Ron Paul warns us again.

[Pocket.38]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul283.html

Ron Paul gives sound advice as usual:

Before the US House of Representatives, October 26, 2005

We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change – in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.

 

[boofus]

What choice do we have? Syria and Iran keep sending weapons and manpower into Iraq. If they would bring out the big guns and threaten sanctions, naval bombardment, and nuclear strikes maybe they could avoid an invasion.

 

[NCP24]

Sounds like time for a hostile take over.

 

[Coltdriver]

I'd be willing to bet a box of bullets that Israel takes out Iran's nuclear capability before Bush leaves office.

Things are going to get very uncomfortable over there in the next few years.

 

[Biker]

We're overextended now, so yeah, following the Bush Doctrine, it seems logical to mount another invasion.
Biker

 

[WT]

We have so many sailors sitting around, doing nothing, maybe we should send in the Navy. How fast can one of our new super expensive subs travel in the desert?

Same thing with the USAF. They wanted to field an USAF airborne infantry regiment last year. Even came out with a snazzy blue cammie uniform.

Our military is too big and too expensive. The generals and admirals need a war to justify their existance.

We should stay out of Syria and Iran.

 

[El Tejon]

Why can't we take down the Evil Eye Doctor with our spooks as was offered (or allegedly offerred) Clinton in Iraq?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Our military is too big and too expensive. The generals and admirals need a war to justify their existance.

Too expensive ... maybe. If so, it is because of reliance on too many high-tech toys of dubious reliability and maintainability. But "too big"? Not a chance. The military now is MUCH smaller than it was during the Vietnam conflict, and smaller than it was for many years following Vietnam. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now are a combination of Reserve and National Guard assetts. This is wrong.

No, the military is not too big -- it's too small.

 

[Dannyboy]

I'd be willing to bet a box of bullets that Israel takes out Iran's nuclear capability before Bush leaves office.

After Iran's head terrorist's statement about wiping Israel off the map, I think you're probably right.

 

[bg]

With all respect to the military, we can't even get a single guy living
in a cave somewhere. How do we go about taking on an even bigger
campaign than what's going on now ? Red China would love to see
us step in it deeper, then it'd be their ideal chance to jump on Taiwan
and other pacific areas. No one can tell me they wouldn't like to see their
style government end up in South Korea..Seems like this has turned
into more of a new age crusades than anything else.

 

[Old Dog]

I don't buy it ... we'd have to take some action in the very near future, which we're simply not prepared to do ... and shortly comes the segue into the congressional election year, and not even this administration could be so ... dumb ... as to expand our military operations in the Mid-East prior to what will probably be one of the ugliest campaign years in recent memory.

We have so many sailors sitting around, doing nothing, maybe we should send in the Navy.

Sorry, you can't slide this one past me, not since I've spent 23 months away from home in the past three years ... You'd be surprised, not just at the numbers of Navy personnel deployed in and around the Gulf and the Mid-East, but at the numbers of us who've had boots on the ground in Iraq.

 

[fjolnirsson]

Ok, for just a moment, let's say I buy into the whole ,"liberating a nation and spreading democracy" thing.
How about we liberate the American people, before we go mucking about all over the globe? How about enforcing our own Constitution, before we go writing one for somebody else?
Just askin'....

 

[rick_reno]

We've been getting a little short on boogie men, and one thing America needs are boogie men. Gotta keep the populace worried - worried people are easier to manipulate. Syria, Smiria...who cares.

 

[WT]

From the US Navy website. (Oct. 28, 2005)
http://www.navy.mil/palib/news/.www/status.html

Active Duty = 361,899
Midshipmen = 4,380
Ready Reserve = 140,831
____________________
TOTAL SAILORS AVAILABLE = 507,110

Less Personnel deployed = 35,884

TOTAL SAILORS SITTING AROUND DRINKING COFFEE = 471,226

_______
We've got too many swabbies!

Transfer 100,000 to the Coast Guard. Put another 100,000 on border watch along Syria or Iran. Another 100,000 along the Texas-Arizona border with Mexico.

 

[Pocket.38]

We've been getting a little short on boogie men, and one thing America needs are boogie men. Gotta keep the populace worried - worried people are easier to manipulate. Syria, Smiria...who cares.

Right on brother!

 

[Kurush]

Broadening the war worked really well with Cambodia and Laos, why not try it again :banghead:

 

[Brett Bellmore]

You're always going to find yourself over-extended, when you artificially limit the war zone to a small fraction of the enemy's territory, leaving their infrastructure, command and control, and economies intact. We ARE at war with Iran and Syria, and have been for over a year; They've taken numerous actions in that time that constitute acts of war. We just haven't been waging war back at them, and thus victory has been impossible, because we've been allowing them to attack us on the cheap, without consequences.

The reason broadening the war in Viet Nam into Laos and Cambodia didn't help much, is simply that they weren't our foe, the USSR was our foe. A foe we didn't dare confront directly. Syria and Iran aren't (yet) in that catagory, though if we give Iran enough time they might make it.

