Alliedassault

Alliedassault (alliedassault.us/index.php)
-   Politics, Current Events & History (alliedassault.us/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   Invade Syria? (alliedassault.us/showthread.php?t=49109)

ninty 10-20-2005 10:02 AM

Invade Syria?
 
[url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590727.stm:4a7c1]Link[/url:4a7c1]

[quote:4a7c1]U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forcess

An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.[/quote:4a7c1]

Coleman 10-20-2005 10:31 AM

why haven't I heard this from any other source?...

and it says, "U.S. forces have started fighting Syrians at Iraq's border". That can go either way...does it mean that they're in Iraq and have fought syrians? or does it mean they're in Syria by the Iraqi boarder?

newt. 10-20-2005 01:33 PM

so syria invaded occupied iraq?

ninty 10-20-2005 01:39 PM

No. The US says Syrian fighters are coming over the border to fight in Iraq, so the US has said that it might go into Syria to try to stop this from happening.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019/ap_ ... pe/us_iraq

[quote:d6ed1]Pushed by senators from both parties to define the limits of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East, Rice also declined to rule out the use of military force in
Iran or
Syria, although she said the administration prefers diplomacy.[/quote:d6ed1]


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/polit ... yt&emc=rss

[quote:d6ed1]One of Mr. Bush's most senior aides, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said that so far American military forces in Iraq had moved right up to the border to cut off the entry of insurgents, but he insisted that they had refrained from going over it.

But other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as American efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, the operations have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. [/quote:d6ed1]

It's can't be confirmed that US forces are actually inside Syria, but the possibility is there.

Arkan 10-20-2005 05:26 PM

Well, i have this whole theory about Syria but it's to long to get into at the present moment. What i will say is this. Where do you think most of the "insurgents" came from??

......and where do you think Iraq moved their weapons to after weeks and weeks of warnings of an invasion??

ninty 10-20-2005 05:28 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The weapons inspectors were in Iraq before the invasion. They said he had no weapons.

Sgt>Stackem 10-20-2005 06:29 PM

I believe NOTHING from the NY Times

Coleman 10-20-2005 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The weapons inspectors were in Iraq before the invasion. They said he had no weapons.

[quote:8a5e3] ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology."[/quote:8a5e3]Call me a fascist pig or whatever you want. But I still think that releasing that information to the general public was a terrible idea. It should have kept secret and dealt with the people that it affected.

Arkan 10-20-2005 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The weapons inspectors were in Iraq before the invasion. They said he had no weapons.

Thats all nice and dandy but it's something i don't believe. Saddam needed to be ousted for many reasons...including nuclear development.

ninty 10-21-2005 05:51 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_syria&pri ... NlYwN0bWE-

Stammer 10-21-2005 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_syria&printer=1;_ylt=AoaFl2xXg876iTJccTgO8zAGw_ IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Is he out of his fucking mind?

Coleman 10-21-2005 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_syria&printer=1;_ylt=AoaFl2xXg876iTJccTgO8zAGw_ IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Is he out of his fucking mind?

He's out of his mind by asking the UN to do their job?

Tripper 10-21-2005 06:22 PM

FFs....Just go and invade the whole middle east now and get it over with. rolleyes:

Nyck 10-21-2005 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper
FFs....Just go and invade the whole middle east now and get it over with. rolleyes:

As long as my gas prices go down. Rapin me mad:

Stammer 10-21-2005 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_syria&printer=1;_ylt=AoaFl2xXg876iTJccTgO8zAGw_ IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Is he out of his fucking mind?

He's out of his mind by asking the UN to do their job?

It's the wrong time in anycase.

Coleman 10-21-2005 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_syria&printer=1;_ylt=AoaFl2xXg876iTJccTgO8zAGw_ IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Is he out of his fucking mind?

He's out of his mind by asking the UN to do their job?

It's the wrong time in anycase.

"ok...we'll let this one slide this time. Just this once."

--UN

Stammer 10-21-2005 07:03 PM

Do you really think any country wants to get involved in the Middle East with all the shit going on in Iraq? The US is in no position at all to make demands from the UN to do something about Syria, and to be frank I don't think the US Military can handle being in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan all at the same time while this country has a mounting deficit and political scandal.

Coleman 10-21-2005 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Do you really think any country wants to get involved in the Middle East with all the shit going on in Iraq? The US is in no position at all to make demands from the UN to do something about Syria, and to be frank I don't think the US Military can handle being in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan all at the same time while this country has a mounting deficit and political scandal.

