TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- U.S. Attacks Syria
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

U.S. Attacks Syria

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031568.html
So, is Bush going to cause a lot of minor(and by minor i mean major) conflicts for the new president? And do you believe that either candidate will do anything different from attacking and invading?

Re: U.S. Attacks Syria

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031568.html So, is Bush going to cause a lot of minor(and by minor i mean major) conflicts for the new president? And do you believe that either candidate will do anything different from attacking and invading?

poor tactics. if those were people coming into iraq perhaps the US should have waited until they actually came into iraq. why are these things not done more covertly?

anyway, i like the response, "syria reserves the right to respond." what exactly does that mean? syria wants to respond but really doesn't want to get its ass handed to it. although if the US wants to foster better relations with the syrians, perhaps handing out the fig branch and doing something jointly with the syrians would go a small way to begin mending the relationship.

This is ridiculous. No respect for sovereignty.

Yet they wonder why everyone there hates them?

I'm reading the comments from the link and by golly there are alot of racist people around the world.

They seem clueless and arrogant like firestarter etc.

I've already voted for Obama so I feel I can freely post my feelings on this subject without just being labelled a neo-con.

If Syria is harboring terrorists who have been fueling the fire in Iraq then I'm glad the US stepped up and did something. Same is true for Pakistan regarding Afghanistan. The US ends up looking weak if it doesnt evantually respond to some of these instances.
I mean look, we went into Iraq, and I agree with some of Krypton and Trancer's sentiments regarding the errors/mistakes of this war, but at the same time the US did try to give control of Iraq to ALL of its citizens. Some Middle Eastern governments, such as those of the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, are glad there's American presence in Iraq. Other countries in the Middle East as well as outside of it (namely Russia) see it as a threat to their own interests in Iraq. I really dont think its fair to place all of the blame on the US government.
Back to the subject at hand, I wouldnt be surprised if it was some high ranking Syrian officials that gave the US the intel and even green light to go into Syria. Officially though Syria has to look like its furious, but internally/unofficially Syria would actually like to strengthen its ties with the US and France.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles I've already voted for Obama so I feel I can freely post my feelings on this subject without just being labelled a neo-con. If Syria is harboring terrorists who have been fueling the fire in Iraq then I'm glad the US stepped up and did something. Same is true for Pakistan regarding Afghanistan. The US ends up looking weak if it doesnt evantually respond to some of these instances. I mean look, we went into Iraq, and I agree with some of Krypton and Trancer's sentiments regarding the errors/mistakes of this war, but at the same time the US did try to give control of Iraq to ALL of its citizens. Some Middle Eastern governments, such as those of the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, are glad there's American presence in Iraq. Other countries in the Middle East as well as outside of it (namely Russia) see it as a threat to their own interests in Iraq. I really dont think its fair to place all of the blame on the US government. Back to the subject at hand, I wouldnt be surprised if it was some high ranking Syrian officials that gave the US the intel and even green light to go into Syria. Officially though Syria has to look like its furious, but internally/unofficially Syria would actually like to strengthen its ties with the US and France.

Is Iraq's sovereignty America's responsibility or Iraq's? Why are we taking on Iraq's problems? Additionally, this excuse that, "We had to pursue Al-Qaeda operatives. Al-Qaeda is a MYTH. Any nutjob can get a group of disenfranchised unemployed men together and call themselves "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia" or "Al-Qaeda of Arabia". It's total bullshit. Our government is lying to us.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles If Syria is harboring terrorists who have been fueling the fire in Iraq then I'm glad the US stepped up and did something.

I would love to see some actual proof of this.Iam almost cetain that US has no evidence to support this.

quote:

Same is true for Pakistan regarding Afghanistan. The US ends up looking weak if it doesnt evantually respond to some of these instances.

A wise man once said: "when we attack them we called it war but when they attack us we call it terrorism".

quote:

I mean look, we went into Iraq, and I agree with some of Krypton and Trancer's sentiments regarding the errors/mistakes of this war,

Oh will you please just admit that the whole invasion was a mistake to begin with?invading Iraq didnt end the war on terror and it didnt bring stability to the region.

quote:

but at the same time the US did try to give control of Iraq to ALL of its citizens. Some Middle Eastern governments, such as those of the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, are glad there's American presence in Iraq.

