This news article indicates that this is likely in the near future, and for good reason.
I think it would be a bad idea. The Syrians are bastards, and Assad should be overthrown, but we have our hands full in Iraq, and any regime change in Syria would take resources we just don’t want to spend right now.
No, we shouldn’t attack Syria.
I like these short debates…
And keep in mind when you read the article, that this is Maariv here, which is known for its understated style, careful factchecking, and conservative approach to the news. 
They all hate us anyhow
So let’s drop the Big One now…
No, we shouldn’t invade Syria. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq (and I said so before it happened).
OK, answer this question very carefully:
Why should Syria be invaded? Tell us all the justifications now.
Be prepared for some follow-up questions.
OK, I read that entire article, and I didn’t see any good reasons. Care to elaborate?
(You’ve been too long on the SDMB when you holler “Cite?” every two sentences just reading something.)
Invade? No. One carefully placed nuke ought to do the trick.
[/sarcasm]
This can’t be serious can it? “They (Syria) are pissing me off” should go over beautifully when presented to the world stage. :rolleyes:
I believe that in this case news should be put in quotes.
Syria is not only harboring the “insurgents” who have escaped Fallujah but is actively helping them financially and otherwise. Terrorists (using the right term) has been using Syria as a springboard to invade Iraq for some time. Despite Syria’s agreeing to crack down on them, the numbers have actually increased. Fallujah is becoming reinstalled as a terrorist hideout due to their returning there after receiving a safe haven in Syria. So it will take more resources, but wouldn’t it be better to attack them at their base and not in Iraq? Either way will require more resources.
Not on point, I agreed with Bush on attacking Iraq, but the Defense Dept. has bungled this terribly and Bush is plodding along with the same team. It received expert advise on how to handle the situation, but ignored it. Not to debate these points which have been debated endlessly, I’m sure, but just my opinion.
They’re aiding our enemy.
Bush doesn’t believe in the world stage, remember? They’re “irrelevant”…
Even if we *should * invade Syria, with what resources *could * we? As I understand it, we’re close to being over-extended now.
You mean they’re not helping you as much as you demand.
It would be in their best interest if they did.
No, a lot of countries aren’t helping us as much as we’d like. Syria is allowing Iraqi insurgents to base and supply on their territory. They’re not just not helping us, they’re helping the enemy.
That’s the rub. The draft is always an option, but not an immediate solution. Not on point again, Bush says this is an all-volunteer armed forces. Tell that to those guys who tried “TryOne” and now can’t get out.
A possibility is the rearrangement of our armed forces in the various countries, such as Korea, Germany, etc. The forces in Korea are a real deterrent there, although many of the young Koreans want us out. Hell, if they want us out, we should leave. Those forces can be used elsewhere. We have many forces in other countries that are really not needed there.
Without a draft, it can’t be done. We’re stretched to the limit as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan (some would argue well beyond the limit), so adding another front to TWAT means putting the nation on a war footing that would probably approach the level of commitment we saw during Vietnam.
A number of effects cascade from an expansion of the present Gulf War. Certainly, an attack on Syria would take Iran away from the bargaining table permanently, and hasten the day they become a nuclear power. As they are already developing long-range ballistic missiles, this makes Iran a percieved imminent threat to Israel. Israel has vowed to act if Iran develops nuclear weapons that could be delivered to points within her borders.
So you see the potential for a rapid escalation and expansion of the conflict in the Gulf region, with the remote potential of becoming a nuclear conflict of limited scope. Any such massive war would have devastating effect on the world economy, with the resultant disruption of oil supplies, and market fear driving up demand. Even if the expanded war could be contained in Iraq and Syrian, it’s likely market anxiety would still push oil prices up significantly, and put further strain on our economy.
Let’s face it: Syria and Iran have us by the gonads. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. It’s precisely the kind of position we never should have put ourselves in, and now we’ve no choice but to pursue one of two unappealing paths: Remain in Iraq and attempt to mitigate constant insurrection fueled by external interference, or attack the sources of external interference and potentially escalate the conlfict to a massive regional war eveloping much of the Middle East.
So, do you want a persistant war of attrition in Iraq, or an escalation of the conflict that might go nuclear? I suppose a third option is cut-and-run, leaving Iraq to implode into civil war, which will likely draw in neighboring powers.
Don’t you feel safer? Boy, I sure do.
So’s Rumsfeld, and he’s closer to home.