"crtl c & ctrl v" biatch.

Plans: Next, War on Syria? Newsweek

Oct. 4 issue - Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons.) Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.

?Mark Hosenball ? 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

frankly Iraq has been enough for me. I was a pretty solid supporter of the war, but action against Syria and Iran will start making me drink and start shooting my 30-30 off in the middle of the night. I really see no justifiable source or reason to put money or death into those countries. I understood Iraq, but barely. This excerpt is definitely written by a Liberal, so the truth may lie some where very, very far away, yet with the Bush war machine, it is possible.

please no.

Re: Next, War on Syria?

Get used to it if W gets another 4 years. I don't recall the soruce, unfortunately, but my understanding is that approximately 30 countries have the same WMD capacity (i.e., they are in the same stage of development) that we [b]thought[/b] Iraq had when we went in there. If Bush is to remain consistent, Iraq will not be the end.

Whether going into these countries is a good idea is of course a debatable point. I sincerely hope, however, that Bush (or Kerry, or whomever) at least has the good sense to wrap up Iraq and/or Afghanistan before spreading our troops even thinner.

i have seen enough blood spilled ... on both sides.

fucking fix our home country FIRST.

WWIII is a brewin' folks.

yeah ... USA vs. WORLD. location : Middle East.

and i am serious on that note. My brother just came back from Europe after a two month venture. People always asked him what he thought of Bush and almost all people expressed their "dislike" perhaps even "hate" towards Bush.

There is no doubt, when you reach the level hate, anything is possible. Bush really has pissed off the international community, in some regards I can see his point, yet on others I do not. It is really a mixbag for me. I am just sick of seeing all the killing all the time. It is a major downer on my sole. AND NO, it is not just all Bush's fault. A lot of the killing would be still going on, even if Bush was not in office. September 11, was an attack based upon previous historical events. The Middle East has been for some time a very violent place, ruthless.

I am not a big fan of war. I do not think it does much, except if you get rid of the whole problem. For some reason, if you do, some always rise for a new cause. So, in essence it is a redundant and loop.

Re: Next, War on Syria?

Asdf, I agree with you on the stand that not all of the ongoing violence is Bush's fault. It really isn't, and as you stated, 9/11 was based upon previous facts, and the Middle east has been rumbling for a long time already. But somehow, I just can't shed off the thought that Bush has indeed been some sort of catalyst (?? something to speed up a process, don't know if it's the right translation of katalysator) to the whole developing of anti-Western feelings. The agressive way in which now the Western norms and values are promoted has something of an anti-muslim Jihad, at least from the Muslims' point of view.

And, we're [i]invading[/i] countries and installing a Western-type democracy over there, in the middle of the Muslim-controlled part of the world. Talk about cultural Elitism.

Need the Arab/Muslim world more provocation...?

that is the scary thought. we all hope Iraq will become it's own ... and what I mean a country of beauty and power. I have always stated history will tell ... and it will take a many many years for the conclusion to surface.

I believe a civil war must happen in that nation. A full war against itself. Iraq has been under suppression for so long, and the people have no clue what freedom and their own government means. It is nice that USA has assisted in giving back the power to IRAQ, yet it is time for them to decide what is right and what is not for their own.

Which brings me to another point .. the only thing I worry about ... is that the USA has pulled out many times, when things have been going "correctly" and it is has lead to massive deaths and failure. It is a thought that I fear. War seems to be innocent in this regard.

I can see how Bush has been somewhat of an instigator. Going Gunny-Ho into a nation without International support and esp. against it. We all must remember there were at least 20 or 25 nations that did support the war on Iraq, it was not primarily a USA job. Whoops, I lied it was. Most of the military force did come from USA, the rest was just a gentleman's call.

Fuck. What a messy time.

Re: Next, War on Syria?

Yeah. On the one hand I consider every country that backed the US (military and political, which includes my country too) responsible if it all goes to hell over there. On the other hand I don't believe Bush wouldn't have gone without the support: he had his mind set to it, so he went.

About the civil war: I give it a 90% chance of happening. Everyone wants his piece of the governmental cake, and they're gonna come for it if you you don't give it. That is in fact a given rule in societies with a lot of rivalising ethnical or religious groups. Look at Africa.

There is not doubt Bush had the agenda going into Iraq without International Support. For it was done that way.

Civil war ... it stinks of it. Just as you stated, similar nations that have had such intense religious people and ethnical differences, have turned into civil wars. I will not back this up, for history has marks and facts.

I also have to add, no civil war is pretty, a nation to battle itself is not what I call a simple good guy vs, bad guy scenario. With all the intensity and passion in Iraq ... it adds to a very desperate situation. Witch only can make matters worse.

Re: Next, War on Syria?

True, but the hardest lesson a child learns is when it falls and gets hurt, not when daddy says falling will hurt...but those are the lessons best remembered.

So sometimes we have to let a situation worsen before it can be resolved, even if it means people dying and suffering. We don't have to like it.

i guess we can always "hope", which means to let our hearts wish that a conflict of magnitude can be avoided. but hope is just one small element of a very large picture and unfortunately has no immediate significance of the act itself.

[quote=asdf_admin";p="55741]i guess we can always "hope", which means to let our hearts wish that a conflict of magnitude can be avoided. but hope is just one small element of a very large picture and unfortunately has no immediate significance of the act itself.[/quote]

Hope is not a plan.

yes it is, pothead.

Re: Next, War on Syria?

Funny you should mention this because on TV last week I caught Donald Rumsfeld being asked by Sen. Hillary Clinton that it's rumored that the Bush admin has plans for invading as many as 6 more countries. Including having Iraqi invasion plans on the books for years.

Rumsfeld said that of course we have plans in place and have for years and constantly update these plans in case of war. That's the defense department's job.

My comments: They probably have plans on how to invade Canada or England. I agree it's their job and they should have plans for anything they even think could happen. If they didn't then they should be fired.

Re: Next, War on Syria?

[quote]yes it is, pothead.[/quote]

:Laugh:

Re: Next, War on Syria?

[quote=asdf_admin";p="55646]..Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons...

I really see no justifiable source or reason to put money or death into those countries. [/quote]

I think that's reason enough, I say do it and do it soon(not neccessarily invade but definitely put an end to their nuclear capabilities). No way's can the rest of the world afford for unstable countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons.

The same with N.Korea btw, but i'm sure something will be done about them soon, and hopefully it will be their neighbours sorting it out, ie China, Japan etc

Re: Next, War on Syria?

I think we need to get a a handle on the Iran situtation before we start anything else. Three wars at once - Afghan, Iraq, and Syria or Iran would put a major burdon on our troops, since there is only limited number.

But Iranian Intelligence has been playing a major hand in attacks on U.S. interests - i.e. embassies for the past 30yrs and is currently meddling with the situation in Iraq.

We keep laying blaim on Saudis and other nationalities but Iran is the 'loose canon' and needs to be dealt with. Luckily the world is on our side for this one.