Syria Mobilized 300,000 Reservists?

[Dinner]

Israel is not going to launch any massive land attack on Syria. Assad's legitimacy depends upon the Arab world seeing him as being the only "strong" Arab leader who's willing to stand up to Israel. Since Assad knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in a war against Israel he will instead call up reserves, talk belligerently, and prognosticate about how evil Israel brutally attacked the poor innocent people of Syria.

That's about all he can do.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS


As they were with India. Would you have done otherwise?

Of course he would have. Why did we need to lift sanctions against pakistan? Only to invade afghanistan, an imperialist war to build a natural gas pipeline from central asia. The way to deal with al qaeeda was a police matter, just call your local 911 service (hey, 911, ah) and get the coppers on it. so what if the coppers cant get into taliban ruled afghanistan? Just send a subpoena, right? Besides, its all OUR FAULT the taliban was even in power - ergo we had no right to overthrow them - 9/11 (and even worse followups) is our just desserts for overthrowing the progressive regime in afghanistan, and thereby bringing down the even more progressive regimes in eastern and central europe.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Dinner]

LotM: Sadly, many many people think like that.

People often see what they wish to see and not how things truly are.

[Az]

is our just desserts for overthrowing the progressive regime in afghanistan

justice? no. Something that you've screwed up, and then bit you back in the ass? yes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
LotM: Sadly, many many people think like that.

People often see what they wish to see and not how things truly are.

And those people are called Americans.

[Kuciwalker]

Only to invade afghanistan, an imperialist war to build a natural gas pipeline from central asia.

So now Afghanistan was all about the oil?

Despite the vast bipartisan support for the war, and the fact that the people who bombed the WTC were being protected by the Taliban? Seriously, since when has the legitimacy of the Afghanistan war been questioned?

overthrowing the progressive regime in afghanistan

WHAT?! You are really off your rocker if you call a totalitarian fanatical religious state "progressive".

[Az]

WHAT?! You are really off your rocker if you call a totalitarian fanatical religious state "progressive".

I guess he was cynically referring to the pro-soviet regime there, which the americans helped to overthrow, by assisting religious drug trafficking warlords mujahedeen freedom fighters.

[axi]

I hope you can realize that Israel and the US dont share your point of view.

As a matter of fact they don't share the point of view of the rest of the world.

thereby bringing down the even more progressive regimes in eastern and central europe.

So you say Yeltsin was more progressive than Gorbatchev?

[Kuciwalker]

I guess he was cynically referring to the pro-soviet regime there, which the americans helped to overthrow, by assisting religious drug trafficking warlords mujahedeen freedom fighters.

Yep, the Soviets were such wonderful people, weren't they? What a paragon of freedom and democracy. Unlike the evil totalitarian US.

[Az]

Originally posted by skywalker

I guess he was cynically referring to the pro-soviet regime there, which the americans helped to overthrow, by assisting religious drug trafficking warlords mujahedeen freedom fighters.

Yep, the Soviets were such wonderful people, weren't they? What a paragon of freedom and democracy. Unlike the evil totalitarian US.

So now you're telling me that the US wanted to establish a US style regime there?



Well, if those Warlords the US detests so much right now is your idea of freedom and democracy...

[Kuciwalker]

Not my point. You were praising the previous regime. Just because something is an alternative to something bad doesn't make it good - in fact, it could be worse.

[GePap]

Were to start:

First things first: Israel would not Invade Syria, so any major groundwar would most likely be started by the Syrians, and they would have Lebanon on their side.

Yes, the Syrians would lose, but:
1.People overestimate the damage airpower would do to ground forces, just like people did in 1991. Most damage to the Syrians woiuld NOT come from the air, but the ground. Syria and Lebanon based forces can hit some orthern Israeli cities, like Haifa, and certainly most towns up there. They can also hit all of Israel with Ballistic missiles. So even if the military campaing were quick, lets say as quick as the Iraq war, that gives the Syrians at least 1 week to shell israel, and no, Israel could not retaliate to such attacks with WMD's: thus the cost to israel of any coming war with Syria would, in terms of human lossses, certainly overshadow the last 2 years of violence with the Pals, plus such violence with the pals would continue as the war went on.

2. Israel wouolpd have to at least occupy southern Lebanon again. And perhaps even Damascus for a short time. israel has a poor tract-record when it come to occupying lots of Arabs.


Everyone quickly went to recite military stats..but the one thing no one has said is: what happens the day after? LoTM seems to think the road to peace with the pals lies through Damascus (or at least thinks some Israelis see this as a serious arguement). Well, sorry, it doesn't. If anything, an israeli victory might bolster the islamist militants and make peace even harder to come. For the point I made that everyone ignored is that NONE of Israels military vicotires have actually imrpoved it's overall strategic position or brought peace. Only when an Arab neighbor felt they could move (like Egyp, with some pride restored after 1973) did peace come, and with a lot of US money. Victory over Syria again would not do it, for Israel could do nothing but return to its borders at the end (and if a democratic Syrian gov came into being, give up Golan Heights..) and none of the more fundamental underlying cuases would have shifted.

[DanS]

People overestimate the damage airpower would do to ground forces, just like people did in 1991.

Dude, you're on crack! The Iraqis were drastically demoralized if not bloodied in '91 by airpower. They were broken by airpower.

[PLATO]

With complete air superiority and the concept of the "kill box", Syria's armour would be broken before contact with Israeli Armour. Israel appears to have the capacity of gaining total air auperiority within hours of the beginning of a conflict.

[Joseph]

Keep this thread going guys. It's good reading.
I'm not a betting man, but this time, I would go with Israel.