Rumsfeld Warns Syria

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by UberKruX
surely, you will admit the Axis were in a better position than Iran to attack america. hell, the axis was better off than the entire arab world at the time (realitively speaking)

Neither have or had a realistic chance of winning.

It all depends on the objective. Iran may think they are next on the Axis of Evil to face military attack. Why not pre-empt, while US forces are tied up. Go for a bloody protracted war that ruins Bush and have a new President that will leave Iran well alone.

[chequita guevara]

If Iran invaded with all their might right now, I'd probably laugh my ass off. That would put the nail in the coffin of the Bush dictarorship. With the American forces cut off from supply and surrounded, they'd be pretty screwed. Though they might be able to fight their way back to the coast. Good luck trying to reenforce them by sea with Iranian silkworms ready to sink them.

[Frankychan]

that's what I've been thinking. If Iran/Syria or any other Arab nation decided to get involved in the Iraqi conflict, America would be screwed. Not to mention if N. Korea was to act, I don't think the U.S. would be able to stop every conflict there.

I'm pretty worried that Iraq is just stalling for time so that other Arab nation's can prepare a counterattack.

I just hope we kick terrorist a**, though.

[SlowwHand]

Don't know which fits.

[Traianvs]

Yes, Iran may not be a superpower militarily spoken, but their advantage are numbers... hordes of crazy Iranians might wreak havoc you know


Btw it's time for some more pics




and of course



that second one was pritty funny I thought

[Gatekeeper]

It'd be interesting if Israel would be given the "green light" by America to raise hell on a broader scale in the Middle East if Iran did attack U.S. forces in Kuwait and Iraq.

Gatekeeper

[KrazyHorse]

They should have warned the Syrians privately. No need to get the general public frightened about drawing in the whole Arab world.

[Pekka]

Yes, we need to attack Syria. I gather that we are going after threats now, that have evil regimes, oppressors, and are supporters of terrorism, and openly against us. I think most of us agrees, that Iraq is not the biggest threat. It's a threat, but relatively small. So, if we are doing what we are saying, we need to go after all these troubling countries. No mercy for any country. If we stop here.. then why did we attack Iraq, and let the other ones be? Let's get them all while we're at it.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Frogger
They should have warned the Syrians privately. No need to get the general public frightened about drawing in the whole Arab world.

Rummy doesn't know how to do anything privately. He likes to come out both guns firing.

Out international relations are being totally screwed by this man.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Saudi Arabia is more of a threat that Syria is. Israel is more of a threat than Saudi Arabia is. Egypt is more of a threat than Israel is.

....
....
....

Russia is more of a threat than Al Qaeda is. China is more of a threat than Russia is. And thats it.

More of a threat to whom?

[Az]

If Iran invaded with all their might right now, I'd probably laugh my ass off. That would put the nail in the coffin of the Bush dictarorship. With the American forces cut off from supply and surrounded, they'd be pretty screwed. Though they might be able to fight their way back to the coast. Good luck trying to reenforce them by sea with Iranian silkworms ready to sink them.

They can always be reinforced via the mediterrenean.

[Ned]

If Syria does not listen, what could we do to them that would be real nasty short of war? Roosevelt cut Japan off from oil forcing them to make a choice: Get out of China and IndoChina or die as a nation. Is this possible in the case of Syria?

As to Iran, why in the world would they invade Iraq?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If Iran invaded with all their might right now, I'd probably laugh my ass off.

So would I, but for different reasons. Define "all their might?" - suicide battalions charging up the al Faw peninsula? I don't think we really give a **** what they do in the Zagros mountains, it's not key to our area of operations.

That would put the nail in the coffin of the Bush dictarorship.

You know, if people were so bent about the 2000 election results, why did they elect more Republicans in 2002? I can't stand the dumb SOB, but your calling it a dictatorship really detracts from any seriousness your message carries.

With the American forces cut off from supply and surrounded, they'd be pretty screwed.

If that ever happened, yes. Fortunately, the likelihood of the Iranian Air Force ever interdicting our aerial resupply capability is less than the likelihood of you and I being the winning Presidential ticket in 2004.

Though they might be able to fight their way back to the coast.

We'd continue on Baghdad and take care of the first problem. The Iranians demonstrated for years how hard it is to get untracked out of the al Faw peninsula. Worst case is we'd call up the remainder of the 82 ABD and do a bunch of forced entry missions at Iraqi airfields, then prep them for use of our bombers. If the Iranians came at us over land anywhere, we'd make their staging and departure areas look like the dark side of the moon.

