Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did President Bush declare "War" Against Syria and Iran?

Yellow_Devil said:
zzzzzz

thought this was about Syria and Iran?

absolutely right yellow devil,
sorry to go off thread.

although then again unless we understand properly and fully what we have done up to now we can't of course move foreward in the correct manner.

As for sven take it to PMs Mr RightReason/Wrongwar.
Did I get that the right way around?
And when exactly did you decide that the reason given had been wrong?
Bet thats one you don't want to answer.
 

Sven

LE
SLRboy said:
Yellow_Devil said:
zzzzzz

thought this was about Syria and Iran?

absolutely right yellow devil,
sorry to go off thread.

although then again unless we understand properly and fully what we have done up to now we can't of course move foreward properly.

As for sven take it to PMs Mr RightReason/Wrongwar.
Did I get that the right way around?

So tell me sven, when we attack Syria & Iran will it be to free those people from tyranny then?

If it happens, I'll tell You if I support it.

As for PMs, that doesn't float my boat - start a thread and I'll contribute
 
Of course you will support it - because it will have happened - and you will go with the flow.

Me on the other hand will tell you right now - it would both be wrong on every indice and end up badly.
 

Giblets

War Hero
SLRboy said:
Giblets,
I hope on more reflection you might revise your idea that limited strikes inside of either Syria or Iran is a feasible idea.

Apart from Russia and China having a thing or two to say about that, attacks on American and British targets anywhere in the world would begin.

Then, the very War on Terror of idiot fancy would really begin in ernest.
We in the Anglo/American orbit ought to wake up to the fact that our actions so far have already cost us dear, losing us friends and creating hostility towards us all around the world.

How many 'friends'in Europe and around the world have lost people through terrorist attacks? In the ME, in Europe, in the USA, in Indonesia, in Russia, in the Philippines and loads of other places. The source of the attacks has been Islamic.

So far that hostility has been rather mute.
Attack Iran and Syria and it will become a bit more lively.

That's as may be, but just as muted are the very numerous states that are applauding the fact that the US and the UK are keeping the flip-flops busy as hell in two parts of the globe and dishing out some good medicine.

And don't be fooled by thinking just because we have large armed forces and weapons that we would be safe - we wouldn't.

Think more that we are a like powerful predator like a lion - that suddenly gets attacked by a swarm of angry bees.

Can we not fight these terrorists and maybe even states on all fronts? Don't kid yourself. WW2 was only 60 years ago, and that was fought by the UK and USA on every landmass around the globe simultaneously against FAR better motivated and FAR better armed foes.

If push comes to shove, I am confident that we would be able to do so again. It's not been more than 5 minutes since we knocked the Soviets off their pedestal. Again, far better armed, far more dangerous, not only to us but all of mankind and far bigger than all the Islamic states put together.

What China has got to do with things, I'm not rightly sure. They haven't seemed too fussed about Iraq have they? The only concern that China and Russia have, when the chips are down, is that the Oil keeps flowing. If we put that at risk, the whole world will kick off (a bad thing).


Golden rule - don't take military action for a short term gain that could result in a larger war of god knows how long duration.
That would really threaten 'Our Way of Life' now wouldn't it?

Fair do. BUT . . . where do we go back to? The whole Arab culture is based around showing strength, and weakness is mocked even if it is sensible. If the west drops out of this one, not only will Iraq go into full scale battle with the neighbouring countries meddling like crazy, but we will be seen as weak to boot. This will not look good on a resume, and it may open us up to further problems down the line, where an enemy in say the ME thinks that if they carry on the attrition long enough, we will always back down.

Limited strikes did Israel no harm in the past with a number of bombing runs in neighbouring countries.

Islam has been on the march for some considerable tme, on the landmasses around the world bar NONE. They have been on the march through sedition, terrorism and subversion. As sponsors, both ideologically and in material, they have had support from the ME, whether they have been Sunni, Shia, Wahabbi or other flavours.

Like it or not, I believe it is but a matter of time, no matter what we choose to do now, be it peaceful chat or full scale war, before Islam tries to pull a big fast one, such as a nuke in Washington, Germ Warfare in the UK. We need to get our message across sooner rather than later that we will take them on, in any place, in any scenario and we will go all the way. This is the message we need to put out.