But what the fuck is the point of the UN if nothing is ever done?! No one has ever been able to answer that question. It's just annoying that all the UN does is send TPS reports to the UN Reps from Syria and Pakistan. Nothing is ever taken seriously.

Stammer 10-21-2005 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Do you really think any country wants to get involved in the Middle East with all the shit going on in Iraq? The US is in no position at all to make demands from the UN to do something about Syria, and to be frank I don't think the US Military can handle being in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan all at the same time while this country has a mounting deficit and political scandal.

But what the fuck is the point of the UN if nothing is ever done?! No one has ever been able to answer that question. It's just annoying that all the UN does is send TPS reports to the UN Reps from Syria and Pakistan. Nothing is ever taken seriously.

I wont disagree, the UN has become far to bureaucratic to be of any use. Things need to change.

Coleman 10-21-2005 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stammer
Do you really think any country wants to get involved in the Middle East with all the shit going on in Iraq? The US is in no position at all to make demands from the UN to do something about Syria, and to be frank I don't think the US Military can handle being in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan all at the same time while this country has a mounting deficit and political scandal.

But what the fuck is the point of the UN if nothing is ever done?! No one has ever been able to answer that question. It's just annoying that all the UN does is send TPS reports to the UN Reps from Syria and Pakistan. Nothing is ever taken seriously.

I wont disagree, the UN has become far to bureaucratic to be of any use. Things need to change.

beer:

ninty 10-21-2005 07:28 PM

What justification is there for taking any action against Syria at this point?

The UN is irrevelant. The US will do what it wants when it wants. We have already found this out as this was the case with Iraq.

In addition, the UN doesn't uphold human values or anything of the kind. The UN and its member nations approved an illegal war in Afghanistan. The Un and countries including Canada, Britain, Russia France and everyone else are just as guilty as the US.

ninty 10-21-2005 08:02 PM

Oh, you're probably asking, how is the war in Afghanistan Illegal?

Well, for one, it was concieved before the 9/11 attacks happened. The US informed many countries in the Summer of 2001 that they may be attacking Afghanistan.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatu ... ctg=policy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://www.janes.com/security/internati ... _1_n.shtml

This right off the bat illegitimizes the war.

rdeyes 10-21-2005 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
Oh, you're probably asking, how is the war in Afghanistan Illegal?

Well, for one, it was concieved before the 9/11 attacks happened. The US informed many countries in the Summer of 2001 that they may be attacking Afghanistan.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatu ... ctg=policy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://www.janes.com/security/internati ... _1_n.shtml

This right off the bat illegitimizes the war.

that might be true ninty , but the taliban didnt help matters by not turning over OBL , and please dont say that the us didnt give them any time to think about turning him over , this whole operation in afghanistan might been avoided if the taliban had gave up OBL.

ninty 10-21-2005 09:03 PM

But the Taliban wern't "harbouring" him. OBL wasn't living in a Taliban house, he was just "in" Afghanistan, which the Taliban controlled. If they don't know where he is, how can they turn him over.

OBL is a US asset. He is never meant to be captured or killed. If his percieved to be alive, Al Queda stays alive and the war on terror stays alive.

rdeyes 10-21-2005 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
But the Taliban wern't "harbouring" him. OBL wasn't living in a Taliban house, he was just "in" Afghanistan, which the Taliban controlled. If they don't know where he is, how can they turn him over.

OBL is a US asset. He is never meant to be captured or killed. If his percieved to be alive, Al Queda stays alive and the war on terror stays alive.

the taliban invited OBL to live in afghanistan , also obl married mullah omar sister , so i think the taliban pretty much knew where obl was located. i dont think OBL will ever be captured his security is too good and he doesnt use modern tech. devices

ninty 10-21-2005 09:20 PM

do you have a source that the Taliban Invited OBL to live in Afghanistan? I haven't heard of this.

Sgt>Stackem 10-21-2005 10:10 PM

Dear OBL

Please come live in cave




signed

taliban

Chappy 10-22-2005 10:00 AM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":3dd29]Dear OBL

Please come live in cave




signed

taliban[/quote:3dd29]

dance:

Stammer 10-22-2005 10:18 AM

And some of you wonder why your not taken seriously...

