq, but probable that the US could slap Iran or Syria back in development.

Good point, but how do you do that without killing millions of people? You are talking about bombing cities with millions of people in them.

The U.S is not like the rest of the world. If we were Russia we would bomb the hell out of Syria and Iran with no regard for civlians.

Falluja.

 
Originally posted by: irwincur
yes, we are in no way capable SECURING any country. Sure we will beat Syria in a few minutes, but securing the peace will be impossible. Seeing how many problems we are facing in Iraq, thanks to our enemies in Syria, Iran and SA

Lots and lots of unpredictable problems...


WAKE THE HELL UP. How many verified attacks per day? A few. How many allied men died in Germany AFTER WWII due to insurgent action - OVER 10,000. Even more in Japan. This is not a new thing here, nor is it unexpected. In all reality, it is actually not quite as bad as most knowledgeble would have expected.

Whenever there is a change of power there is a vacuum. There are always those that have nothing more to lose, as they have lost all of their power. Add to that the less desireable element of terrorists and common criminals (that exist in every culture) and you have the pretty standard mix. Hell, there are still technically NAZI insurgents in Germany - they are called Neo NAZIs. Are you going to tell me that because there are a few violent events every year tied to NAZIs that WWII is not over?

People here need to get their heads out of their a$$es and into the real world.

You told these lies in the past, you were proven wrong, and you continue to lie!
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/

read it

Now, can you come up with a credible source to back up your lies? No? Perhaps you should admit to lying and apologize?
 
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed

Raildogg the man with no proof. Just rambling about stuff he has no evidence for.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: raildogg
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed

Raildogg the man with no proof. Just rambling about stuff he has no evidence for.

listen, Im not supporting a war against Syria, as I know we cant secure the peace there. But I do believe as do others that Saddam shipped WMD's over the border just before the war began. I could very well be wrong, but where the damn WMD's? Iraq surely had them, Clinton even said so.
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: raildogg
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed

Raildogg the man with no proof. Just rambling about stuff he has no evidence for.

listen, Im not supporting a war against Syria, as I know we cant secure the peace there. But I do believe as do others that Saddam shipped WMD's over the border just before the war began. I could very well be wrong, but where the damn WMD's? Iraq surely had them, Clinton even said so.

What do I care if you support a war with Syria or not? Because they are Muslim? Please.

What the hell do I care what Clinton said? Is Clinton Jesus?

Why can we not secure peace in Syria? Because they are Muslim, right?
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: raildogg
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed

Raildogg the man with no proof. Just rambling about stuff he has no evidence for.

listen, Im not supporting a war against Syria, as I know we cant secure the peace there. But I do believe as do others that Saddam shipped WMD's over the border just before the war began. I could very well be wrong, but where the damn WMD's? Iraq surely had them, Clinton even said so.

Where's the WMD? It didn't exist. We've given up the hunt. The right's zeal for insisting WMD exists is more insane than the left's zeal to overturn the election. Get over it. There was no WMD. You've been had.

No weapons were shipped. No troops were amassed along the borders. No WMD. It was all a lie.

And now you're expecting us to believe the same lie all over again. Attack Syria based on what? WMD?

This is becoming a pattern. WMD is the right wing's all purpose excuse for conquest.

I can't believe people will actually accept the same lie twice. You neocons haven't learned anything from Iraq. But then again, you didn't learn anything from Vietnam either.

 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: raildogg
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed

Raildogg the man with no proof. Just rambling about stuff he has no evidence for.

listen, Im not supporting a war against Syria, as I know we cant secure the peace there. But I do believe as do others that Saddam shipped WMD's over the border just before the war began. I could very well be wrong, but where the damn WMD's? Iraq surely had them, Clinton even said so.

There are any number of plausable ideas here. Saddam could have sold them, they could have been dismantled with or without Saddams knowlege.

Someone says "Get rid of that", and they dispose of it. Do they have to go through the EPA? Did Saddam keep records because he knew George wanted it?

Saddam wasn't concerned with documentation, he was a big fish in a little pond, and wanted to stay that way. He got his behind kicked in the prior war, and got his money and control over his portion of Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
yes, we are in no way capable SECURING any country. Sure we will beat Syria in a few minutes, but securing the peace will be impossible. Seeing how many problems we are facing in Iraq, thanks to our enemies in Syria, Iran and SA

Lots and lots of unpredictable problems...


WAKE THE HELL UP. How many verified attacks per day? A few. How many allied men died in Germany AFTER WWII due to insurgent action - OVER 10,000. Even more in Japan. This is not a new thing here, nor is it unexpected. In all reality, it is actually not quite as bad as most knowledgeble would have expected.

Whenever there is a change of power there is a vacuum. There are always those that have nothing more to lose, as they have lost all of their power. Add to that the less desireable element of terrorists and common criminals (that exist in every culture) and you have the pretty standard mix. Hell, there are still technically NAZI insurgents in Germany - they are called Neo NAZIs. Are you going to tell me that because there are a few violent "hold on events every year tied to NAZIs that WWII is not over?



People here need to get their heads out of their a$$es and into the real world.


I think for once irwincur may be right ! He talks about how criminals and terrorists (which exist in every culture) take advantage of power vacuums and unless there is a foreign occupying power holding your hand through the power transition they will take over... so guess what folks, during and immediately after the revolutionary war there was a power vacuum here, and no foreign occupying power to hold our hand. The same groups of "terrorists" or "insurgents" - as the Brittish would have described our revolutionary forces as, were the ones who got together and wrote the constitution. So I guess we've been controlled by a band of criminals ever since then! *Runs around screaming*
 
Does nobody ever pay atention to current affairs?

