Syria next ?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by SG-N, Apr 14, 2003.

  1. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    I saw that Syria had WMD !
    Maybe that they will use it soon against Israel !
    And they protect Iraqi chiefs... (maybe Saddam ?)

    lol

    OK, that's clear now : Syria, Iran and Korea are the next one. It seems that Syria is the favourite one as Israel is crying for it...
    I don't have anything against Israel, but they've got enough problems without "puting petrol on fire"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyway, I don't want to talk about Israel in this thread : I would like to know which countries could be "freed"/attacked (as Iraq) in the next 2 years.

    PLEASE, be serious : France is not on that list !
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. heflores Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,103
    US will never enter Syria. I'm ready to be told as many "I told you sos". That will never happen.. US is just waving it's big stick at Syria to teach it a lesson, but no way would US go to Syria and remove it's regime.....Afterall, any average Syrian on the street could be characterised as a terrorist....including the women...and if you don't believe me, ask Helen, she's syrian....So to eliminate the idealogy of Syria that US does not like, is to genocide the entire population of Syria.....and there is no oil to even justify that.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. riverline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    103
    N.Korea is no way on the list coz its so dangerous. N.Korea being a false element in the list would make the list nonislamic countries!!!!!!

    Well , Iran is different than Iraq, coz the people dont hate their gov. so I think Iran might get only air strikes, ground forces would not be welcome there even by children...

    Well syria is on the list because of its support to Hizbolla in Lebanon and its threat to Israel. Syria needs only to shake hands with Sharon in order to avoid the possibility of existence of MDW in its president's pocket...hence to avoid any invasion..

    france not on the list???? of course,,, a country has to be on the list if it fulfills any two conditions out of four :

    1. it has a srious problem with Israel

    2. Its a weak country

    3. It has oil

    4. Islamic
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2003
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. riverline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    103
    N.Korea is no way on the list coz its so dangerous. N.Korea being a false element in the list would make the list nonislamic countries!!!!!!

    Well , Iran is different than Iraq, coz the people dont hate their gov. so I think Iran might get only air strikes, ground forces would not be welcome there even by children...

    Well syria is on the list because of its support to Hizbolla in Lebanon and its threat to Israel. Syria needs only to shake hands with Sharon in order to avoid the possibility of existence of MDW in its president's pocket...hence to avoid any invasion..

    france not on the list???? of course,,, a country has to be on the list if it fulfills any two conditions out of four :

    1. it has a srious problem with Israel

    2. Its a weak country

    3. It has oil

    4. Islamic
     
  8. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    Then France should be on the list with a 2.5 out of 4.
    It has no oil and, though not Islamic, is rapidly headed that way.
     
  9. heflores Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,103
    How sad.....Have you noticed that all countries with a lot of oil are weak or "Have been weakened". How convineant for those sucking this oil.

    Also, why such a treatment and bad policies for Islamic countries....

    Don't get me started wtih Israel, the only thing I'm sure of is that although the arabs are known to be naive, they won't stretch their hands and open their homes again for the jews like they did during WWII when no european country or America wanted anything to do with them.
     
  10. heflores Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,103
    Is it me, or is US politics starting to look more and more like arab politics.....With the father lining up his sons to take over the kingdom come.

    Next thing, the constitution will be changed to extend the leadership term to 30 years and to allow minor children of past presidents to take over future presidency.
     
  11. riverline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    103
    Yes, poor oil countries,
    you know the reason is that ( accidently ) , the mas destruction weapons are grown only where oil exist, you know oil is a good fertilizer for mass destruction weapons. And as you know the US likes this type of vegetable ( MDW ), ( its a vegetarian country , she likes no children meat , unlike Israel ) , thats why oily countries get weak very rapidly..
     
  12. Salty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    Where ever colonialism happens so did poverty. United States was just a lucky colony and had exceptional leaders in the beggining. What the colonizing did was force people to make cash crop instead of food and other diverse products. Such as Egypt only making cotton. The people have to realy on selling stuff for feeding themselves. The mother country buys the raw resource then sells a manufactured product back to them for 10x the price. Thus why so many old colonize have starvation. US was lucky and had good leaders to make a good foundation and start the industry.
     
  13. Teg Unknown Citizen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    672
    There won't be an attack against Syria. That will have to wait until after the election. Wars are death to campaigns.

