don't look now but we may be about to invade SYRIA ...

[welshTerrier2]

it's been great listening to the Democrats talking about foreign policy over the last few months ... you could spend weeks just reading their analysis on how they think the US should be handling bush's sabre rattling towards Syria (or Iran) ... that's what real leadership on foreign policy is all about ... and that's why Americans are so trusting of Democrats when it comes to standing up to the bad guys overseas ... it makes you proud to be a Democrat when you see them getting out front on an issue like this ...

the reality is, that if the Democrats have nothing to say about foreign policy, and leave it completely to the republicans, we will never regain majority status as long as the neo-cons can convince Americans that we are fighting for our survival against a vast network of global terrorists ... Democrats remain silent, or supportive of what bush is doing, at their own peril ... if we are truly "an underground", we have to find a way to change that and get them to speak out in opposition ...

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24syria.html

Syria Stops Cooperating With U.S. Forces and C.I.A.

Syria has halted military and intelligence cooperation with the United States, its ambassador to Washington said in an interview, in a sign of growing strains between the two nations over the insurgency in Iraq.

The ambassador, Imad Moustapha, said in the interview on Friday at the Syrian Embassy here that his country had, in the last 10 days, "severed all links" with the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency because of what he called unjust American allegations. The Bush administration has complained bitterly that Syria is not doing enough to halt the flow of men and money to the insurgency in Iraq.

Mr. Moustapha said he believed that the Bush administration had decided "to escalate the situation with Syria" despite steps the Syrians have taken against the insurgents in Iraq, and despite the withdrawal in recent weeks of Syrian troops from Lebanon, in response to international demands. <skip>

American military officers in Baghdad and intelligence analysts in Washington say militant cells inside Iraq draw on "unlimited money" from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and relatives of Mr. Hussein, many of whom they say found safe haven to live and operate in Syria. <skip>

On the day of the interview with Mr. Moustapha, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Syria was "allowing its territory to be used to organize terrorist attacks against innocent Iraqis."

**************************************

[Teaser]

1. We can't "invade Syria"

We have no army left to invade anyone with. None. We can bomb them...maybe run some black ops...but an invasion, no.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

2. With what Army? n/t

[LittleClarkie]

3. Zell's

We'll throw spit balls at them.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

6. LOL

Stop, I just lifted weights and my chest is sore.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Salvation Army.. and the boy scouts

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Ever heard of the IDF? Ever heard of the PNAC?

The Israeli Defense force is always primed and ready to go. Needless to say, they thirst to rid themselves of Syria. What army? Oh, just one of the very best--albeit a small one--on the planet.

A "border incident" can easily be faked, just like the Mexican-American War or Hitler's invasion of Poland.

We still have some undeployed troops left, and those, coupled with the Israelis can sway many to continue their shoring up of Israel at all costs. The justifications are in place, and now that Syria's done what can be characterized as an act of hostility, it wouldn't take much.

Having said that, the Syrian military is by no means toothless, nor are their people dispirited. Then again, reality seems to have little bearing on the actions of the faith-based mad dogs among the neo-cons: they KNOW everything, regardless of contrary evidence. They'll show us, oh, yeah, they'll show us alright.

[Donna Zen]

28. "Pretext For War"

In his book, James Bamford talks about Plan A, the invasion of Syria. Looks like it's coming in on schedule. Hillary thinks it's good for the women and children, and that Syria needs to be punished.

I do not belong in the Democratic Party, one which would seriously suggest that I sell my soul.

[lildreamer316]

26. Yeah? You and what army??

nya-nya!:silly:

[izzie]

4. I do not think so unless Bush does not know how bad the service

is. And you can not take over a country with bombs only. He must have heard of Iraq by now to know that.

[izzie]

5. By the way I read we have over 725 bases over seas.Could

that be really true? I even found a list on this thing and I think we have bases even under the Queens bed. What are we doing this for? Is it really true?

[welshTerrier2]

18. this exact figure is cited in the book "Sorrows of Empire"

by Chalmers Johnson ... copyright 2004 ...

P.24 contains the following sentence:

"Overseas bases, of which the Defense Department acknowledges some 725, come within the scope of the peacetime standing army and constitute a permanent claim on the nation's resources while being almost invariably inadequate for actually fighting a war."

[ChiciB1]

7. Did You Enlist????

I hear they need BODIES! Oh Hell, with these "corrupt ones" they'll just use BOMBS!!

Too bad we don't have one that will boomerang back to the WH. AAAWWW I shouldn't have said that, I didn't REALLY mean it! I just get frustrated sometimes!