Each military conflict that the U.S. enter into gets faster and faster. Each conflict the press predicts tens of thousands of casualties, and it never happens. The United States is fully capable of controlling all countries in the Persian Gulf. Occupying them is another matter.

Syria could be handled with punitive air strikes until it complies with our wishes. They have zero chance of even mounting a ground attack that would do anything. We own the sky, sea, and ground in the Persian Gulf. We even own Space (satellites). We would be stupid to ground attack if it was not our goal to occupy or install a government. If Syria attacked Israel, Israel would destroy Syria in a matter of weeks, and nothing anyone could say would stop them. If Iran backed Syria by sending help, Israel would destroy them as well. The Israelis have First-Line MBT, Personnel equal to the U.S. as far as skills, as well as a First-Line Air Force. Iran has none of that, nor does Syria. Israel could not hope to successfully occupy both countries, but destroying them would be childs play.
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: raildogg
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed

Raildogg the man with no proof. Just rambling about stuff he has no evidence for.

listen, Im not supporting a war against Syria, as I know we cant secure the peace there. But I do believe as do others that Saddam shipped WMD's over the border just before the war began. I could very well be wrong, but where the damn WMD's? Iraq surely had them, Clinton even said so.

Believe - To have confidence in the truth or value of something
Proven - To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

Who cares what you believe, when there is proof, then we can talk. But be warned, people are more critical now after being duped the first time. No more forged Nigerian documents, no more aluminum tubes the IAEA says cannot be used to enrich uranium. REAL proof.
 
Many of Iraq's weapons were destroyed in the first Gulf War. Destruction of weapons continued after the war. The weapons were destroyed.

There were no WMD in Iraq in 2002 when George Bush insisted on invading. If anyone has any information on the whereabouts of WMD in Iraq please call the U.S. government with the location. They haven't been able to find any WMD during an extensive search operation in the last 22 months and have completely given up the search.

 
We're already bogged down in Iraq, why would we want to expand the amount of territory we have to occupy? Besides, I dont think Syria has enough oil for out government to waste time with occupation.
 
We're already bogged down in Iraq, why would we want to expand the amount of territory we have to occupy? Besides, I dont think Syria has enough oil for out government to waste time with occupation.

But think about it... no oil, okay... but, you have a fantastic fix-everything company (Halliburton) taking care of all the mess we make there. Their stock gets a boost, the "economy" feels better for a couple of months, and Halliburton, because of past great service to their company, gives Cheney a jucier don't-have-anything-to-do-with-war-and-no-conflict-of-interest compensation package for all his previous years of service. In return, Cheney makes sure Halliburton "wins" a no-bid contract.

"Careful there, soldier, thats a $2,000 sandwich there... you might wanna save some of that for later"
US feels safer, everybody prof... err wins. I just go to work, like every day.
 
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: raildogg
Syria has WMD's from Iraq thats why we cant find any. Maybe its a good idea to prove to the world that they actually existed

Raildogg the man with no proof. Just rambling about stuff he has no evidence for.

listen, Im not supporting a war against Syria, as I know we cant secure the peace there. But I do believe as do others that Saddam shipped WMD's over the border just before the war began. I could very well be wrong, but where the damn WMD's? Iraq surely had them, Clinton even said so.

Believe - To have confidence in the truth or value of something
Proven - To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

Who cares what you believe, when there is proof, then we can talk. But be warned, people are more critical now after being duped the first time. No more forged Nigerian documents, no more aluminum tubes the IAEA says cannot be used to enrich uranium. REAL proof.

Ouch...pwned! 😀
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Many of Iraq's weapons were destroyed in the first Gulf War. Destruction of weapons continued after the war. The weapons were destroyed.

There were no WMD in Iraq in 2002 when George Bush insisted on invading. If anyone has any information on the whereabouts of WMD in Iraq please call the U.S. government with the location. They haven't been able to find any WMD during an extensive search operation in the last 22 months and have completely given up the search.

People believe everything they hear/watch on t.v. They seem to believe FoxNews is actually reporting the news instead it is giving their opinion on the news.

Entertainment sells, but it doesn't mean it is right. Look at the WWF. Pure entertainment, and people would believe everything they saw.
 
Originally posted by: crooked22
We're already bogged down in Iraq, why would we want to expand the amount of territory we have to occupy? Besides, I dont think Syria has enough oil for out government to waste time with occupation.

But think about it... no oil, okay... but, you have a fantastic fix-everything company (Halliburton) taking care of all the mess we make there. Their stock gets a boost, the "economy" feels better for a couple of months, and Halliburton, because of past great service to their company, gives Cheney a jucier don't-have-anything-to-do-with-war-and-no-conflict-of-interest compensation package for all his previous years of service. In return, Cheney makes sure Halliburton "wins" a no-bid contract.

"Careful there, soldier, thats a $2,000 sandwich there... you might wanna save some of that for later"
US feels safer, everybody prof... err wins. I just go to work, like every day.

so halliburton is going to make syria produce oil? i agree with your statement about how grossly injust the whole halliburton scandle is but i dont think they line enough pockets to make war with syria a reality. oil on the other hand would. guess i dont know how your statment ties in, even though i agree
 
Back
Top