LOL @ Syria

[Rochard]

Earlier today Syria's foreign minister said...

"Syria is not easy to swallow," Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday at a news conference. "We have the materials to defend ourselves. We will surprise others."

Sure thing. A government who has been fighting it's own citizens for the past two years is going to be able to defend itself against a world power....

It will be the mother of all battles all over again.

[dyna mo]

syria is gfy zimmerman/trayvon all over again.


positions everybody.

[seeandsee]

and fake government chem. attack for making new war is fine?

why they dobt attack rebels now, it's a red line?

[dyna mo]

see what i mean.

[Tom_PM]

Drone 1 and Drone 2 will be tough to bluff.

[Phoenix]

see the tail...wag the dog

follow the rabbit down its hole.

realize the wolf in the mirror is yourself

[potter]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

see what i mean.

OMG that was perfect! LOL

[Rochard]

I look at the recent history of the US Military and... If I was Syria I would be shitting in my pants.

During the second Iraq war it was pretty much over with the very first strike. The very first night the US took down the entire Iraqi communications network. The Iraqi military and the Iraqi government had no way of knowing what was happening, and no way of issuing orders.

Syria won't be much different.

[Bryan G]

USA Fuck ya!!

Eh Rochard

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Sure thing. A government who has been fighting it's own citizens for the past two years is going to be able to defend itself against a world power....

The 'Rebels' are mainly composed of outsiders who've been sent into Syria, the same guys who were sent into Libya. It is believed they are controlled from Langley, Virginia.

It's hard to fight them as they are difficult to recognize, so you run the risk of killing your own citizens when you shoot at them, but if there's a NATO plane flying overhead there are no doubts that you can aim and fire.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

USA Fuck ya!!

Eh Rochard

I'm really a fan of military history; Right now I am reading about the Falklands War.

With the US, we have WWII (won), Korea (draw?), and then Vietnam (utter disaster). But since then the nature of warfare has changed; It's no longer large armies slugging it out but instead one country quickly bringing the war directly to the opposing government - We no longer have to spend three or four years fighting to Berlin when we can bomb Bagdad / Kabul / Damascus on the first day of hostilities.

Some of these smaller countries have ruled with an iron fist for decades and believe they are untouchable, but fail to understand they will never see the first strike coming and by the time they figure out what happened, their command and control is destroyed and communications no longer in existence. These networks take years to build, are quickly destroyed, and never come back up.

This is exactly what happened with Iraq. First strike took out their command and control, and they never recovered. In 2003 the US invaded with 150k troops, taking on the Iraqi armed forces that had 400k members and 600k soldiers in reserves and they were destroyed in thirty days.

Syria doesn't have a chance.

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm really a fan of military history; Right now I am reading about the Falklands War.

With the US, we have WWII (won), Korea (draw?), and then Vietnam (utter disaster). But since then the nature of warfare has changed; It's no longer large armies slugging it out but instead one country quickly bringing the war directly to the opposing government - We no longer have to spend three or four years fighting to Berlin when we can bomb Bagdad / Kabul / Damascus on the first day of hostilities.

Some of these smaller countries have ruled with an iron fist for decades and believe they are untouchable, but fail to understand they will never see the first strike coming and by the time they figure out what happened, their command and control is destroyed and communications no longer in existence. These networks take years to build, are quickly destroyed, and never come back up.

This is exactly what happened with Iraq. First strike took out their command and control, and they never recovered. In 2003 the US invaded with 150k troops, taking on the Iraqi armed forces that had 400k members and 600k soldiers in reserves and they were destroyed in thirty days.

Syria doesn't have a chance.

Like I said fuck ya!!! Btw USA did not win ww2 alone. They played a part in it.

[madm1k3]

Bombing cities wins wars, right.......

Rochard seems to think that Iraq was a major military success because Sadam's army supposedly fell in a week. He neglects the fact that over 4300 troops died since "Mission Accomplished", All American troops have left Iraq, Iran/China have many of the oil rights troops were dying for, and to this day there is still violence happening on a daily basis.

Please Rochard explain to me why so many Troops died if the army was destroyed in 30 days? Are you telling me that civilians with no military training killed over 4300 soldiers?

[rogueteens]

best if the west keeps out of Syria, the rebels are even worse than the government. there is no side the west should be helping there.