Madmartagen 10-22-2005 10:54 AM

Well it makes sense to me that troops would be in Syria. If insurgents are coming into Iraq and being supplied and trained from Syria, then that opens up a new theatre in this war. You cant limit fighting to strictly one area, we learned that mistake from Vietnam. But the fact that we are in this war to begin with is retarded. We wouldnt have to worry about insurgents if we hadnt invaded in the first place. Its a necessary battlefield operation in an unecessary war.

ninty 10-22-2005 12:33 PM

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/D ... y/6879.htm

rdeyes 10-23-2005 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
do you have a source that the Taliban Invited OBL to live in Afghanistan? I haven't heard of this.

1- http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

"The Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan, arose from the religious schools set up during the mujahideen's war against the Soviet invasion. After the Soviet army withdrew in 1989, fighting erupted among mujahideen factions. In response to the chaos, the fundamentalist Taliban was formed and within two years it captured most of the country. The Tali ave bin Laden sanctuary in 1996.


2- http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individua ... laden.html

"Bin Laden, an immensely wealthy and private man, has been granted a safe haven by Afghanistan's ruling Taleban movement. "

sanctuary - a place of refuge and protection

imported_Fluffy_Bunny 10-23-2005 07:14 PM

invade Syria with what army?

ninty 10-25-2005 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdeyes
Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
do you have a source that the Taliban Invited OBL to live in Afghanistan? I haven't heard of this.

1- http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

"The Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan, arose from the religious schools set up during the mujahideen's war against the Soviet invasion. After the Soviet army withdrew in 1989, fighting erupted among mujahideen factions. In response to the chaos, the fundamentalist Taliban was formed and within two years it captured most of the country. The Tali ave bin Laden sanctuary in 1996.


2- http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individua ... laden.html

"Bin Laden, an immensely wealthy and private man, has been granted a safe haven by Afghanistan's ruling Taleban movement. "

sanctuary - a place of refuge and protection

Interesting, but still doesn't mean they knew where he was. They granted him scantuary in 96. It's not like OBL blew up NY and then the Taliban said, "hey, hide in this cave!" He was already there. It's a moot point I guess.

TGB! 10-25-2005 01:09 PM

[quote:4d182]The UN and its member nations approved an illegal war in Afghanistan.[/quote:4d182]

The war that removed an terrorist orginazation from power that was aiding and abetting another terrorist organization that attacked the United States - nope. . .no justification there.

[quote:4d182]This right off the bat illegitimizes the war.[/quote:4d182]

That is RIDICULOUS logic. Because we make it known that "oh my gosh" we may have to take action against a country that is sponsoring terrorism (something that has been known since Omar came into power) - before they do something ELSE. . .please.

[quote:4d182]He was already there.[/quote:4d182]

He came into the country under the invitation of men who would later be heads of state. Period. End of story. During this time US Embassies, the US Cole and the WTC were bombed. You dont conduct terrorist activities from a country with ease WITHOUT having a relationship with the people in power.

Ninty for all your waxing about the "ills" in this administration - your information seems woefully inadequate and intentional limited.

ninty 10-25-2005 02:43 PM

[quote="TGB!":7fdcf][quote:7fdcf]The UN and its member nations approved an illegal war in Afghanistan.[/quote:7fdcf]

The war that removed an terrorist orginazation from power that was aiding and abetting another terrorist organization that attacked the United States - nope. . .no justification there.[/quote:7fdcf]

Just because the war removed a "terrorist organization" does not automatically make it legal.

[quote:7fdcf][quote:7fdcf]This right off the bat illegitimizes the war.[/quote:7fdcf]

That is RIDICULOUS logic. Because we make it known that "oh my gosh" we may have to take action against a country that is sponsoring terrorism (something that has been known since Omar came into power) - before they do something ELSE. . .please. [/quote:7fdcf]

The basis for war in Afghanistan was planes flying into NY. I'm sure that if it was public knowledge that the war was planned before the attacks happened, you'd have some people asking more questions about the legitamicy of the war.

[quote:7fdcf][quote:7fdcf]He was already there.[/quote:7fdcf]

He came into the country under the invitation of men who would later be heads of state. Period. End of story. During this time US Embassies, the US Cole and the WTC were bombed. You dont conduct terrorist activities from a country with ease WITHOUT having a relationship with the people in power. [/quote:7fdcf] oOo: Afghanistan is not like a western country. If a terrorist group is in Candada or the US, or any European country, the police go after them. In Afghanistan, you may have noticed, they don't really have any police. Their country is a desolate wasteland filled with poor people and opium. I don't think the country really had or has the resources to carry out anti terrorist operations.