Good luck trying to reenforce them by sea with Iranian silkworms ready to sink them.

If the Iranians tried it, we would ass**** them and anyone else in our way. Silkworm batteries aren't mobile, and between AEGIS coverage and continuous airstrikes on every military asset on the gulf coast, we'd get through. The Iranians would have better odds using Boghammers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
If Syria does not listen, what could we do to them that would be real nasty short of war? Roosevelt cut Japan off from oil forcing them to make a choice: Get out of China and IndoChina or die as a nation. Is this possible in the case of Syria?

As to Iran, why in the world would they invade Iraq?

To establish a Shiite dominance over the gulf and gain market power wrt oil. For a start.

[GePap]

Given how the Us is sending tens of thousands more men to Iraq than seems to have been planned at the beginning, the US certainly does not have the ability to also try to start a war with Syria. Or with Iran. The Us has a mandate only for a war with Iraq, no other, and if the Us tried then it would speel political disaster: the Europeans, even our allies, would be up in arms and this coolition we have would desert us pretty damn fast.

Military victory is not the point of this war: it is political victory we seek, and the deeper we get and the more enemies we make in the region, the further and further political victory becomes.

I think there is little the US could do to stop shipments from Syria into Iraq. We can't cover the roads all the time, and hell, they could just go by camel.

[Ned]

Yeah, but GePap, what if we catch the Syrians inside Iraq?

Second, what kind of sanctions would really hurt Syria?

Cut of their access to the World Bank?

[GePap]

We already sanctions Syria, and I fail to see how many other states would go along with this, specially since Rumsfeld has accused them but can show little proof. If we catch people, we can confiscate their contaband and then either send them back to Syria or detain them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


To establish a Shiite dominance over the gulf and gain market power wrt oil. For a start.

At the risk of going to war with the US? I find this implausible. They cannot possibly want to grab Iraqi territory for themselves.

The only thing I can think of that makes sense is to see that the Shi'ites do not cooperate with the US. They may try to do this by assuring that pro-US Shi'ites do not gain power in a post-Saddam Iraq.

[Ned]

Then, GePap, we can use carrots. We can offer to end the sanctions if they cooperate.

[GePap]

Why would they go to war with the US? This admin. keeps saying they want to get out of Dodge as fast as they can: so if the Iranians set up contacts and operatives, they can wait out till the US leaves, and then make a play for power.

Then, GePap, we can use carrots. We can offer to end the sanctions if they cooperate.

Politically impossible, given Syria's support of Hezbollah and its troops in Lebanon. That would never get through congress, nor would this amdin. ever think of doing it.

[Guynemer]

Oh lord, who pissed in Rummy's cornflakes this morning?



Say what you want, at least Syria actually has substantial ties to terrorism, as opposed to the current opponent.

But, of course, if this were actually about terrorism, we would've gone after Saudi Arabia.

[Az]

Politically impossible, given Syria's support of Hezbollah and its troops in Lebanon. That would never get through congress, nor would this amdin. ever think of doing it.

Which reminds me, how about a sec. Council resolution against THAT?

[GePap]

If the governemnt of Lebanon does not complain about Syrian troops there, what can the UN do? and since Hezbollah is also part of the Lebanese government..well, how can you try to ban a political party by UN action?

Hezbollah is politically savvy: they know how the system works.

[Az]

Let's say the entire country is overrun by foreign invaders, that install a puppet government ( totally hypothetical, of course, and has nothing to do with the Lebanon case. ), cannot the UN make a resolution against the occupier?

[GePap]

Not if the puppet governemnt has the UN seat and says "what occupation do you speak of?". Its the same as in life: you can't without a complaint form the victim, there is little case to be made.

Besides, are you guys still sore that the syrians beat you to the whole "make Lebanon a puppet neighbor" aim?

[Az]

Yes.

Actually, we are sore because of the double standard applied against us.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes.

Actually, we are sore because of the double standard applied against us.

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a while!

[Ned]

Kissinger said tonight that if Syria does not stop, the US will do what is necessary to make them stop.

Of course, Kissinger is a raving lunatic moron just like Bush and Sharon.

[Guynemer]

A moron, no; a cold-hearted bastard, yes.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes.

Actually, we are sore because of the double standard applied against us.

Well Israel claims to be a liberal westernized democracy.

So shouldn't we hold you to a higher standard than the tin-pot dictatorships that surround you?