[welshTerrier2]

8. to above posters: i think you may be missing the point

well, it's nice that those who responded seem to be on the same page as each other i suppose ...

but i think you're all missing the point here ... first of all, i used the term "invade" in a more generic sense ... in my book, bombing (by invading another countries air space) IS invading ... i meant the term "invade" as attacking ...

second, i think it would be very easy for bush to move some of the troops in Iraq into Syria ... anytime he wants, he can proudly announce we have trained enough Iraqi troops or they Iraqi government feels confident it wants us to leave and he respects their wishes ... bush wants military in Iraq only as long as it takes to gain control over the oil and the Iraqi government ... once a puppet state exists, current troops levels will no longer be required ... it is NOT about actually suppressing the insurgency ... bush couldn't care less about that ...

third, no one responded to the gist of the BP which suggested that there is no discussion, let alone outcry, in opposition to ATTACKING Iraq ... this includes bombing them, hurting them or throwing spit balls at them ... either it's a good idea or it isn't ... Democrats have failed to speak out on either side of the issue ... that's the point i think you're all not responding to ...

and finally, the BP had a political component to it ... you also chose not to discuss the politics ... if you disagree, fine ... why do you disagree? the point i raised is that the failure by leading Democrats to speak out on issues like war and peace is killing the Party ... we have totally ceded foreign policy to the republicans and i think that that, more than anything else, makes us seem "weak on defense" ... if you're not even willing to express your views, how can anyone take you seriously when issues of national safety are campaign issues?

[Teaser]

10. I agree we will "attack" in some way

We will definitely attack them. I doubt we'll mount a long term bombing campaign though. That will just remind folks of WARWARWAR and the bushies are getting nervous about that. We'll just pull a Reagan: authorize a few sorties, blow some shit up, call it a day and wait for the poll numbers to go up.

But invasion, in the technical sense, just can't happen.

[Samantha]

15. Right before Bush* bombed Iraq

I read somewhere that another advantage in sending in special operations to get the lay of the Iraq land pre-Bush*-bombing, that it would be SO easy to slip some operatives into Iran to encourage the insurgents in that country. (Side note: in this case "insurgents" means the local dissatisfieds attempting to overthrow the current regime in place in Iran -- NOT the insurgents bombing Americans in Iraq.)

I don't remember where I read this but it made sense to me. I have to assume that if that was the plan for Iran, there was a similar plan for Syria. Iraq was a toehold in the Mid-East for undercover American operatives to incite riots where the neo-cons felt riots NEEDED to be incited (IMHO).

[Last Lemming]

11. There are those of us that realize

that this issue is HUGE I think the flip answer comes from those who are feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing Their numbers (our numbers?) are legion

Questions that have plagued me
Are we hunkered down in Iraq pumping out the oil as fast as we can with the cost of 2 to 4 soldiers a day--no meter on the pump--with plans that we stay until they pry our cold dead fingers from the pump handle? Do we leave as in Vietnam, with the last of our supporters dangling in a chain from a helicopter's landing gear?

Why are we bombing Syria? Is it for Isreal? for more oil?

When is Iran? I thought Iran is first

What strategic mission do we plan to achieve?

Iraqs invasion was easy compared to this

[Old and In the Way]

9. I'm sure the Republicans will initate 'Draft Democrats' legislation.

Kill 2 birds with one stone, so to speak.

The 101st Keyboardists can then support the troops until they come home and run against them....at which time the veterans will morph into 'treasonists' for having a first hand opinion about the folly and immorality of the RW agenda.

[Disturbed]

12. Bush Regime is attempting to use Syria...

as a scapegoat for losing Iraq to the Insurgency, which is prolly about 95% homegrown and anti-U.S. Occupation. If the Shi'ites ever get the notion to make peace with the Sunnis and offer a more fair deal of power sharing and they unite in their will to force the U.S. colonization to end that's when the mountain of shit will hit the fan for the Bush Regime.

[Donna Zen]

13. Back to plan "A"

The neo-con wars were to begin with Syria but the plan was changed when they grabbed power. What was it called? Operation Clean Slate? I can't remember now.

Anyway, Gloria of this forum, was/is watching the back and forth closely. The US has consistently refused to acknowledge Syrian answers to our demands. Crazy MFers.

I don't know which direction they will go: east or west, for their next war. The Golan Heights are part of the equation.

Did you get my PM? I'm hearing down sizing by 50,000 troops after Labor Day. I imagine that many liberal forums will be delighted with that news, however, this is just part of a fiendish process.

The junta does not want to have this conversation in the open. It will be bombing followed by chaos, and yes, Dems will be there too. Now what Dem recently said that Syria needs to be punished?

A cautionary article:

May 24, 2005
Cowboys and Indians
By NIALL FERGUSON
London
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/opinion/24ferguson.html?

We are truly fucked.