And why do you think they feel that?I can tell you that it has alot to do with oil and the fact that they were afriad of saddam having control over the region.At the same time getting rid of him didnt make things any better since Iraq is time bomb and it could go off any time and over and over again.

quote:

Other countries in the Middle East as well as outside of it (namely Russia) see it as a threat to their own interests in Iraq. I really dont think its fair to place all of the blame on the US government.[quote] Again it comes down to oil and yes everyone wants a piece of the pie in the region. p.s. I highly recommend you to watch the movie W. and watch the part were Dick Cheney is infront of the map of middle east were he goes on about the ultimate master plan for the region.It was very scary actually. [quote]Back to the subject at hand, I wouldnt be surprised if it was some high ranking Syrian officials that gave the US the intel and even green light to go into Syria. Officially though Syria has to look like its furious, but internally/unofficially Syria would actually like to strengthen its ties with the US and France.

This could actually be true.I know that Iran has done things like that in the past in Iraq and afghanistan.Too bad they are still being labled as terrorists by this admininstration over and over again.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer I would love to see some actual proof of this.Iam almost cetain that US has no evidence to support this.

There probably is some. But than again there could even be evidence that it is the CIA financing terrorists in Syria.

quote:

A wise man once said: "when we attack them we called it war but when they attack us we call it terrorism".

There is nothingn wise about Bill Maher.

quote:

Oh will you please just admit that the whole invasion was a mistake to begin with?invading Iraq didnt end the war on terror and it didnt bring stability to the region.

The whole war was not a mistake. The people were just lied to about the reason for the war. And most cannot think about the real reason why the war happened.

quote:

And why do you think they feel that?I can tell you that it has alot to do with oil and the fact that they were afriad of saddam having control over the region.At the same time getting rid of him didnt make things any better since Iraq is time bomb and it could go off any time and over and over again.

Wrong. Saddam would never have gotten control of the region, even if there had been no US intervention, who is he Cyrus the Great?

quote:

This could actually be true.I know that Iran has done things like that in the past in Iraq and afghanistan.Too bad they are still being labled as terrorists by this admininstration over and over again.

Yes, yes, yes, yes!!! You are so right

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru

hate to interrupt your thread, but please check your PM

thanks

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer I would love to see some actual proof of this.Iam almost cetain that US has no evidence to support this.

...as I am almost certain you have no way of refuting it...

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru There probably is some. But than again there could even be evidence that it is the CIA financing terrorists in Syria.

Why arent they presenting it to everyone then?I mean they must have had a good reason to launch those attacks right?

quote:

There is nothingn wise about Bill Maher.

and you would know right?

quote:

The whole war was not a mistake. The people were just lied to about the reason for the war. And most cannot think about the real reason why the war happened.

Wait what reason are you talking about?they changed their so called reason of war so many times.I doubt they even know the reason themselves anymore.Tell us whats the real reason then?war on terror?

quote:

Wrong. Saddam would never have gotten control of the region, even if there had been no US intervention, who is he Cyrus the Great?

How are you so sure about that?

quote:

Yes, yes, yes, yes!!! You are so right

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Why arent they presenting it to everyone then?I mean they must have had a good reason to launch those attacks right?

Ok, they have presented their case. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle5030766.ece

quote:

Wait what reason are you talking about?they changed their so called reason of war so many times.I doubt they even know the reason themselves anymore.Tell us whats the real reason then?war on terror?

The US gets most of its oil from North or South America. The war for "oil", is about controling foreign growth. Most countries are dependent on oil from the middle east or russia. More than anything from the middle east.

quote:

How are you so sure about that?

well, for one thing Cyrus would not have gotten his ass kicked and had he invaded Iran. he would have done so with ease.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru well, for one thing Cyrus would not have gotten his ass kicked and had he invaded Iran. he would have done so with ease.

so were're talking about Cyrus the Great right? Why would he invade Iran (Persia) when it all started from there?

quote:

Originally posted by Lemonad so were're talking about Cyrus the Great right? Why would he invade Iran (Persia) when it all started from there?

