American Raid in Syria

[baggygreen]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24563530-23109,00.html

Interesting reading.

Admission of a violation of territorial integrity by the yanks means that some real low-life mongrel was killed or captured. There is no way in hell that the yanks would fly 4 choppers into Syria and start shooting up civvies.

From a purely emotional standpoint I say good on 'em, but from a more objective point of view it is a real issue. Whoever it was must have been worth one heck of a risk, for the yanks to attack in Syria... Who knows what those crazies in Damascus might do.

[Skybird]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24563530-23109,00.html

Interesting reading.

Admission of a violation of territorial integrity by the yanks means that some real low-life mongrel was killed or captured. There is no way in hell that the yanks would fly 4 choppers into Syria and start shooting up civvies.

Agree, on the basis of assuming that their intel was correct, and the commando did not mistake place and target.

[caspofungin]

Who knows what those crazies in Damascus might do.

Nothing that the crazies in Washington haven't already perfected.

[Dowly]

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind... :roll:

[Skybird]

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind... :roll:
It was meanwhile said they were after an AlQuaeda key person who managed the recruiting and trafficking of Al Quaeda fighters from Syria into Iraq, and out again and back to safe haven. Maybe the lacking interest of the world public has to do with the limitation in sympathy for terrorists doing like this.

[Dowly]

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind... :roll: It was meanwhile said they were after an AlQuaeda key person who managed the recruiting and trafficking of Al Quaeda fighters from Syria into Iraq, and out again and back to safe haven. Maybe the lacking interest of the world public has to do with the limitation in sympathy for terrorists doing like this.

But the least US could've done is to notify Syria about it. Sure there's always the change the info get's leaked and the target isnt there, but that's a risk that would be had to be taken. I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:

[Skybird]

But the least US could've done is to notify Syria about it. Sure there's always the change the info get's leaked and the target isnt there, but that's a risk that would be had to be taken.
That risk is a certain given. You can call off the whole operation then. that is as absurd as that British polcie going after a Muslim terror suspect now has to tell his religious community first, so that they can call and warn him, and afterwards know of nothing. The Syrian government is no neutal player, but party in this conflict. Thus, you do not warn it. Or better: you warn it - by executing a warning example.

Like this mission, for example.

I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:

6-12 weeks, I assume. That's why they would not do it. Lesson of it: weakness is never a virtue or a sign of civilised manners. It simply is what it is: weakness.

[Digital_Trucker]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Skybird:up:

[Skybird]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Skybird:up:
It seems at times we can agree on some things. ;)

[owner20071963]

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind... :roll: It was meanwhile said they were after an AlQuaeda key person who managed the recruiting and trafficking of Al Quaeda fighters from Syria into Iraq, and out again and back to safe haven. Maybe the lacking interest of the world public has to do with the limitation in sympathy for terrorists doing like this.
But the least US could've done is to notify Syria about it. Sure there's always the change the info get's leaked and the target isnt there, but that's a risk that would be had to be taken. I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm: Aye aye,America is in its Worst Recession ever,Which Corporate Banks Created so,,,Could this be an Excuse for War?:hmm:

[Oberon]

I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:

6-12 weeks, I assume. That's why they would not do it. Lesson of it: weakness is never a virtue or a sign of civilised manners. It simply is what it is: weakness.

Which boils down to the age old question, is might necessarily right?

[Skybird]

I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:

6-12 weeks, I assume. That's why they would not do it. Lesson of it: weakness is never a virtue or a sign of civilised manners. It simply is what it is: weakness.

Which boils down to the age old question, is might necessarily right?
No, and might without sense of resopnsibility is tyranny. Power can corrupt. Nevertheless improvement and progress lies in increasing the number of your options, and that you will never acchieve by beeing weak, but only by being strong (in a wider meaning of the word). Thus it is better to have strength and not needing to use it, than to be in need of strength but not having it. What victims of crimes usually have in common is that they were weak. Of the strong ones, some are just, others are not. The latter are a problem.

[Zachstar]

The attack was stupid period. And nobody is going into another country unless the command came from the top.

Lately we have been WAYYY to eager to "Temp-invade" other nations from our bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only reason they have not responded with economic warfare is I could only guess the hope that the next president will be a wee bit more sane.

[Letum]

America should not expect others to respect it's rights as a sovereign nation if it
does not do so for others. Let alone cooperation.

