USA opens up economic war against Syria!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I thought Baby Assad was trying to open up the economy.

Baby Bashir is, but unfortunately, he can't escape Syria's reputation. It isn't too clear how much he's really in charge, and if he directly goes along with Syria's BS, if it happens under his nose and he looks the other way, or if he's simply insulated from reality.

Banks and capital lease lenders have been extremely leery of the political risks, and he hasn't been able to do even ten percent, probably less than five percent, of the infrastructure and development projects he originally wanted.

[el freako]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


tell that to Germany and Japan.

Maybe he should have said 'never attack' a country that can stand up to them.

Both Germany and Japan declared war on the US, not the other way around.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by el freako



Maybe he should have said 'never attack' a country that can stand up to them.

Both Germany and Japan declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Actually Japan didnt declare war, they just attacked (and did call off negotiations, but that message was delayed getting through to Washington) The US then declared war on Japan. But point taken.

OTOH we declared war on Germany in 1917. And I suggest that quite a few southerners could tell you about a US attack on a country that could fight back (but I suppose you dont consider CSA a country )

And in 1812 we declared war on a country that not only was able to fight back, but almost whupped us.

Do we have a lot of small wars against tiny powers - grenada, panama, Iraq etc - well yeah, but thats what great powers do.

Take France = there military has been all over africa the last few years, and they fought Iraq in 1991. When did they attack somebody who could fight back? Egypt in 1956? Hardly. algeria? WW2? But though they declared war, do you consider that an attack on Germany? Ditto WW1. I think you have to go back to the 1850s. Britain - - well they did have the falklands thing - but didnt argentina attack them? Mainly they fought little colonial wars, and they fought in Iraq in 1991. Russia - hmm, Chechnya, afghanistan, Hungary ...
China - Viet Nam, Tibet - oh wait, they did attack India in 1962. And who attacked whom on the Amur in 1969 - was it russia or china?

[Spiffor]

I can't imagine you being at war with Syria as long as you're stuck in the Iraqi quagmire. Syria is a way tougher enemy, since its army hasn't been strangled for 12 years (but maybe it'll have the same skill as 1991's Iraqi army, so it doesn't count), and the Syrian population will not enjoy at all to see the US topple their government. Indeed, unlike Iraq, Syria's regime doesn't use mass terror to inspire loyalty, but rather promotes political apathy and nationalistic fervor. There is not such a personality cult for Assad as there was for Saddam, and blood remains generally low.
You're going to have a much more significant popular resistance during the invasion than what you had in Iraq. You won't see people dancing in the streets very often. This will make the war effort and the peacemaking effort definitely more deadly. And I don't think the Yanks have the guts to tolerate thousands of their men being killed. At least, some heads will fly at the white House, including the prez's.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I can't imagine you being at war with Syria as long as you're stuck in the Iraqi quagmire. Syria is a way tougher enemy, since its army hasn't been strangled for 12 years (but maybe it'll have the same skill as 1991's Iraqi army, so it doesn't count), and the Syrian population will not enjoy at all to see the US topple their government. Indeed, unlike Iraq, Syria's regime doesn't use mass terror to inspire loyalty, but rather promotes political apathy and nationalistic fervor. There is not such a personality cult for Assad as there was for Saddam, and blood remains generally low.
You're going to have a much more significant popular resistance during the invasion than what you had in Iraq. You won't see people dancing in the streets very often. This will make the war effort and the peacemaking effort definitely more deadly. And I don't think the Yanks have the guts to tolerate thousands of their men being killed. At least, some heads will fly at the white House, including the prez's.

In fact this is essentially correct (leaving aside the remark about guts - we'd have the guts if we thought it was worth it, which i dont think is the case now vis a vis Syria) . The long term "strategy" for Syria, as far as i can tell, is to try for change in Iran first, and then hope that loss of its principle ally changes the situation wrt Syria. And even then the goal is probably a Syrian withdrawl from Lebanon, not regime change. Thats way down the road. I do believe the reason for the current focus on Syria is due to the ferment in the Pal territories - not only the renewed terror against Israel, but the apparent illness of Yasser Arafat, and the dispute between Arafat and Abu Ala, and the possible succession maneuvering. The main goal is to warn Syria to stay out. Syria's vote at the UN today would seem to indicate theyve gotten the message.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


The Syrians may have bio or chemical weapons which they might just dump on invading troops. And American soldiers dying with the chemical shakes is not a pretty visual ...

They'd have to deliver those systems, assuming they had them. We'd ass**** their arty and air capabilities, such as they are, before they even knew what hit 'em. Sorry, this is Syria against the US Army we'd be talking about.

[Az]

That's why they have got to pre-emptively attack you in Iraq, Michael.

[mrmitchell]

a nation the United States says is harboring terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Why does this sound familiar?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
attempted to assasinate Bush 41.

We only have the Kuwaiti government's word for that, and they have absoltely no reason to lie.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


They'd have to deliver those systems, assuming they had them. We'd ass**** their arty and air capabilities, such as they are, before they even knew what hit 'em. Sorry, this is Syria against the US Army we'd be talking about.

Syrian security just seems like the type of guys who'd just dump them indiscriminantly in an urban theater. Enemy troops, their troops, civilians ...

But yeah, other than crazy **** (which they may or may not have the WMDs for), they got nothing. Just goes to show how unmanly the Bushies are. If they liberate Tibet I'll even vote for them next time ...

Now that would be manly!

[GePap]

The US does so little business with Syria that this is a nice photo opt and a nice vote getter for conservaives and people in NY, NJ and Florida, but toherwise does little.

Waiting for Change in Iran isn;t going to pan out, and honestly, what does Iran give Syria? It's not like Iran funnels tens of billions that way: terrorism is cheap. Israel spends in a few days more on the IDF than all the terrorist orgs fighting it do in a a quarter or so. A suicide bomber consta fraction of what a single armored vehicle goes for.

I also do not see Syria support as critical to the Pal. orgs. Wouyld they be worse off without it? Yes. Would it weaken them significantly? probably not. As for Hizbullah, they are now in the Lebanese gov. and have become a political movement: all the huffing and puffing by the US and Israel won't undo them.