[Scott McD]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

best if the west keeps out of Syria, the rebels are even worse than the government. there is no side the west should be helping there.

Sadly this is true...

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Rochard

With the US, we have WWII (won), Korea (draw?), and then Vietnam (utter disaster).

The Russians won most of WWII, the Americans landed at Normandy late in the war and their opposition was Hitler's junior varsity squad. The Russians faced the best Germany had in the most epic confrontation in the history of war, it was inevitable that Russia would eventually roll over the Nazis fairly early in the war, took the lives of 26-27 million Russians to do it though.

The war in the Pacific, the Americans did defeat the Japanese hopping island to island but would have never taken them down on their home turf, the Americans didn't have the manpower - hence the decision to drop the nukes. The estimates for deaths for a war on Japanese soil were astronomical from an American perspective.

Korea was a draw and Vietnam just unwinnable. The more I read about the Vietnam War the more I see it as a just war but a waste of 58,000 young lives. Very sad the media and the ignorant hippies turned against their own boys. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong slaughtered and caused the deaths of millions of their own people, they dragged Cambodia and Laos into the war and helped the Khmer Rouge get into power to commit one of the worst genocides in human history. In the end the Americans were right, North Vietnam was intent on becoming a communist empire and without the US making a stand the Vietnamese with their Soviet backers may have moved on to invade Thailand, the Phillipines, Singapore. All the US wanted in that war was to defend South Vietnam who had become their own independent country after the French were defeated, never had the goal of defeating North Vietnam for any other purpose than to keep them out of South Vietnam.

Today, Vietnam is a beautiful country with a fast growing economy, still communist but fairly progressive. Pitiful that millions had to die.

[Joshua G]

the USA should just worry about our own people. We have enough problems at home.

No foreign country woulda stopped the US civil war & we should not try to stop another countries bloodbath.

[Klen]

I am not sure did Usa ever won any war which was running by itself,most of it what is claimed as "win"was actually coalition.In case against Sryia if it occur it will be coalition of 69 countries against .

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Like I said fuck ya!!! Btw USA did not win ww2 alone. They played a part in it.

We didn't?

My first response to you was "no argument". We are taught that Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy and saved Europe from Nazi aggression. And of course, nothing could be further from the truth - the Russians had things well in hand (although it cost them).

But that doesn't take into account the United States single handedly beating Japan across the South Pacific.

[scottybuzz]

USA did sure as fuck not win iraq 2. Not even close.

America was a super power before iraq. Now it has to share that title with china and russia.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Korea was a draw and Vietnam just unwinnable.

I might disagree (although I don't know much about the Vietnam war really).

The US failed in Vietnam because of we were doing the direct opposite of what we do now - In Vietnam we fought battles in the middle of no where that accomplished nothing while we should have taken the battle straight to Hanoi - by bombing and then invading. If we had taken out the government in North Vietnam it would have been very different.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

USA did sure as fuck not win iraq 2. Not even close.

America was a super power before iraq. Now it has to share that title with china and russia.

We didn't?

Is Saddamn's government still in power? Is his military still in power? Do their war planes and war ships attack us? Do they have tanks? Is Saddam still in Kuwait? When we occupied Bagdad, did Saddam kick us out?

I believe the US is still a super power. I believe China is too; China is huge. Russia too.

[Klen]

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

USA did sure as fuck not win iraq 2. Not even close.

America was a super power before iraq. Now it has to share that title with china and russia.

Depend what you define as win,as from military pov they won and there is nothing to discuss.But the problem is,they wanted to make democratic and normal society there,and that what they failed-Saddam at least had in control conflict between muslim factions,while Usa cant do shit regarding that.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by madm1k3

Bombing cities wins wars, right.......

Rochard seems to think that Iraq was a major military success because Sadam's army supposedly fell in a week. He neglects the fact that over 4300 troops died since "Mission Accomplished", All American troops have left Iraq, Iran/China have many of the oil rights troops were dying for, and to this day there is still violence happening on a daily basis.

Please Rochard explain to me why so many Troops died if the army was destroyed in 30 days? Are you telling me that civilians with no military training killed over 4300 soldiers?

You can't fix stupid and Rochard is stuck on stupid. No point in even addressing him at this point.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We didn't?