They might claim moral authority, but the US is very lacking in that currency in the
eyes of the majority of the world.

[Zachstar]

America should not expect others to respect it's rights as a sovereign nation if it
does not do so for others. Let alone cooperation.

They might claim moral authority, but the US is very lacking in that currency in the
eyes of the majority of the world.

Well we should not expect our territory to remain sovereign when we do such a crappy job defending the borders. Much less actually respecting those of others.

[August]

America should not expect others to respect it's rights as a sovereign nation if it
does not do so for others. Let alone cooperation.

They might claim moral authority, but the US is very lacking in that currency in the
eyes of the majority of the world.
Well we should not expect our territory to remain sovereign when we do such a crappy job defending the borders. Much less actually respecting those of others.

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't think these sorts of things will decrease significantly after Bush leaves. 9/11 fundamentally changed how an American president will look at these sorts of decisions. I think 9/11 permanently lowered the standards of evidence when presidents/their advisers ponder "removing" threats.

PD

[OneToughHerring]

But the least US could've done is to notify Syria about it. Sure there's always the change the info get's leaked and the target isnt there, but that's a risk that would be had to be taken. That risk is a certain given. You can call off the whole operation then. that is as absurd as that British polcie going after a Muslim terror suspect now has to tell his religious community first, so that they can call and warn him, and afterwards know of nothing. The Syrian government is no neutal player, but party in this conflict. Thus, you do not warn it. Or better: you warn it - by executing a warning example.

Like this mission, for example.

I mean, let's but this the other way. Syria makes a raid on US soil for some "as justified" reason, they mission is success but reports start to pour in that there was some US civilians caught in the crossfire and killed. Now, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets, how long would a country named Syria exist on the world map after that? :hmm:
6-12 weeks, I assume. That's why they would not do it. Lesson of it: weakness is never a virtue or a sign of civilised manners. It simply is what it is: weakness.

When you cross into the territory of a sovereign nation without any warning and kill citizens in that nation, expect repercussions. Not saying anything about the guilt or innocence of that guy or his family for that matter (I guess the family had to go too then. I guess they were guilty too, I'm not expecting a retroactive trial though).

[Letum]

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?

Wars, no.
Civil insurgencys, yes.

[August]

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?
Wars, no.
Civil insurgencys, yes.

So Irish-American support for the IRA was fine with you guys then?

[Letum]

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?
Wars, no.
Civil insurgencys, yes.
So Irish-American support for the IRA was fine with you guys then?


:shifty:
So the RAF bombing the Irish quarter of New York would have been fine with you guys then?

[baggygreen]

Not saying anything about the guilt or innocence of that guy or his family for that matter (I guess the family had to go too then. I guess they were guilty too, I'm not expecting a retroactive trial though).I personally struggle to believe any reports of civilian deaths in controversial circumstances caused by any coalition member these days.

No, I'm not denying civilian deaths occur - kind of expected when the enemy hides behind civvies as human shields then uses their deaths for propaganda. Yes, shock horror I'll even admit that there have been attacks by aircraft for example in which civvies have been mistaken for combatants and subsequently attacked and killed.

But lets face it. With most of these combatants today, if you take away their weapon, lo and behold, we have a dead civvy. Anyone reminded of the palestinian/french video a couple of years back, with the cowering child, proven to be fake? I've little doubt it happens all the time, and yes a US man was charged with fabricating evidence in a similar manner.

Lets look closer at the 'innocent civilians' Syria claims were killed. As I said before, the US would want you be very bloody certain about who they were after in a raid like this. Also, they wouldn't have sent undisciplined troops in. Disciplined troops don't open fire on civvies. The types of troops who would've been used are smart, you don't get to be an SF man by fighting skill alone.

Now, Syria claim that these civvies were all killed for no reason. Doesn't make much sense, does it, especially on such a high-profile, arguably criminal raid - why make things even worse?? But, if you take my earlier point about removing a combatant's weapon to create a civilian, suddenly there is logic. The only reason for these people to have been killed is that they were threatening or attacking the SF team. If you do that, your lifespan can be counted in seconds, not years.

[August]

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?
Wars, no.
Civil insurgencys, yes.
So Irish-American support for the IRA was fine with you guys then?


:shifty:
So the RAF bombing the Irish quarter of New York would have been fine with you guys then?
Nice attempt at dodging the question but it won't wash. You're the one who said it was fine for a "neutral" country to shelter and support combatants in a civil war, not me.