I was just making a reference because he said that Saddam was going to gain control of the whole region. And in order to do that he should not have been defeated twice before the Iraq invasion once by a very weak country compared to the US & Nato. And Cyrus would never have been defeated like Saddam was. So Saddam was no threat as Hardcore said he was.

If Saddam was no threat then why the fuck did we have to kill him and fuckup his entire country for the next 100 years?clearly according to you he was no threat to the region or Istrael for that matter.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer If Saddam was no threat then why the fuck did we have to kill him and fuckup his entire country for the next 100 years?clearly according to you he was no threat to the region or Istrael for that matter.

He wasn't. Obviously, you are overlooking the fact that he was happy just selling oil so that he could buy expensive cars and build palaces. The US saw him and saw an idiot. If he was not seen as one by the americans. Then they would have never invaded. And another thing, the americans dont care about the stability of Iraq. Things will eventually recover and it will prosper better in its way now than under saddam.

This isnt about Iraq so stop talking about him. Its about the US attacking more countries and the scary part. Is that there are going to be coming more invasions from the US. Not because the leaders are a threat. But because the US wants control of the middle east. And the only way to do that is by bringing more instability which will increase "terrorism". And which will give the US even more control of oil and gas supplies that Asia and Europe are dependent on.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru This isnt about Iraq so stop talking about him. Its about the US attacking more countries and the scary part. Is that there are going to be coming more invasions from the US. Not because the leaders are a threat. But because the US wants control of the middle east. And the only way to do that is by bringing more instability which will increase "terrorism". And which will give the US even more control of oil and gas supplies that Asia and Europe are dependent on.

it's actually quite misleading to say the US attacked syria, just like it's misleading to say the US attacked pakistan. in both cases, the US attacked specific non-governmental locations to eliminate non-governmental persons. the goal wasn't to overthrow either government nor was the intent to destabalize either country. the incident is more accurately described as "an attack on a location within the borders of syria."

hmmmmmmm...... Syria gave the green light to the U.S.?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...415130766?f=rss

How curious, Bergman goes on to note, that a raid in broad daylight would attract no resistance from Syrian anti-aircraft installations. Not sure I buy it � it seems just as likely that it�s opportunistic spin designed to drive a wedge between Assad and the jihadis he hosts � but I like it. And it�s at least facially plausible that the regime would prefer to let the U.S. do its dirty work for it and play the victim rather than take on the fundies itself and end up in some sort of protracted, sporadic counterinsurgency of the sort Pakistan�s bogged down in.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 it's actually quite misleading to say the US attacked syria, just like it's misleading to say the US attacked pakistan. in both cases, the US attacked specific non-governmental locations to eliminate non-governmental persons. the goal wasn't to overthrow either government nor was the intent to destabalize either country. the incident is more accurately described as "an attack on a location within the borders of syria."

Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up.

So if the Russians bomb your house, it's all good, right?

Placing troops or launching weapons into any sovereign nation is an open act of war.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up. So if the Russians bomb your house, it's all good, right?

i guess it would depend on why russia bombed my house.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Placing troops or launching weapons into any sovereign nation is an open act of war.

so, under that explanation, the US has committed an open act of war against Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Kosovo, Belgium, and Bulgaria (just to name a few places where the US places troops within a sovereign nation).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 it's actually quite misleading to say the US attacked syria, just like it's misleading to say the US attacked pakistan. in both cases, the US attacked specific non-governmental locations to eliminate non-governmental persons. the goal wasn't to overthrow either government nor was the intent to destabalize either country. the incident is more accurately described as "an attack on a location within the borders of syria."

so they say.

quote:

Originally posted by Lemonad I'm reading the comments from the link and by golly there are alot of racist people around the world. They seem clueless and arrogant like firestarter etc.

Fortunately you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to me...

Yea, my comments were pretty darn racist....OOoooo....

Some people have no idea even what racist IS.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i guess it would depend on why russia bombed my house. so, under that explanation, the US has committed an open act of war against Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Kosovo, Belgium, and Bulgaria (just to name a few places where the US places troops within a sovereign nation).

You must have missed the memo.

We have a long history of goading others into open war.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.