    I wouldn't it past Bush though to declare war on the day he is kicked out. Heck he convinced his chronies in the Supreme Court to ignore clear law language. Heck he might as an executive order use that crisis to extend his reign.

    Remember back when Carter was running against Reagan. Reagan's team created a secret deal with Iran for the return of the hostages by trading arms. All of this was technically treason yet nobody said anything about that. Rumsfeld has been selling weapons to Middle Eastern enemy states for years. That's what Iraq was: a setup. They sold them some weapons and then pounded their fists when they realized they no longer had them. Just another symptom of an inept administration.
     
  14. dsdsds Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678

    1 and 4 are the same. And avoiding #2 is guaranteed any nation to get off the list. Iran and seria better hurry up and get WMD.
     
  15. Teg Unknown Citizen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    672
    If Iran needed a reason to hurry their nuclear program they have it now. Syria better break a bottle and start jabbering like a crazy person because otherwise the U.S. war machine will move on.
     
  16. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    I disagree.
    If Bush 41 had run for election within a few months of the '91 gulf war, the Democrats would have no chance. Clinton would not have bothered to run.
    Bush 43's popularity is now in the low 70's.
    NEXT!
     
  17. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    I’ve already seen articles saying that Bush will switch focus to the economy to help his re-election bid. It’s all been planned out and will take much of his time until then. There’s no room in the schedule to target another country militarily, only to threaten. If he is re-elected then I predict Iran is next, in 2005. Bottom line is Iran has the oil needed to repay for the “liberation” a hundred times over, providing the funds needed for Jeb Bush’s campaign. Syria doesn’t.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2003
  18. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    Bush said "I think we believe that there are chemical weapons in Syria"*

    Which sounds like he has a lot of evidence and he is totally convinced. Good on Syria for telling him to prove it or fuck off. I suspect it is just a ploy to detract from the fact that there are sod all WMD in Iraq, when before he did his best to imply that the Euphrates was actually a river of Anthrax and Saddy was giving nukes to anyone who shouted "Jihad". Before he was saying "He has weapons but we can't find them because they are so well hidden". Now he is saying "There are weapons but they are in Syria". Can anyone say "unfalsifiable hypothesis"?
    __________
    *That little mini-interview yielded a Bushism: "horocious" (horrible/ attrocious). Which is quite a good word, actually.
     
  19. havalina Accident Prone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    44
    Yup Syria very soon. No sense in bringing everyone home only to have to send them back. Perhaps Syria would do something to provoke Israel then Bush gaining support to attack Syria.

    On another note, I wonder if Bush is going to try and leave France, Germany, and Russia out of any oil contracts with the new Iraq.
     
  20. blankc Your superior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    I don't see how sanctions could happen, other than unilateral sanctions. But how would they be effective unless every major nation were part of them? I think Syria is in for an american "liberation" within 12 months. Just like how america had to slowly introduce the idea of attacking Iraq ever since 9/11, they are now laying the groundwork for US public support against Syria.
     
  21. justiceusa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    908
    Syria

    Bush is now trying to "stare down" the Syrians, and they are not going to blink. Bush is saying the same things about Syria that he was saying about Iraq. "Regime change , terrorists. WMD". That little twit just may let wolfowitz and Rumsfeld talk him into doing something stupid. They could drag this war out until after the election, and historically presidents during wartime "do" get re-elected.

    The economy hasn't even made the front page recently. And there is not enough time for Bush to "rebuild our economy" before the next election anyway.

    this is one time that I am hoping that I am wrong.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/World/20030409syria0409p8.asp
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2003
  22. Patriot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    Just because a country is a threat does not mean that it will be "freed"; some have pointed that out, some choose to ignore it. I do believe Syria will be next, to be followed by Iran. North Korea is very volatile as some have stated. It won't be touched because of its danger. The use of Mutual-Assured Destruction deterence at its best.

    However, there are a few countries some have overlooked/not mentioned:

    1. Algeria- Europeans have been kidnapped by 'terrorists'- EU will plead to US
    2. Indonesia- Aceh killings will disrupt Southeast Asia, which has been in an uproar lately, with East Timor
    3. Palestine-Israel's enemy. We will interfere sooner or later.
      [/list=1]

      Patriot
     
  23. blankc Your superior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300


    1. Indonesia is a democracy, so unless bush wants to make the US a hypocrite yet again, they should be okay. And not even the USA can make things worse for the pal's then they currently are. I'm not too informed about Algeria though.
     

Share This Page