[quote:7fdcf]Ninty for all your waxing about the "ills" in this administration - your information seems woefully inadequate and intentional limited.[/quote:7fdcf] I suppose I could say the same for you.

TGB! 10-25-2005 03:02 PM

[quote:a1972]Just because the war removed a "terrorist organization" does not automatically make it legal.[/quote:a1972]

And yet - other than rhetorical nonsense - you can present no evidence to back up your suggestion.

[quote:a1972]The basis for war in Afghanistan was planes flying into NY.[/quote:a1972]

Terrorists attacked us. Said terrorists were in Afghanistan. Afghanistan said "we'll do it ourselves". They didnt. We went in. Period. Any other information you present does NOT invalidate the fact that the United States had just cause in removing a body that wasnt even recognized as a sovereign nation.

[quote:a1972]I'm sure that if it was public knowledge that the war was planned before the attacks happened, you'd have some people asking more questions about the legitamicy of the war.[/quote:a1972]

Again - it does not INVALIDATE that the US was attacked. At best you can spend all day spinning conspiracy theories that 9/11 was an "inside job" and was meant to happen etc. etc. - but the FACTS that are agreed upon leave little room for debating the justification for going to war.

[quote:a1972]I don't think the country really had or has the resources to carry out anti terrorist operations.[/quote:a1972]

Why would they? If you invite someone into your country, its generally under the assumption that you have good relations with the party and have no objection to their activities. As for being a poor country - so? They had a police-body in place, and if they wanted could have expelled OBL from Afghanistan if they chose to. Again - why would they have.

[quote:a1972]I suppose I could say the same for you.[/quote:a1972]

You could - but the difference would be I'd be right. . .you, wrong.

ninty 10-25-2005 04:57 PM

You know you're extremly frustrating to talk to?

The US was not attacked by the Taliban or Afghanistan. In addition, there were plans to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. All 9/11 did was provide justification for this action. Was it just a coincidence?

You think it's alright to invade countries to dispose of terrorist leaders and install puppet governments whether or not that country did anything to you. I do not. It's a fundamental question. If we don't agree on that part, then we won't agree on anything, and this is the result.

TGB! 10-25-2005 06:00 PM

[quote:d2b24]You know you're extremly frustrating to talk to?[/quote:d2b24]

As a kid I used to think the same things about the "know-nothing" adults. . .

[quote:d2b24]The US was not attacked by the Taliban or Afghanistan.[/quote:d2b24]

Who said they were?

[quote:d2b24]In addition, there were plans to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks.[/quote:d2b24]

We have plans for invading several countries. The point of this is. . .

[quote:d2b24]All 9/11 did was provide justification for this action. Was it just a coincidence?[/quote:d2b24]

Nope - but it did give Washington a legitimate reason to move against a body (that again was not recognized by any world body accept Saudi Arabia and the UAE) that had been known to harbor and support terrorists for years.

Again - nothing here invalidates the US reasons for moving against Afghanistan.

[quote:d2b24]You think it's alright to invade countries to dispose of terrorist leaders and install puppet governments whether or not that country did anything to you. I do not. It's a fundamental question. If we don't agree on that part, then we won't agree on anything, and this is the result.[/quote:d2b24]

Hilarious - this is the first time I've EVER seen anyone question our right to move against Afghanistan. You'd think such a bombastic, overly simplified view of the situation would be accompanied by something other than blustering "rhetoric" about a "fundemental question" (other than sound nice and flowery, what exactly is this "fundemental question" ninty).

The leadership in Afghanistan didnt have to strike us directly. That (again for years now - this wasnt some Bush Admin construct despite what Whatreallyhappened.com says) the Taliban/Afghani leadership was harboring, aiding, and providing support for OBL/AlQ was more than enough to remove them from power. Your suggestion is what - keep holding diplomatic "talks" with the Taliban in hopes theyll finally let us in to nab OBL. Right -

ninty 10-25-2005 06:11 PM

My suggestion is that Afghanistan would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Iraq would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Of course, the American people would never have stood for these wars without a catylist. This is why 9/11 did happen.

The US didn't go into afghanistan to get OBL. The US didn't go into Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.