[Skybird]

America should not expect others to respect it's rights as a sovereign nation if it
does not do so for others. Let alone cooperation.

They might claim moral authority, but the US is very lacking in that currency in the
eyes of the majority of the world.
I assume I am one of the most unsuspicious people here to be biase din favour of moral authority of the US, however it is a war they are fighting, ans when I accept - even call for - US strikes against taleban seeking save haven in pakistan, then I would contradict my logic of war when I would not do the same regarding Al Quaeda terrorists in Syria. If you alolow your enemy in a war certain places of untouchable refuge and save haven, like you allowed China to stockpile supplies around Hanoi and not striking Haiphong and other places were the Vietcong resupllied in safety, then you end up like then americans did: they won all battles and still lost the war.

So either you leave afghanistan now, or you strikle Pakistan. either ou leave Iraq now, or you strike in Syria, and if needed: Iran, as well in order to kill enemies in Iraq. that civilians got killed, is regrettable, but may come from the fact that time and again we learn that these kind of enemies either hide in the middle of civilian crowds from where they open fire, or that they just melt ionto the civilian environment agaon once they take a brake from fighting. The guy they killed was said to be a key figure in recruiting and organising logictsical support and trafficking of bombers and fighters. Taking out a node in a powergridline may lead to disruptions and blackouts that are worth such an operation, and loss of life. After all, neither Syria is demanded to host terror bombers, nor is Al Quaeda demanded to wage a terror war against the civilian population in Iraq.

Its all a mess-up. War always is, and there is no way you don't get your hands dirty, always. Letting that man live may have caused bombs go off in Iraq and killing civilians that now maybe will not explode. Granted, somebody else will take over, and still, as long as the decision is to stay in Iraq, they hardly have another option than to fight and kill their enemies - what else is there to do if staying in Iraq? the syrian government however, should have understood the message. At least it would be better if they have.

[Letum]

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?
Wars, no.
Civil insurgencys, yes.
So Irish-American support for the IRA was fine with you guys then?
So the RAF bombing the Irish quarter of New York would have been fine with you guys then?
Nice attempt at dodging the question but it won't wash. You're the one who said it was fine for a "neutral" country to shelter and support combatants in a civil war, not me.
I haven't dodged the question.
I have just invited you to answer it for your self.
If you think the UK should have reacted in the same way to Irish-American support for the IRA; then you are advocating the RAF bombing of Irish parts of New York.
You can't possibly believe this and therefore I conclude that you don't believe that bombing a country harboring people causing civil strife is justified universally.


Skybird:
War is not all or nothing.
Where it so, it would make sense to lay much of the region to waste via nuclear
explosions to achieve stability.

[Skybird]

War is not all or nothing.
Where it so, it would make sense to lay much of the region to waste via nuclear
explosions to achieve stability.
In the end, yes, if only the pollution would stop at the borders.

your lack of determination is diusturbing, becasue you create more war, not less. The illusion that war can be scaled, leads to two things: first, your wars are considered to be more acceptable, which makes them more likely, and second: wars get lost.

Igive a griom understanding of war, and by that, itz scares people away. By that I make war less attractive, and I make sure that I win the ones that I pick. I aoso make sure that a lot of thiought is spend in advance wether a war in question is really needed and really wanted.

Be hesitent to wage war. But if you do make sure your reasons are such that you can justify it before your conscience, and prepare well - and then strike at the enemy with all might you have. Else you end up like in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Half-hearted efforts. One hand bound on the back. Self-restraints. Bad preparation and planning ahead. History has given the results.

[Skybird]

Insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan have been recruited in Europe, so we could say that Europe harbours terrorists as well. Yet it wouldn't be fine if a US strike team shot 1 presumed insurgent-wannabee and 7 civilians passing by in a European street. But Arab civilians are fair game.
Europe tries to hunt down such sleepers and Islamic terrorists. Syria does not, but tolerates their presence. A small but decisive difference.

[baggygreen]

Some of the posts in the thread highlights why we will never 'win' this war.

We're trying to fight with rules, regulations, under extremely close scrutiny, and with a standard of morals and ethics. arguably the war could be all over now, if the west didnt care for civilian lives and just went in all guns blazing, killing anything that was deemed a threat. The west values human life however, and this would be simply unjustifiable. It actually goes out of its way to spare 'collateral damage'

On the other hand, our enemy cares nothing for innocent lives, or for fighting within any ruleset. they'll quite happily blow up a city block to try kill 1 man. Whilst the west is targetting just against the extremists/militants/whatever, they are fighting against every single westerner.

