Syria's next :)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hoboleader, Aug 10, 2011.

  1. #1 hoboleader, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2011
    NATO plans campaign in Syria, tightens noose around Iran - Rogozin | World | RIA Novosti
    Syria: Barack Obama 'set to call for Bashar al-Assad to step down' - Telegraph

    I actually predicted this would happen a year ago and a few days ago in a PM to MJU. Looks like its getting ready to happen. Im thinking September-October.
  2. It's about damn time.
  3. Why? I suppose I'll have to wait for details as to the course of action by NATO..
  4. We dont know how Iran will re-act to this kind of move by the US and Nato.
    It could be a major war easily if Iran decides there not gonna put up with the US surrounding them further On top of this Iran is close allies with Syria. Also uve got Hezbollah backing Syria. This is an extremely dangerous move.

    you can expect terrorist attacks within the united states.
  5. Former CIA Official: Israel Will Bomb Iran in September

    How U.S. ties Iran to attacks on forces in Iraq

    this is from an old thread i posted regarding iran. It doesnt seem so unlikely now, if nato attacks syria.
  6. Anonymous was already one step ahead.

    Fuck Nato, it isn't their business to fuck shit up and enforce foreigners to follow their rule of conduct.

    In all seriousness, this blows.
  8. Like Obama's mentor, Joe Lieberman, said...we gotta cut back on Social Security and Medicare so we can continue funding these necessary wars. lol

    What a fucking mess.

    For anyone keeping count:
    1- Iraq
    2- Afghanistan
    3- Pakistan
    4- Yemen
    5- Libya
    6- Somalia
    7- Syria

    Don't forget that there is speculation we were behind the uprisings in Egypt, which is odd because we propped Mubarak up for as long as I can remember.

    All of those countries have one thing in common: Islam.

    Also, we've been fucking with Iran for the past 60+ years. I think history is going to look back at us in a very poor light.


  9. Iran has been a main focus since we stepped foot in the middle east
  10. #11 dudedude4, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2011

    I think tying it with Islam is kind of half-baked. First and foremost because the types of Islam practiced in those six or seven countries we're fighting vary radically, from batshit crazy to very westernized and modern. The religious ideology was more of a tool to lure Bush (who's only human, honestly too dumb of one to be held accountable for himself) into agreeing to press the triggers and be the Texan face on all of it.

    Moderate Muslims from all of those countries hold high academic positions throughout the US prestigious-college system (one of the US's last things we're pretty good at really lol). So it's not really fair to make the generalization you are making here.

    As I am alluding to here, i feel that it's really pure economic interest. These countries happen to sit on a fair amount of oil, this nation and its economy's (i.e. its corporate owners') life blood.

    It seems that only the dogmatic idiots like Michelle Bachman, Bush II, Palin etc, see it as an against Islam thing, out of anyone who has any interest in the bottom line, which is these wars' perpetuation. If we were doing this one out of a racist bloodlust we'd be in Africa like everybody else.

    We get release our racial bloodlust on brown people right here at home in the US. The Arabs, Persians, Urdu, and the Pashtun that control these countries you mentioned happen to be sitting on a lot of oil. Don't forget that they are only unstable because we have made it so over time.

    In this case this war is for resources and selfish, confined, secret(not) economic gain, not against the poor civilians and their religious traditions who are stuck in the middle of it. They are just collateral damage. :(

    Plus if it was against Islam, there would be a total of 47 muslim-majority nations to pick from... yet we go for the ones with strategic and economic interests and assets...
  11. i think this is fear mongering a little man. That's never good.
  12. So we shouldn't expect blowback for occupying foreign countries?

    You're probably right, but we should always be prepared for an anti-Freedom attack.
  13. #14 dudedude4, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2011
    Did I say we shouldn't expect a blowback?

    Nope - I said thinking that we're going to see "terrorist attacks" here in America for upsetting Iran and Hezbollah is fear mongering, cause its extremely unlikely that they would be so stupid as to give the US a time-tested premise to unleash all hell on them sooner rather than later. That is what happened after that event your word was linked to.

    The blowback will (and of course has) be(en) taken out on the troops, also victims of not having much of an economic choice other than join the army.

    And yeah, if by anti-Freedom attack you mean we'd let a lunatic do some shit just to scapegoat those countries again so we can invade them for resources, it's possible, unfortunately. We all know the administration was well aware of the coming plane-into-building scheme for at least a month prior to the attacks. That's the kind of country the masses here choose to live in. :mad:
  14. im just reporting the news, and giving my opinions. If we were on a train together and i thought it was about to crash, and i warned everyone, is that a bad thing (fear mongering)?

    i dont have any hidden agenda other then to warn the people so i dont consider it to be fear mongering.
  15. I actually agree with this, but not with Libya...

    Syria has been a troubled place for quite a while
  16. I <3 Nation Building
  17. I <3 broken window fallacy. It is the most effective way to re-gain economic grounds. We need one here in America, don't you think?
  18. I don't know I mean, that article is from may. Anything newer still saying this?

  19. There were two articles and both are from August.:confused:

Share This Page