My first response to you was "no argument". We are taught that Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy and saved Europe from Nazi aggression. And of course, nothing could be further from the truth - the Russians had things well in hand (although it cost them).

But that doesn't take into account the United States single handedly beating Japan across the South Pacific.

Well done on Japan, I did not know that you did that single handedly.

Actually the US was the LAST country to declare war on Japan in WWII, the Chinese had been fighting since 1937. Even the Canadians were in before the USA.

The following countries had significant forces in the war against Imperial Japan.

The British
India
France
China
Australia
Canada
New Zealand

Strange how you always think that wars only start when you decide to turn up.

[Nasty]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Today, Vietnam is a beautiful country with a fast growing economy, still communist but fairly progressive. Pitiful that millions had to die.

Vietnam was a civil war, we should have stayed out of it but we are about to make the same fucking mistake in syria

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Well done on Japan, I did not know that you did that single handedly.

Actually the US was the LAST country to declare war on Japan in WWII, the Chinese had been fighting since 1937. Even the Canadians were in before the USA.

The following countries had significant forces in the war against Imperial Japan.

The British
India
France
China
Australia
Canada
New Zealand

Strange how you always think that wars only start when you decide to turn up.

Which islands did the French take away from Japan again? I must have missed that.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Which islands did the French take away from Japan again? I must have missed that.

You are very determined to show how ignorant you are.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Well done on Japan, I did not know that you did that single handedly.

Actually the US was the LAST country to declare war on Japan in WWII, the Chinese had been fighting since 1937. Even the Canadians were in before the USA.

The following countries had significant forces in the war against Imperial Japan.

The British
India
France
China
Australia
Canada
New Zealand

Strange how you always think that wars only start when you decide to turn up.

lolz, yes, the largest surrender in british history was a significant contribution to the pacific war effort.

simply put, none of those countries you list made a significant contribution in the pacific war. australia gets the most credit, the rest either didn't participate or didn't hold the area they were charged with protecting. little participation by any of those in any offensives.

pacific war was us navy, by design, navy brass didn't want any other entities involved.

[stephane76]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Which islands did the French take away from Japan again? I must have missed that.

I think he's referring to Indochina 1940,


my grand father fought there, as well as Algeria years later...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...ench_Indochina

In September 1940, the Japanese invaded French Indochina (仏印進駐 Futsu-in shinchū?) in order to prevent the Republic of China from importing arms and fuel through French Indochina along the Sino-Vietnamese Railway, from the port of Haiphong through Hanoi to Kunming in Yunnan.[1] The fighting, which lasted several days before the French authorities reached an agreement with the Japanese, took place in the context of the ongoing Sino-Japanese War and World War II. Japan was able to occupy northern Indochina, tighten the blockade of China and make a continuation of the drawn-out Battle of South Guangxi unnecessary.

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We didn't?

My first response to you was "no argument". We are taught that Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy and saved Europe from Nazi aggression. And of course, nothing could be further from the truth - the Russians had things well in hand (although it cost them).

But that doesn't take into account the United States single handedly beating Japan across the South Pacific.

Yup single handy, does the american education system teach you real history at all? As for finishing them off, you sure did! With a fucking nuke. I understand you are a proud American and that is great but pull your blinders off once and a while.

[globofun]

Rochard should not underestimate frenchs and french-canadians......and should get a good supply of Skittles and read on InfoWars for more details!

[mikesinner]

Problem is we are not going to war with them. We are going to drop some bombs and leave. The president, the government and the people have already spoken out. Less than %10 want war. We don't care about fucking Syria.

What we are about to do is slap them on the hand, it may be enough to give the rebels and edge or it may extend the war there. We will have to wait and see.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Well done on Japan, I did not know that you did that single handedly.

Actually the US was the LAST country to declare war on Japan in WWII, the Chinese had been fighting since 1937. Even the Canadians were in before the USA.

The following countries had significant forces in the war against Imperial Japan.

The British
India
France
China
Australia
Canada
New Zealand

Strange how you always think that wars only start when you decide to turn up.

Well, how many islands the British take back from Japan? How many KIA did they have? (In truth, the Pacific Fleet the British had was one of the largest the British ever had, but still only had six carriers compared to the US sending 139.)