During the heady days of the kidnappings of westerners in the 80's, do you know how many Soviet hostages were taken? I believe it was only one. The story is a good one. The moral is, and in fact the words have been spoken recently: 'Whatever you choose to do in your form of attack, our response will be disproportionately larger' (words to that effect but the message is still the same).
 

Yellow_Devil

War Hero
Giblets said:
Islam has been on the march for some considerable tme, on the landmasses around the world bar NONE. They have been on the march through sedition, terrorism and subversion. As sponsors, both ideologically and in material, they have had support from the ME, whether they have been Sunni, Shia, Wahabbi or other flavours.

Like it or not, I believe it is but a matter of time, no matter what we choose to do now, be it peaceful chat or full scale war, before Islam tries to pull a big fast one, such as a nuke in Washington, Germ Warfare in the UK. We need to get our message across sooner rather than later that we will take them on, in any place, in any scenario and we will go all the way. This is the message we need to put out.

Gibbo,

Your earlier post about the tactical effects of the latest US effort in Baghdad was bang-on.

But your last is frankly raving. "Islam is on the march"? Maybe Bin Laden would like you to think so, but we're talking about a billion people, living across the whole of the Earth's surface, from Morocco to China, as well as the diaspora communities in the West.

That's as crazy as saying that the West is on a Crusade.

Btw the reason Russians weren't kidnapped is partly because the Soviets were broadly sympathetic to Marxist revolutionary movements (this was in the days before Islamism, remember?) and also because they were on the "right" side in the Arab-Israeli wars (as purveyors of arms to the Syrians, Egyptians et al). Not because they were seen as the toughest kids in town.
 

Snagglepuss

Old-Salt
Giblets said:
Can we not fight these terrorists and maybe even states on all fronts? Don't kid yourself. WW2 was only 60 years ago, and that was fought by the UK and USA on every landmass around the globe simultaneously against FAR better motivated and FAR better armed foes.

If push comes to shove, I am confident that we would be able to do so again. It's not been more than 5 minutes since we knocked the Soviets off their pedestal. Again, far better armed, far more dangerous, not only to us but all of mankind and far bigger than all the Islamic states put together.

Are you for real????
We could fight on all fronts - like WW2 - sorry last time I looked we were struggling to fight on 2 fronts, how many more do you think we could handle??!!!
Far better motivated foes - do you really think so?
I dont know what else to say......
SP
 

Giblets

War Hero
Snagglepuss said:
Giblets said:
Can we not fight these terrorists and maybe even states on all fronts? Don't kid yourself. WW2 was only 60 years ago, and that was fought by the UK and USA on every landmass around the globe simultaneously against FAR better motivated and FAR better armed foes.

If push comes to shove, I am confident that we would be able to do so again. It's not been more than 5 minutes since we knocked the Soviets off their pedestal. Again, far better armed, far more dangerous, not only to us but all of mankind and far bigger than all the Islamic states put together.

Are you for real????
We could fight on all fronts - like WW2 - sorry last time I looked we were struggling to fight on 2 fronts, how many more do you think we could handle??!!!
Far better motivated foes - do you really think so?
I dont know what else to say......
SP

We could not fight WW2 until we had re-armed to face the threat, which we did in the 30's and can do again if needed. The trick is to get the cnuts in gummint to take the lesson of history on board and support the forces in action with proper funding.

Do you not think that the germins and nippons were motivated then? The nippons, had they been in control of Iraq, would they have legged it? The germins, did they leg it back to Berlin in 100 hours like GW1? What did the Taliban do during the first western onslaught? The fcuked off into the hills.

I ask again, who was more motivated?

Do you honestly believe that if the whole of the Arab world went toe to toe with the UK and the USA that they might even get close to winning?

I think you are SERIOUSLY underestimating the current military strength of our combined armies, not to mention how much money and industrial strength we have to re-arm quickly should the need arise.
 

mussolini93

Old-Salt
Never mind the tin foil hats. It might be time to get that old NBC kit out of the loft.

The really scary senario is that with the US army at full stretch already, so any war with Iran and/or Syria would need tactical nukes to multiply the available remaining force.

Did he actually declare war on Somalia before he started bombing it last week ? Does it even matter any more ?

And the guy from the House questioning the Bush policy the other day was Mr Kerry, Bush's old mate from Skull and Bones who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the last election. It will be like being worried by a dead sheep if the Democrats allow him to be their spokesperson!
 