For us to win, is nigh on impossible - there are too many conditions that need to be met, too many rules to stop us achieving goals. For them to win, its relatively easy - kill or convert every one of us.

[heartc]

It's very simple, really. You have enemy combatants sitting across the border, where they refit, recruit, train and move out to attack and kill your troops. In other words, a primary logistics / leadership target. Those guys were sitting across that border because they counted on all those Anti-American clowns to condemn the US in case of a raid on their hide-out. And so did the Syrian government. But now someone in the US said "Ah, **** it" and took them out regardless. I say good call. More of it.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan have been recruited in Europe, so we could say that Europe harbours terrorists as well. Yet it wouldn't be fine if a US strike team shot 1 presumed insurgent-wannabee and 7 civilians passing by in a European street. But Arab civilians are fair game. Europe tries to hunt down such sleepers and Islamic terrorists. Syria does not, but tolerates their presence. A small but decisive difference.
The humanitarians we are, we only kidnap those suspected of terrorism living in Europe.

And to be fair, the target in the Syrian raid was much more than a suspect. After al-Zarqawi was killed there was some speculation that the man killed in Syria would take over for him. He was indicted ~2004 by a Jordanian court for being part of a cell lead by his buddy al-Zarqawi that planned a chemical attack in that country. He was a bad guy.

It seems that they had solid intelligence (of which there is precious little concerning people like him) on where he was and a decision was made that he was important enough to kill even if there were civillians around and we had to piss of the Syrians.

I don't know if it's a decision I agree with, but I know it's a decision I would never want to make.

PD

[Skybird]

Some of the posts in the thread highlights why we will never 'win' this war.

We're trying to fight with rules, regulations, under extremely close scrutiny, and with a standard of morals and ethics. arguably the war could be all over now, if the west didnt care for civilian lives and just went in all guns blazing, killing anything that was deemed a threat. The west values human life however, and this would be simply unjustifiable. It actually goes out of its way to spare 'collateral damage'

On the other hand, our enemy cares nothing for innocent lives, or for fighting within any ruleset. they'll quite happily blow up a city block to try kill 1 man. Whilst the west is targetting just against the extremists/militants/whatever, they are fighting against every single westerner.

For us to win, is nigh on impossible - there are too many conditions that need to be met, too many rules to stop us achieving goals. For them to win, its relatively easy - kill or convert every one of us.
What you actually outline is that civilisational progress and war are mutually exclusive. And I agree with that. there is no such thing like a "civilised way of war". thge higher developed a civilistion is in morals, the less capable it is to wage war itself.

The higher developed a civilisation is, the less it tends to waging war itself, but let proxies fight wars in its place. Civilised people do not kill with their own hands, but they will the dying of others and let the killing happen, committed by others. Linked to this is the expectation not to be worried by details of war, instead being saved the bloody details and instead left to one's own polished mental image of how clena and tidy it could be done.

I honestely do not believe in being civilised. It's a hypocritic lie. Some other things are far more important, I think. Honesty. Trustworthiness. Reliability. Strength. In peaceful and martial intentions: determination, and courage. For being considered to be civilised i can buy myself nothing.

[heartc]

For us to win, is nigh on impossible - there are too many conditions that need to be met, too many rules to stop us achieving goals. For them to win, its relatively easy - kill or convert every one of us.

It's only "nigh on impossible" as long as your own side keeps attacking you from behind while you fight the enemy at your front. Also known as "treason" once upon a time.

[baggygreen]

Skybird, have you had that stutter checked??:p

heartc, its like what skybird says - the west tries to be civilised in war, when war is anything but civilised by its very nature. Its hypocritical

edit - looks like you fixed it now :)

[Skybird]

Skybird, have you had that stutter checked??:p

Hope so. Since some weeks this board sometimes drives me crazy. As if you guys are not already suffering enough from my many typos. :lol:

[August]

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?
Wars, no.
Civil insurgencys, yes.
So Irish-American support for the IRA was fine with you guys then?
So the RAF bombing the Irish quarter of New York would have been fine with you guys then?
Nice attempt at dodging the question but it won't wash. You're the one who said it was fine for a "neutral" country to shelter and support combatants in a civil war, not me.
I haven't dodged the question.
I have just invited you to answer it for your self.
If you think the UK should have reacted in the same way to Irish-American support for the IRA; then you are advocating the RAF bombing of Irish parts of New York.
You can't possibly believe this and therefore I conclude that you don't believe that bombing a country harboring people causing civil strife is justified universally.