What did India do in the Pacific? I know about the Gurkhas, and I know they had twice as many KIA at the Brits, but what exactly did they do in the Pacific? (The British had 5k KIA in the Pacific, while India had 9k.)

Did France send any ships or men to fight in the Pacific? They fought in Indochina, only because they were there and Japan attacked, and Indochina was occupied by Japan until the end of the war.

China, by far, took the brunt of Japan in the Pacific. The had more deaths than all countries in the Pacific combined. Yet at the close of WW2, China was still occupied and dominated by Japan.

Of course the Aussies were involved, and I've read about individual ships here and there, but I don't recall any major naval fleet actions or major battles they had.

I don't recall hearing much about Canada in the Pacific; How many air craft carriers did Canada send? Come to think about it, when discussing KIA in the Pacific... Canada doesn't even get mentioned.

New Zealand? Yeah, they dominated the entire war in the Pacific.

You failed to mention Russia - who in good faith at the close of war in Europe started sending it's armies to the Pacific to take on Japan and even had a few battles with them. But Japan was pretty much beaten by then.

Sorry, but the majority of the fighting in the Pacific was done by the US, not the UK, not France.

[Rochard]

Here we go, here is the Military History of the UK during WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...Worl d_War_II

Destroyed in Malaya and Singapore, kicked out of Burma, retook Burma (half of which was troops from India), and the supported the US in the invasion of Okinawa without landing any troops.

I'm not saying these countries didn't take part; They did. But their contribution in the Pacific was even less than what the US did in Europe.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

lolz, yes, the largest surrender in british history was a significant contribution to the pacific war effort.

simply put, none of those countries you list made a significant contribution in the pacific war. australia gets the most credit, the rest either didn't participate or didn't hold the area they were charged with protecting. little participation by any of those in any offensives.

pacific war was us navy, by design, navy brass didn't want any other entities involved.

Not sure where to start with this ignorant belch of uneducated and selective bullshit.

I know you think that WWII started in 1941 after those nasty nips sank your boats in Pearl Harbour.

But here is some news fuckface. WWI did not start in 1917, nor did WWII start in 1941 when your half arsed attempts at being an ally failed miserably.

Read some fucking history books them come back and tell the tousands that lost their lives how they did not count because the US of A turned up a bit later and won the war.

You should show some respect. You talk about the big surrender of British forces. Do you know how many of those men survived the Japanese camps ? Do you know how many Indian/Australian/British soldiers were killed and incarcerated in Jap POW camps before the US even entered the war.

Unfortunately my own knowldege of the suffering of the Chinese people during WWII is not strong, however I do know that your bleating about the US and it's magnificent victories is really quite pathetic.

Some light reading for you, I am hoping you might wake up and smell the coffee :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

[rowan]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Like I said fuck ya!!! Btw USA did not win ww2 alone. They played a part in it.

Are you saying

"fuck you Rochard"

or

"'merica, fuck yeah!"

[crockett]

Originally Posted by madm1k3

Bombing cities wins wars, right.......

Rochard seems to think that Iraq was a major military success because Sadam's army supposedly fell in a week. He neglects the fact that over 4300 troops died since "Mission Accomplished", All American troops have left Iraq, Iran/China have many of the oil rights troops were dying for, and to this day there is still violence happening on a daily basis.

Please Rochard explain to me why so many Troops died if the army was destroyed in 30 days? Are you telling me that civilians with no military training killed over 4300 soldiers?

The US is very good at the war part, but not so good at the clean up afterwards.

The biggest mistake made in Afghan was when Bush pulled the troops out before the job was done, to send them to Iraq.

TBH, the CIA did an outstanding job in Afghan prior to the military boots hitting the ground. We probably could of won that war very fast just using the CIA and special forces and just allowed the NA to do the fighting.

Of course no big amount of troops on the ground wouldn't allow Cheney & co to reap massive profits from no bid govt contracts.


The fighting part I really don't think any country could match us. It's the other stuff that gets fucked up when political leaders try to do nation building for profit.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Mutt

The Russians won most of WWII, the Americans landed at Normandy late in the war and their opposition was Hitler's junior varsity squad. The Russians faced the best Germany had in the most epic confrontation in the history of war, it was inevitable that Russia would eventually roll over the Nazis fairly early in the war, took the lives of 26-27 million Russians to do it though.