[welshTerrier2]

14. yes ... i meant to thank you ...

your PM was very interesting to say the least ... i really appreciate your keeping me in the loop !!

note that many in this thread argued that we don't have enough troops to invade Syria ... i was specifically thinking about the possibility of downsizing our troop commitment in Iraq (from your PM) when i wrote this thread ...

it sure wouldn't be all that unlikely that "they could stop by next door as long as they're in the neighborhood" ... to me, it's absurd to argue that we don't have sufficient worldwide troop strength to invade Syria ... yes, our troops are stretch way too thin ... no, that doesn't mean we can't deemphasize one country and then invade another one ... it's all about where bush wants to put his priorities ... when you're fighting a never-ending global war, you always can find more troops someplace ... just move them around like sacrificial pawns on a chessboard ...

my read is that Syria is next ... and the Democrats? ... they ain't gunna say diddly ... i'm so proud ...

thanks again, Donna Zen ... see, it even rhymes ...

[Donna Zen]

16. Syria?

Golan Heights--we may not need our troops. That was the original plan. The problem with Syria is their ability to get planes in the air that can do some serious damage to "X" before we take them out.

Need I remind you that Hillary is speaking to AIPAC tonight?

In either case... we're in for the air-power of which we have plenty to spare.

I PMed you because the times are fluid and I would not want to "set up" the man if things change. This was off-the-record. Although he seems pretty sure of this plan.

Iran will also be air power. Drop some bombs, and then all we have to do is sit back and wait for the Iranian moderates to over throw their government. Bwawawawawawwa!!! Perle was ragging on this today.

The Dems have already voted to sanction Syria. That is what the "weak on defense" meme does: keeps them "in line."

During the summer we had an online chat with Wes and he was asked about Iran. His answer: All we have to do is talk to them; that's all we've ever had to do.

edit: I'm so friggin disgusted. It seems that people either A) do not care about this war or B) have extremely short memories about how certain Dems have screwed them and our country and the world over and over and over again. (Is that bashing? Forgive me; I'm just beyond hope.)

[Donna Zen]

19. Perle via James Wolcott

This is from Perle's AIPAC speech today:

"The audience also liked Perle's statement that he would hope 'if justification for military action developed in Iran,' the United States 'wouldn't expect little Israel to do our job.' He received more applause when he followed that up with, 'If Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, we will have no choice but to take decisive action.'"

[welshTerrier2]

20. must all solutions be military solutions ???

i don't care whether they call it Dem bashing or anything else ... the bottom line is that the only foreign policy i've seen the US use, with the acquiescence of Democrats, is military policy ...

first we threaten; then we attack ... the problem is that many countries believe they will be attacked anyway ... where's the incentive to cooperate ... and by what standard of international law would we attack the sovereign nation of Syria ... what evidence is there that the Syrian government is sanctioning or supporting any action against Iraq ?? surely no one is going to try to make a case that Syria has acquired WMD ...

truly it is getting harder and harder to remain a Democrat ... how can Democrats continue to underwrite bush's global corporate war ???

[ebayfool]

22. Well, that would explain why they're deploying Navy to the area.

Story is in LBN
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1498140

snip/

NORFOLK, Va. - As part of its faster response to requests from overseas, the Navy announced Tuesday it is sending five ships to the Middle East with a mission to disrupt terrorist operations at sea.

The 2,800 sailors had less than two months' notice that they would leave this week and next to spend about three months in the Mediterranean and Red seas.

-----------------------------
According to a DUer there, this is an assault configuration.

artfan (197 posts) Tue May-24-05 09:19 PM
6. This is an assault configuration!!

The amhib ships are to land marines the other 2 are to protect the amphib ships. Either they need to send it more marines because things really such in Iraq or they are planning on another invasion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1498140#1498202

[mikelewis]

23. It's about time...

I'm starting to get bored with bitching about the filibuster and election fraud. It's about time they gave us something new and terrible to worry about.

[Disturbed]

24. Syria Military:

Syria Military:

Military branches:

Syrian Arab Army, Syrian Arab Navy, Syrian Arab Air Force (includes Air Defense Forces), Police and Security Force

Military manpower - availability:
males 15-49: 4,715,386 (2003 est.)

Can anyone imagine around 2 Million Syrian troops pouring into Iraq?

[Clark2008]

25. The reality of this is that Wes Clark has been talking about Syria

and Iran for nearly a year.
The reality is that the media still squelches his voice - or you would know this (that Dems are talking about it, I mean. I know you know of the Bush plans).
The reality is that Clark was correct in his statements as long ago as 9-2001 when he learned about the PNAC "domino" theory and started talking about it, publically, in 2002 (for which he has been ridiculed on the right).

[annabanana]

27. NAVY already enroute!!

Three big floating things already on their way

Check your maps, who's landlocked and who isn't?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1498140