First off you did dodge the question and i'm still waiting for an answer to it.

Second. I don't think Irish-American support of the IRA was at all justified but the US Government did not encourage it either, interdicting many cash and arms shipments destined for IRA fighters. The exact opposite is the case with Syria, which brings up my final point.

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.

[August]

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.
That's not true.

Yes it is.

[Letum]

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.
That's not true.
Yes it is.

Can you provide a news source that foretold of the attacks before they occurred?

[August]

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.
That's not true.
Yes it is.
Can you provide a news source that foretold of the attacks before they occurred?

That's not what i said. Try reading instead of reacting.

[Letum]

"This strike was not something out of the blue"

Something not out of the blue that no one saw coming? :hmm:
How far out of the blue is out of the blue!

[Skybird]

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.

That's not true.
No it is true. Strange to agree with August for a change, but it is true indeed. American accusations against Syria are not new at all.

And Letum, please stop debating semantics. Clever wordgames are not needed here, really.

[August]

"This strike was not something out of the blue"

Something not out of the blue that no one saw coming? :hmm:
How far out of the blue is out of the blue!

Still waiting for an answer to my question from the previous page. Take a stab at answering that and maybe i'll play your word twisting game with you.

[Letum]

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.
That's not true. No it is true. Strange to agree with August for a change, but it is true indeed. American accusations against Syria are not new at all.

And Letum, please stop debating semantics. Clever wordgames are not needed here, really.
Whether it is out of the blue or not isn't a matter of semantics.
Either there was warning, or there wasn't. Clearly there wasn't.

There was certainly no president for attacking Syrian petrol smugglers.


August: See previous posts for the answer to your 'question'.
Do not keep asking for answers because you did not like the first one.

[August]

Whether it is out of the blue or not isn't a matter of semantics.
Either there was warning, or there wasn't. Clearly there wasn't.

Well that begs the question then, warning to who? You and Mik?

[August]

August: See previous posts for the answer to your 'question'.
Do not keep asking for answers because you did not like the first one.

:roll: Whatever. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you'll believe it.

[HunterICX]

Might I suggest to take it a bit easier and avoid this thread for a while so it can cool down a bit?..its reaching above room temperature.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.
That's not true. No it is true. Strange to agree with August for a change, but it is true indeed. American accusations against Syria are not new at all.

And Letum, please stop debating semantics. Clever wordgames are not needed here, really.
Whether it is out of the blue or not isn't a matter of semantics.
Either there was warning, or there wasn't. Clearly there wasn't.

There was certainly no president for attacking Syrian petrol smugglers.


August: See previous posts for the answer to your 'question'.
Do not keep asking for answers because you did not like the first one.

Of course there was no warning of the strike itself. Should they call the guy on phone and tell him he better get awwy before the choppers arrive? Nevertheless it was no strike out nof the blue, for the reasons August has given, I have had the same info, and repeatedly. the guy was a known variable, he was set to become important within Al Quaeda, and it was clear that then americans wouold react to his activity sooner or later.

And Syria has been warned SINCE YEARS for closing both eyes to terrorists operating from its ground.

the mission execution was kept secret, of course, but in no way one could say the american reaction came "out of the blue". Call it sematics, call it rethorics or any different, but you have no point here different from just wanting to object.

[Letum]

America has been complaining baout border relations with every country that
borders America or borders American occupied territories for ever and a day without
this kind of incident.
But recently relations with Syria have been improving.
And yet you still claim this was in some way expected?

Do you think perhaps that Syria "had it coming"? :doh:

[Zachstar]

America should not expect others to respect it's rights as a sovereign nation if it
does not do so for others. Let alone cooperation.

They might claim moral authority, but the US is very lacking in that currency in the
eyes of the majority of the world.
Well we should not expect our territory to remain sovereign when we do such a crappy job defending the borders. Much less actually respecting those of others.
Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?

It is this kind of anti-neutral stance parts of the right wing movement have that have ruined your chances at a 3rd republican term.

[Zachstar]

Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?
Wars, no.
Civil insurgencys, yes.
So Irish-American support for the IRA was fine with you guys then?


