PDA

View Full Version : Why is Syria pulling out?



Sally
14 Mar 2005, 06:41 PM
With so little resistance, that is.

Do they fear violent rebeillion within Lebanon? Getting on the US's bad side? Was the occupation overly taxing, and now they're glad to have an excuse to abandon it?

How did they benefit from occupying Lebanon?

Swift
14 Mar 2005, 06:51 PM
They are afraid they will undergo the same fate as Iraq.

Sally
14 Mar 2005, 06:55 PM
I can't believe that that's the only reason.

Aren't they losing face over this?

Helios
14 Mar 2005, 06:57 PM
The regime is weak, and imperial adventures abroad are exspensive and useless longterm. Think, what if Syria had taken all that money and spent it on investment a la Dubai? I know they live in a rough neihgborhood, but they have always been part of the problem. But I sorta feel bad for the kid, he got this mess form his Dad.

Claverhouse
14 Mar 2005, 10:43 PM
I can't imagine feeling sorry for Assad junior ( let alone his old man, who resembled a Canadian Lumberjack with the penchant for burying people alive rather than transvestitism ), but Syria's pulling out ( which occupation had the same quite rational reasons as the British Army being in Belfast ( The catholics welcomed us in to protect them from the prots; then the prots backed us because the IRA/INLA etc. were murdering people, including catholics, so the catholics turned against us; while the prots were murdering/torturing both catholics/themselves... If you think it's a mess since the Brits moved in, you can't conceive what it may have been like had they not. Fortunately both sides have settled down to dealing in drugs and extortion, with only the occasional murder/torture to keep their hands in. )) is probably due to the machinations of the US and it's Israeli keepers.

But the strength of Syria militarily remains high. Whilst Bushie and his keepers naturally feel the tide is right for further remodeling of the Middle East to suit America ( and etc. ), any new regime change there of hideous tyrannical states whether Iran, Syria, Pakistan or Israel ( sorry, I meant Saudi ) will convince the muslim world that America is on a real religious crusade against Islam.

And Terror will really start to bloom.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

CapnEnnui
15 Mar 2005, 04:58 AM
They didn't wear protection. It feels better that way.

mgb
15 Mar 2005, 05:20 AM
( let alone his old man, who resembled a Canadian Lumberjack

http://www.rnw.nl/informarn/assets/images/assad.jpg
http://lumberjacksandlacey.mmwa-sicw.com/images/Lumberjack-Gabe_03.png

Close, but I think he looks more like a socialist...

http://ndp.ca/uploaded/20040619090148_JackLayton1en1200960.jpg

Helios
15 Mar 2005, 03:17 PM
I can't imagine feeling sorry for Assad junior ( let alone his old man, who resembled a Canadian Lumberjack with the penchant for burying people alive rather than transvestitism ),

Claverhouse :ph34r:




I was viewing the Middle East more as a strategy game with little plastic pieces, verse real people.


I do love Monty however.

Shai Gar
16 Mar 2005, 01:48 PM
Why is Syria pulling out? (showthread.php?t=3180)
they forgot the condom, and they dont want another israel

MacGuffin
16 Mar 2005, 02:17 PM
they forgot the condom, and they dont want another israel
:rofl:

DevNull
18 Mar 2005, 05:39 AM
Whilst Bushie and his keepers naturally feel the tide is right

It goes beyond "feeling the tide is right".

We have the Pentagon to crunch the numbers.

They do it expertly. Do not forget that.

mgb
18 Mar 2005, 05:51 AM
It goes beyond "feeling the tide is right".

We have the Pentagon to crunch the numbers.

They do it expertly. Do not forget that.


Is this a sarcastic post?

DevNull
18 Mar 2005, 06:06 AM
Is this a sarcastic post?

No. The Pentagon is top dog in the realm of applied rational masterminding on our planet.

Disregard all of the funny toilet seat jokes and six-hundred dollar bolt jokes.

They are not perfect, but they are effective. Spookily effective. Luckily their orders are from Capitalists for the time being.

Shai Gar
18 Mar 2005, 07:09 AM
ah.. it WAS a joke.

anyone else heard of friendly fire? heh.
the pentagon just have more money than anyone else.

DevNull
18 Mar 2005, 07:17 AM
anyone else heard of friendly fire?

Terms like "friendly fire" come from the Pentagon.

If they do not, then they sure as hell do not make it to the mainstream media without the approval of the Pentagon.

Laughing at a think tank is foolish. Laughing at an American think tank is downright irrational. Laughing at an American think tank that has billions of dollars at their disposal is so ESFJ on Halidol.

Shai Gar
18 Mar 2005, 07:22 AM
i dont laugh, except sadly, i plot to wipe them out

DevNull
18 Mar 2005, 07:41 AM
i dont laugh, except sadly, i plot to wipe them out

I am usually not a big fan of listening to what Hollywood says, but as Dr Evil in Austin Powers taught me, you don't go telling people of your plans.

You just screwed up.

Bigtime.

(Something tells me that Shai has built a nefarious weapon that involves one, or possibly both of his shift keys on his keyboard)

DevNull
18 Mar 2005, 07:45 AM
No, but seriously, Shai.

You cannot be bothered to press the shift key when typing the letter "I" in your posts.

Does your plan involve you loafing after presenting your intentions? Will you loaf so much as to grind the Pentagon to a halt whilst they try to monitor your mammothly proportioned sloth? Do tell!

Claverhouse
18 Mar 2005, 07:41 PM
For another view of the Pentagon, check out an old ( 1985 ) book called 'Military Incompetence' by Richard A. Gabriel ( then a former army --- 21 years --- intelligence major assigned to the Pentagon, and a professor of Politics ) pub by Hill & Wang/Farrar, Straus & Giroux [ No ISBN no: geez, what's with American publishers' incompetence ? ] detailing stuff post-Vietnam.

The stuff on Granada is particularly funny, but then it would be an extraordinary person who couldn't be funny on that episode of military genius... ( The Simpsons in Grenada (http://www.thehistorian.co.uk/stylites1.html) Geoffrey Regan )

I don't have your honest trust in military staffs. The Great General Staff was the best ever, then Bonaparte's, but even they had fatal flaws --- perhaps caused by inevitable circumstances. In the Pentagon's case, merely running the enormous US Military Machine detracts from strategic thinking.

And Murphy's Law applies in military life as much as in civilian.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Anyway, some people believe the $600 hammer things were merely ways of appropriating monies for, ahem, 'special projects'. Very sensible too. ]

Shai Gar
19 Mar 2005, 12:21 PM
I don't bother with capitalising the personal pronoun, so sue me. Unless of course, it is at the start of a sentence.