The war in the Pacific, the Americans did defeat the Japanese hopping island to island but would have never taken them down on their home turf, the Americans didn't have the manpower - hence the decision to drop the nukes. The estimates for deaths for a war on Japanese soil were astronomical from an American perspective.

Korea was a draw and Vietnam just unwinnable. The more I read about the Vietnam War the more I see it as a just war but a waste of 58,000 young lives. Very sad the media and the ignorant hippies turned against their own boys. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong slaughtered and caused the deaths of millions of their own people, they dragged Cambodia and Laos into the war and helped the Khmer Rouge get into power to commit one of the worst genocides in human history. In the end the Americans were right, North Vietnam was intent on becoming a communist empire and without the US making a stand the Vietnamese with their Soviet backers may have moved on to invade Thailand, the Phillipines, Singapore. All the US wanted in that war was to defend South Vietnam who had become their own independent country after the French were defeated, never had the goal of defeating North Vietnam for any other purpose than to keep them out of South Vietnam.

Today, Vietnam is a beautiful country with a fast growing economy, still communist but fairly progressive. Pitiful that millions had to die.

Russia was all but beat.. The only thing the Russians did was be to hard headed to know they were beat.

What saved Russia was British and American troops in Africa. WW2 was won in Africa when Hitlers resources were put under attack.

Russia was all but done until he had to move troops out of Russia to fight the US and the Brits in Africa.

That was the war right there.. The rest was just a matter of time once resources stopped flowing.

As we all know, the only reason the middle east is or ever has been relevant in the 20th century is because of oil and it was one of if not the most important battlefields during WW2 and since.

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by crockett

Russia was all but beat.. The only thing the Russians did was be to hard headed to know they were beat.

What saved Russia was British and American troops in Africa. WW2 was won in Africa when Hitlers resources were put under attack.

And we only kicked Japanese ass because Soviets attacked them in China? You can't be so fucking brainwashed and stupid in 2013.. Or can you?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by crockett

Russia was all but beat.. The only thing the Russians did was be to hard headed to know they were beat.

What saved Russia was British and American troops in Africa. WW2 was won in Africa when Hitlers resources were put under attack.

Russia was all but done until he had to move troops out of Russia to fight the US and the Brits in Africa.

That was the war right there.. The rest was just a matter of time once resources stopped flowing.

As we all know, the only reason the middle east is or ever has been relevant in the 20th century is because of oil and it was one of if not the most important battlefields during WW2 and since.

Interesting concept.

[Frank21]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Earlier today Syria's foreign minister said...

"Syria is not easy to swallow," Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday at a news conference. "We have the materials to defend ourselves. We will surprise others."

Sure thing. A government who has been fighting it's own citizens for the past two years is going to be able to defend itself against a world power....

It will be the mother of all battles all over again.

Your post is soo wron in soo many ways dude.
First of all, we all know america or even better americas army is a tool of Israel. America has no reason whatsoever to destroy Syria other then to please their Israeli masters.

He says they can surprise "others" this may as well be Israel. Unlike Saddams Syria does has the means to "surprise" Israel. If they dare to attack Israel is an other question since the mad Israelis may respond with atomic weapons.

Syria has been batteling al-qaida not its own peacefull student demonstrators what they tell you on cnn!
Syria is fighting the same guys the americans have been fighting for OVER A DECADE and the Syrians have a wayy better battle result as your brave heros.
Ameica has lost what is it 6500 soldiers and over 30 000 private contractors in iraq, afghanistand and the secret boots on the ground in Libya, paistan Yemen etc etc.
And lost 1.5 trillion of your dollars in a decade fighting the peacefull demonstrators ;-)

Besides that defending Syria itself does not mean they will wipe America off the face of the map, maybe Syria can sink some American battle ships and attack fighter planes !

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

best if the west keeps out of Syria, the rebels are even worse than the government. there is no side the west should be helping there.

Syria is a dream come true... 'Hezbollah fighting al-Qaida' and here we are trying to break it up... what a bunch of complete dumb fucks

[noshit]

Originally Posted by Rochard

It will be the mother of all battles all over again.

I'm sure your Unawake, State Run Media educated, Globalist Minion Self would prefer to call the bombing of Syria
'Humanitarian Love Bombs'

[dyna mo]

settle down, you're going to give yourself a heart attack over what a poster at gfy thinks. that's about your level of snap though eh.