Yellow_Devil

War Hero
Giblets said:
I think you are SERIOUSLY underestimating the current military strength of our combined armies, not to mention how much money and industrial strength we have to re-arm quickly should the need arise.

The problem is not money. The US and UK have poured billions into this war.

The problem is that we are not fighting the war the right way. I read today that Petraeus has been heavily influenced by the "hearts and minds" strategy used by the British in Malaya and the Special Administration officers in French Algeria, and intends to change US doctrine as a reult.

But this is 2007! They've been in Iraq for over three years, and it's taken them that f*kin long to work out their mistakes!
 

Giblets

War Hero
Yellow_Devil said:
Giblets said:
I think you are SERIOUSLY underestimating the current military strength of our combined armies, not to mention how much money and industrial strength we have to re-arm quickly should the need arise.

The problem is not money. The US and UK have poured billions into this war.

The problem is that we are not fighting the war the right way. I read today that Petraeus has been heavily influenced by the "hearts and minds" strategy used by the British in Malaya and the Special Administration officers in French Algeria, and intends to change US doctrine as a reult.

But this is 2007! They've been in Iraq for over three years, and it's taken them that f*kin long to work out their mistakes!

Go figure - that's pretty quick for a septic. I'm sure this is partly the reason why we have had it relatively quiet in our bit (apart from the fact that they are mostly shia). One lesson that was learned very early on the last century was that hearts and minds were easier and cheaper to conquer than armies. Well demonstrated in Malaya AND Borneo.

As for he funds, on a war footing, you would be amazed at how much money can become fluid once again in times of need. Let's not forget that the billions spent on these wars have been spent on British and US suppliers and manufacturers, so the money is still floating around the system in one form or another. The problems only start when civilian production turns to arms manufacture rather than wealth creation, as happened in WW2 and which effectively bankrupted (with a little help from the septics) the British Empire.
 

Yellow_Devil

War Hero
Giblets said:
Go figure - that's pretty quick for a septic. I'm sure this is partly the reason why we have had it relatively quiet in our bit (apart from the fact that they are mostly shia). One lesson that was learned very early on the last century was that hearts and minds were easier and cheaper to conquer than armies. Well demonstrated in Malaya AND Borneo.

not forgetting Northern Ireland, either - not so much hearts and minds, but totally changed the British Army in terms of dealing with hostile locals, handling VCPs, riot control, rules of engagement etc

the one thing the British lack is reliable intelligence - which is a function of lack of language skills and understanding of local politics. but this is not so surprising given the rush to war in 2003. finding and training operators to do this is a long-term project so not surprising we were under-manned (remember back in 2003/2004 when they were flying in university students on Arabic course during the summer break?)

compare that with Malaya/Borneo in the 50s and 60s when there were expats who'd been there for donkeys years, as well as blokes who'd been jungle-fighting in WW2 - no wonder it's not that easy down south
 

Snagglepuss

Old-Salt
Giblets said:
Do you not think that the germins and nippons were motivated then? The nippons, had they been in control of Iraq, would they have legged it? The germins, did they leg it back to Berlin in 100 hours like GW1? What did the Taliban do during the first western onslaught? The fcuked off into the hills.

I ask again, who was more motivated?

Do you honestly believe that if the whole of the Arab world went toe to toe with the UK and the USA that they might even get close to winning?

I think you are SERIOUSLY underestimating the current military strength of our combined armies, not to mention how much money and industrial strength we have to re-arm quickly should the need arise.

So by your own arguments why havent we won already with our great military might?
Why are the 'Islamic hordes' still fighting back?
Can we really beat 'them' by might alone, if 'they' can convince 15 year olds to become suicide bombers?
Is the 'Arab world' really going to fight us toe to toe? Do the Islamic terrorists need or want to fight us head on, or will they continue small skirmishing attacks, roadside bombs and suicide / car bombs?
If the majority of the population want US forces out ASAP, are we winning?
I think you SERIOUSLY overestimate the use of force and military strength.
SP
 

Giblets

War Hero
Look here now, you aren't playing the game are you?

Let me help you out.

Need more funds, more guns, right, need to find an enemy, righty-ho, found one, hhhhmmmm, silly flippy-floppies . . .

Oh, not much of a battle for that bugger, aaah, I know, they've got WMD!!! Righty-ho, in we go . . .

with me so far?

