Comments | slamlander: Oh GAWD! Iran can sleep soundly, US has a target lock on Syria.

slamlander

Oh GAWD! Iran can sleep soundly, US has a target lock on Syria.

Feb 17, 2005 20:17

What else is withdrawing US diplomats saying?

The thing is, Iran would be a softer target. The cowboy is about to turn the entire middle-east into a good old fashioned saloon brawl.

Where is the US going to get the troops?

Then, there is that *real* little fracas in North Korea.

syria, iran, war

Comments 11

krikkert February 17 2005, 19:31:58 UTC

Instigating general conscription, of course.

thewrongcrowd February 17 2005, 20:08:29 UTC

It seems a little drafty in here. Did someone leave a window open? :0

I'm not against a draft slamlander February 18 2005, 00:06:52 UTC

but I am against tearing up yet another country. The US is becoming altogether too responsible for too many mess ups and they don't add to the bottom-line.

Mess ups R US. thewrongcrowd February 18 2005, 21:47:46 UTC

Hmmm, might be a good slogan to replace "In God we trust" on our money.

It's getting to the point that cleaning up countries after conqueration (a la Japan and Germany) is quite the rare thing for the US.

Thread 5

thewrongcrowd February 17 2005, 20:10:19 UTC

The US won't touch N. Korea with a ten-foot-pole without China's approval for fear of China ramming it up our ass. So to speak.

Don't remember where I saw it, but Rummy threatened Syria as the next target shortly after the initial Iraq invasion.

I remember that too slamlander February 18 2005, 00:12:05 UTC

and I can't remember where I heard it either.

Found it. thewrongcrowd February 18 2005, 21:45:06 UTC

Way back in March 2003.

Asked if the United States was threatening military action against Syria, Rumsfeld replied, "I'm saying exactly what I said. It was carefully phrased."

Oh dear fakiiri February 17 2005, 20:20:08 UTC

The world really seems to be going downhill at the moment :-(
Who's next after Syria and Iran? Saudi-Arabia? Nah, too dependant of the oil.

It really seems that developing nuclear weapons is the only way to stop US attacking a "terrorist harbouring" country. And that's a scary thought :-(

You might check a map slamlander February 18 2005, 00:11:03 UTC

note the relative position of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Think "pipelines to Europe" and then note that Saudi Arabia isn't strategically important. In fact, the Saudis would become incidently dependent. Unlike the US, the EU has very few oil fields and the RU pipelines aren't online for a while yet.

Re: You might check a map fakiiri February 18 2005, 08:44:17 UTC

I know the map.

Saudi Arabia is not important for the EU but to the US. Not for the location by for the oil. The economy of US would suffer greatly from the lack of cheap saudi arabian oil. Iraq isn't going to change that for a while yet. I'm not saying that the EU wouldn't take a hit from nonexistant saudi oil.

True EU is more dependant from imported oil (especially from middle east) and countries like Syria are on the way. Then there's those unstable former SU countries in the Caucasus area. But as you said yourself I'm not in favor of ruining another country. I don't like Syria that much either. In my opininon attacking Syria isn't going to help EUs oil problem in short term. Long term maybe but I wouldn't count on that.