Originally Posted by NewNick

Not sure where to start with this ignorant belch of uneducated and selective bullshit.

I know you think that WWII started in 1941 after those nasty nips sank your boats in Pearl Harbour.

But here is some news fuckface. WWI did not start in 1917, nor did WWII start in 1941 when your half arsed attempts at being an ally failed miserably.

Read some fucking history books them come back and tell the tousands that lost their lives how they did not count because the US of A turned up a bit later and won the war.

You should show some respect. You talk about the big surrender of British forces. Do you know how many of those men survived the Japanese camps ? Do you know how many Indian/Australian/British soldiers were killed and incarcerated in Jap POW camps before the US even entered the war.

Unfortunately my own knowldege of the suffering of the Chinese people during WWII is not strong, however I do know that your bleating about the US and it's magnificent victories is really quite pathetic.

Some light reading for you, I am hoping you might wake up and smell the coffee :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

retard, you said they made significant contributions, that's fully wrong, feel free to show any proof of a significant canadian force in the pacific, a significant french force either. hell, even a significant contrinbution.

2. canada declared war on japan, what an hour before we did, fucking wow, yay canada, what significant force.

it's funny how it's ok for you to denigrate any and all american contributions but the second someone flips that around on ya, you flip out with the name calling but zero facts.

i know exactly why that is.

Originally Posted by NewNick

Actually the US was the LAST country to declare war on Japan in WWII, the Chinese had been fighting since 1937. Even the Canadians were in before the USA.

The following countries had significant forces in the war against Imperial Japan.

The British
India
France
China
Australia
Canada
New Zealand

Strange how you always think that wars only start when you decide to turn up.

again, i never sais wars start when we turn up, i flipped around your jackass bullshit back at ya and you flipped out over it, it's simple to see.




.

[scottybuzz]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We didn't?

Is Saddamn's government still in power? Is his military still in power? Do their war planes and war ships attack us? Do they have tanks? Is Saddam still in Kuwait? When we occupied Bagdad, did Saddam kick us out?

I believe the US is still a super power. I believe China is too; China is huge. Russia too.

If you truly won that war then how come there is not a big US flag hanging in the centre of Baghdad surrounded by McDonalds and Burger Kings??

All you did was chop off the head of a serpent which grew 4 uglier heads.

The world hates America more than ever before because of Iraq. This is why you are struggling to get into Syria right now.

Some win for you. Rock on.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by noshit

I'm sure your Unawake, State Run Media educated, Globalist Minion Self would prefer to call the bombing of Syria
'Humanitarian Love Bombs'

I could honestly care less what happens to Syria. I have no burning desire to see the US get involved. I think we should say "This is a Russian problem" and leave them in charge and walk away from it.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

If you truly won that war then how come there is not a big US flag hanging in the centre of Baghdad surrounded by McDonalds and Burger Kings??

Because our intention was never to grab land. We don't want to stay there, nor do we want to keep our flag there. Remove the government, set up a new one, move on. The rest is up to them.

[scottybuzz]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Because our intention was never to grab land. We don't want to stay there, nor do we want to keep our flag there. Remove the government, set up a new one, move on. The rest is up to them.

if you really genuinely believed you won in iraq then you need to stop drinking.

There is more to a winning formula than killing the leader.

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Earlier today Syria's foreign minister said...

"Syria is not easy to swallow," Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday at a news conference. "We have the materials to defend ourselves. We will surprise others."

Sure thing. A government who has been fighting it's own citizens for the past two years is going to be able to defend itself against a world power....

It will be the mother of all battles all over again.

Are you aware that they are fighting Muslim extremists from all around world? US backed Al Queda and terrorists from: Checenya,Kosovo,Bosnia,Qatar,Saudi Arabia...same bunch of dirty killers that did job in Libya.

Second thing, world power never attack open if someone is capable of resisting more seriously. Just like hyene or a classic bully.

It is actually very simple. US will try to bomb Syrian hardware so army will have to put efforts in defence while terrorists can pushing forward, without real threat to them. For US it is win-win situation because it would be also extremely dangerous that Al Quaeda put their hands on Syrian military hardware and this is a chance to try to destroy it.

Syria is last secular state left in Middle East where Christians and Muslims lived together without problems.