:shifty:
So the RAF bombing the Irish quarter of New York would have been fine with you guys then?

Smackdown! :up:

Funny how people try to defend this attack.

[Letum]

America should not expect others to respect it's rights as a sovereign nation if it
does not do so for others. Let alone cooperation.

They might claim moral authority, but the US is very lacking in that currency in the
eyes of the majority of the world.
Well we should not expect our territory to remain sovereign when we do such a crappy job defending the borders. Much less actually respecting those of others.
Because after all, countries have every right to shelter and supply the combatants of wars in adjoining countries without any repercussions, right?
It is this kind of anti-neutral stance parts of the right wing movement have that have ruined your chances at a 3rd republican term.

Apparently "Either you are with us , or you are with the terrorists." Bush '01
:shifty:

[Skybird]

America has been complaining baout border relations with every country that
borders America or borders American occupied territories for ever and a day without
this kind of incident.
But recently relations with Syria have been improving.
And yet you still claim this was in some way expected?

Do you think perhaps that Syria "had it coming"? :doh:
Diplomacy. When we shake hands with a massmurder and blackmailer like Ghadaffi again and feed hgim miliztary hightech and nuclear technology, why not declaring relations with Syria as "improving" whuile they have not stopped their interference in Lebanon and have not stopped to support terrorism. diplomacy is the art to replace reality with a lie and still have everybody smiling.

[Letum]

If diplomacy fails to achieve something and war is resorted to, then that is a failure
of diplomacy. When everyone is justly happy, then that is a success of diplomacy.

To throw diplomacy out of the window...:nope:
but such has been the American way with foreign relations for so long now.

[SUBMAN1]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff8/jcc2k1/Nichtland.jpg

Is that Dowly's plane? :p

-S

[August]

America has been complaining baout border relations with every country that
borders America or borders American occupied territories for ever and a day without
this kind of incident.
But recently relations with Syria have been improving.
And yet you still claim this was in some way expected?

Do you think perhaps that Syria "had it coming"? :doh:

Letum do you seriously believe that we launched the raid for that reason? That our military commanders said one day; "Hey lets go into Syria and kill some folks at random. How 'bout it Mr Prez. Iraq is going so well and we're bored!"? Please. :roll:

[August]

Diplomacy. When we shake hands with a massmurder and blackmailer like Ghadaffi again and feed hgim miliztary hightech and nuclear technology, why not declaring relations with Syria as "improving" whuile they have not stopped their interference in Lebanon and have not stopped to support terrorism. diplomacy is the art to replace reality with a lie and still have everybody smiling.

Skybird is 100% spot on here.

[August]

If diplomacy fails to achieve something and war is resorted to, then that is a failure
of diplomacy. When everyone is justly happy, then that is a success of diplomacy.

Diplomacy has been tried for what, 6 years now with absolutely no result? How many of our troops are you willing to get killed while you continue down this useless path?

[Zachstar]

Yes lets start a war with another country so that the first war will be somewhat safer..

Ooook?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yes lets start a war with another country so that the first war will be somewhat safer..

Ooook?
Do you really think Syria will go to war over this?

PD

[AntEater]

Stupid idea, I mean what is to gain from popping another Abu whatever?
In three weeks, they'l have a new one doing exactly the same thing.
On the other hand, making Syria look as weak as it actually is, that is really counter productive.
Assad is trying to come to grips with Israel. The Israeli elections will have stopped that one cold anyway, but still, Assad is way better than anyone who might succeed him.
Not to mention that Syria is a safehaven for practially every minority there is.
Where do all the Iraqui christians go?
To some of the democratic freedom loving US allies like Jordan or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?
Not to mention that Syria is almost some kind of ethnological and theological museum of all kinds of religious or ethnic (both mostly go together) minorities like Druze, Arameans, people who worship John the Baptist (forgot their name) and all those other small minorities that have been beaten, raped and arsoned into immigration or conversion in all other muslim countries in the last 20 years, most recently in Iraq after the US liberated the Iraq from all evil.
The same will happen in Syria if Assad falls.
The Assad family himself are Alevites, some kind of reformist shiite ofshoot, a bit similar to protestantism in christianity.
Syria is the only muslim country where Alevites are actually recognized as muslims.

So if Bush really wants to create another mideast cesspit, he should carry on like that.