They aren't putting up much of a fight are they? This is more like a police action than a nice war, damn, still not enough fun to increase the budgets!

Aaahaaaaaaa . . .

My God, the whole world (or the flippy-floppy bit of it) is attacking, full-on, from all sides, at once, in the dark, we are all dooooooommed!!!

Now will you increase the budgets?

I don't know why I said the bit about the hordes, but in la-la land, it would have made a great sound bite. And I'm sorry mr Bliar for plagiarising your WMD quote.

I'm just trying other ways to get the readers, (some of whom have got more chest medals than me) to spend more money on defense.
 

Snagglepuss

Old-Salt
Giblets said:
Look here now, you aren't playing the game are you?

Let me help you out.
I'm just trying other ways to get the readers, (some of whom have got more chest medals than me) to spend more money on defense.

Ok Giblets - I dont need any help - you are 'arguing' our 'Military might' will win the day (with more funding) - I am saying that I do not believe military might will win.
How much money has America thrown at this, and how successful have they been?
Is that clear enough for you to understand my side?
SP
 

Winstanley

Clanker
Watch this space! Bush has a couple of years to run. He doesn't have much of a record and wants to impress.

I suspect that Iran (and even possibly Pakistan?) will be targets over thye coming year. Please, please, please!...TB do not follow suit.
 
Giblets,
Stalin once asked "how many legions does the pope have?"
So how many legions does Al Qaeda have. none.

Its a brand name, a franchise operation.
Groups around the world will form break up use the name when it suits, drop it when it doesn't - In fact they will be using it like western agencies.

How many Europeans have they killed you ask?
I don't know off hand, but I'd hazard a guess about 300 over five years.
Puts them in the same league as Bader Meinhof, Red Brigades, ETA and IRA.

Sounds to me like a police job.
So whats with all the big ineffective military operations?

Search me.

So as we can see they will never be big enough or organised enough to take over a country.
(Don't mention Somalia - the Islamic gov. wanted good relations with America - and America didn't want to talk. And America's huff is getting on every body's wick.)

This Islamic Caliphate business is just an IDEA that keeps them warm at nights.
Most of them are no more of a threat to the Western way of life (what ever the f'uck that is) than the communist radicals of seventies Britain, so many of whom now run the bloody country.

Good honest international police work everybody being seen to operate according to the law works best.
Wins respect coupled with less war and more jaw and economic development.

You catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.
All this war does is create more fear and uncertainty.
You don't get the best out people when their nerves are on edge.

but i'm afraid you can't take the oil question out of the equation.
For all we know this war in Iraq may be a noisy way of telling the world:

We have just passed peak oil folks!
 
Winstanley said:
Watch this space! Bush has a couple of years to run. He doesn't have much of a record and wants to impress.

I suspect that Iran (and even possibly Pakistan?) will be targets over thye coming year. Please, please, please!...TB do not follow suit.

Yeah and you know what - the chimp then for his own selfish reasons would get India fighting Pakistan.

Honestly people - just listen to us?
Can any of you imagine having such a discussion as we are forced by circumstance to have now - speaking like this ten years ago?

Our selves then would imagine that ourselves now had totally flipped.
That's George W. Bush's legacy - thanks very much - c'nut.
 
Yellow_Devil said:
Giblets said:
Go figure - that's pretty quick for a septic. I'm sure this is partly the reason why we have had it relatively quiet in our bit (apart from the fact that they are mostly shia). One lesson that was learned very early on the last century was that hearts and minds were easier and cheaper to conquer than armies. Well demonstrated in Malaya AND Borneo.

not forgetting Northern Ireland, either - not so much hearts and minds, but totally changed the British Army in terms of dealing with hostile locals, handling VCPs, riot control, rules of engagement etc

the one thing the British lack is reliable intelligence - which is a function of lack of language skills and understanding of local politics. but this is not so surprising given the rush to war in 2003. finding and training operators to do this is a long-term project so not surprising we were under-manned (remember back in 2003/2004 when they were flying in university students on Arabic course during the summer break?)

compare that with Malaya/Borneo in the 50s and 60s when there were expats who'd been there for donkeys years, as well as blokes who'd been jungle-fighting in WW2 - no wonder it's not that easy down south

yeah yellow dog, we need a few T.E.Lawrence's and a few Wilfred Thesiger plus some woman whose name I forget.
We have no one there who has gone native.
 

New Posts

Top