 

[Jeff White]

Unfortunately, under the Rumsfeld doctrine, we are so overextended that any expansion of the war would be very dangerous. Instead of getting congress to declare war in September of 2001, and expanding the military to the size we needed it to be to fight the kind of go anywhere, pay any price war the administration promised the GWOT would be, we allowed the big defense contractors to cuddle up to the civilian leadership in DOD and convince them that war is just a videogame and can be swiftly won from the air with very expensive precision weapons...they also bought into the notion that a people who had never tasted freedom and really weren't a nation once the army that enslaved them was defeated, that those same people would greet our small contingent of ground forces as liberators and a new civilian government would magically spring forth from the fertile sands between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers......

We're still stumbling blindly down the road of transformation....creating a military that is not ready to fight any conflict in the foreseeable future.

No we aren't going to war with Syria and Iran..we don't have the ground troops to do it. And under the plans for transformation...we won't....

Jeff

 

[beerslurpy]

Well they could always bring back conscription. Call it the "immigration reform act of 2005" and offer 20 dollars an hour to anyone that will volunteer to serve as mercenaries. Lets see if Mexicans really will do the jobs Americans dont want.

20 million mexicans armed with pointed sticks could probably take china, let alone syria. Not only would syria be completely pacified, but their streets would be cleaned and their lawns would be perfectly manicured. Wal-Mart could probably open up shop the week after.

In all seriousness, Rumsfeld is going to have to find a new hobby or find more people to join his team. Since people arent volunteering, this only leaves the "eenie-meenie-minie-moe" that we all remember from the 60s.

 

[Waitone]

Once again Rep. Paul complains about a potential course of action while offering no alternative. Syria is a puss-filled sore infecting the the area. It is a base of operations for the terrorists operating in Iraq. I thought we might have learned a lesson or two about open sanctuaries during war. Guess not. What I want to know is why wasn't Syria dealt with during the first part of Gulf II? You simply do not leave sanctuaries unmolested. We are continually fighting terrorists coming across the border so I guess Rep. Paul's contribution to strategy is to plug his ears and sing "LaLaLaLa."

Are we in a war or not. If the answer is yes, then conduct your operations like you are fighting a war and that means going after the supply areas, c-in-c, HQ, political nodes, and support personnel. Maybe someone ought to ask Paul what he would do. . . . .and no, leaving the Middle East is not an answer.

 

[longhorngunman]

Let's see, Syria- a thorn in our side and openly allowing or even ordering terrorists into Iraq to kill our troops and spread havoc( also would be nice to see if ole Assad has Saddam's WMD, he DID have them and did something with them), hard to let Iraq stabilize until Syria is dealt with. Iran- Do we do the inevitable and destroy the mullahs now or wait to deal with them after they have the Nuclear bomb? There's no stick your head in the sand on this one, there is no chance for America or our allies to ever have a feeling of peace again and actual progress in the ME until Iran is delt with. BTW I believe the Bush administration was hoping that Syria and Iran would fall from within if enough pressure was applied. That still may happen in Syria( most accounts have Assad as not having overwhelming control), contrary to most Americans belief a sizable majority of Iranians would like to have the mullahs out themselves. The "elections" in Iran are a joke and it isn't like the US where rebellion towards the 'rulers' a la Cindy Sheehan is accepted. If Cindy had done in Iran what she tried here she would have long ago taken a dirt nap . Alas I don't see the young Iranians wielding the power or arms to overthrow the mullahs, so I say the bombing begins in 8 months.

 

[KriegHund]

Lets just take over the entire middle east.

Except isreal.

In all syria-isness im interested in what shall happen.

 

[Zedicus]

I'd say Serya is begging to be Glassed, & has been for many years.

 

[carp killer]

The US is one small step from the Draft. And if that happens before Bush is out of office, Hillary is the next President. And say good bye to your 2nd Amendment.

 

[Byron Quick]

Our military defeated Iraq in three weeks with minimal casualties. We could do the same in Syria and Iran. The problem comes in with the 'nation building.' That's where we've lost our casualties. So don't do it. Smash the regime and its military. Withdraw to bases away from urban areas that cannot be covertly approached by insurgents. Tell the inhabitants to build a government on their own. Tell them that if we don't like the new government's policies that we'll smash it too and continue the process until all the militants finally crawl out from under their rocks.

The danger from these people comes from being intermingled with the general population and not being able to distinguish friend from foe. So don't try. Smash the known enemy and leave. Observe. When a new regime puts hostile policies in place-come back and smash it, too. Repeat. Allow food and medical supplies to reach the civilian population from non-US sources. When Ayatollah Whomever stands up and calls for jihad, blow him and all of his known supporters to pieces. Leave. Repeat. A hostile country over there begins building a nuclear complex. Watch it. When it's almost complete, destroy it. Leave. Repeat. Support the elements of a society that are congruent with our policies. Very covertly.
The problem is not defeating these people. The problem is policing these people. So don't try to police them. Just keep smashing them until the militants are so weakened that a segment of the indigenous people gain control that can be dealt with.