To the raid itself, did they at least kill the target?
Even from US reports, it seems likely that some construction workers were killed.
First because apparently some people were "threatening" and then killed, which can mean anything from being armed to simply being there and thought to be armed.
Also, firing miniguns from Blackhawks isn't exactly precision warfare.
Since there were no success reports from the US, as they usually do, it might well be that they acted on faulty intel and the target wasn't there.

[Skybird]

To the raid itself, did they at least kill the target?

At least three media reports I read said the killing of the target person is confirmed. I also live by the impression that it was in the media that they did not leave it to an air attack only, but that at some time they had troops on the ground. That may be the reason why they sent no Apaches or Cobras like the Israelis would have done in case of an air-only attack, but Blackhawks. why else sending a much bigger, more vulnerable, armed transportation helicopter?

I do not question the raid itself if the target person really was the guy the americans claim he was, because then he would have been relatively high on the to-be-hit-list indeed, I just would like to have an examination if a.) it really were 7 civilians being killed, or if some of these maybe were combatants (wouldn't be the first time, really, in Israel's conflict zones it happenes all the time), and b.) if they were civilians why it came to their killing. I assume that internally that already is being done by the military.

If there are other important key figures living on the Syrian side of the border and operating against iraq without the Syrians arresting and sentencing them off, I approve more such strikes as well in order to change their status from alive to dead. Letting them live may cost more lives in the medium and long run. they say there are some pretty nasty explosions happening in Iraq, massacring the civilian population by the many dozens per strike. Feel free to protest against that as well, if you have the interest - it just will not make a difference.

[Letum]

If diplomacy fails to achieve something and war is resorted to, then that is a failure
of diplomacy. When everyone is justly happy, then that is a success of diplomacy.
Diplomacy has been tried for what, 6 years now with absolutely no result? How many of our troops are you willing to get killed while you continue down this useless path?

So...American troops are much safer now that US-Syrian relations have
deteriorated, there is now a group of vengeful Syrians and America has yet again
show that it thinks that killing civilians if justified to achieve its aims?

Don't you think that there might be one or two...errr...'repercussions'?

Where I an angry, young Syrian who saw my country being attacked and my
government doing nothing about it, I may well be heading to the ammunition shop.

[August]

So...American troops are much safer now that US-Syrian relations have deteriorated, there is now a group of vengeful Syrians and America has yet again show that it thinks that killing civilians if justified to achieve its aims?

Don't you think that there might be one or two...errr...'repercussions'?

Where I an angry, young Syrian who saw my country being attacked and my
government doing nothing about it, I may well be heading to the ammunition shop.

There were "repercussions" to allowing insurgents to shelter and arm in Syria unmolested. Which one do you think is the bigger danger to our troops?

[Skybird]

Where I an angry, young Syrian who saw my country being attacked and my
government doing nothing about it, I may well be heading to the ammunition shop.
One is wondering why an angry young Syrian is not angry about his government giving shelter to Al Quaeda leaders and according terrorists.

What worth are good relations with Syria - if they do like this? Answer: nothing. What worth are good relations with Syria, if they keep on undermining stability in Lebanon? Answer: nothing.

What is wrong with you? A key figure in the Al Quaeda hierarchy and an active logistics and traffick expert for smuggling terrorists in and out of Iraq has been taken out. Thats the kind of guys that kill dozens, sometimes a hundred people with one bomb. He's gone, one worthless bug less in the world, big deal. Get over it. This one will not assassin civilian anymore. and no civilians will get killed due to his participation in terror.

If you have a better method to take out and neutralise enemy terrorists and their leaders in their hierarchy, I am listening. If all you have is just good intentions, but no realistic procedures that survive the test of reality, step aside and let others hunt them down and kill them.

[Skybird]

I know all that, and my attitude on the Iraq war and US foreign policy has not chnaged since 2003. However, this thread is about an incident in Syria, not Saudi Arabia, and relations with Syria not Saudi Arabia, so it is Syria'S policy in question here, not Saudi Arabia's.

either you have troops in Iraq fighting in a war, or you pull them out. As long as they have not pulled out, they fight a war, no matter the reasons why this war was laucnhed. If you fight a war, you go after the enemy and do not allow to get distracted from that mission, and you do not allow him save havens. You locate him, you go there, you kill him. If that goes at the cost of somebody supporting him, then that is part of the setting. Maybe it will make him think on wether to continue that support, or kick out those he supports.

Three things I said about Iraq, always, from the beginning in 2003 on, and I have not changed my views a bit.

First, the war was not about WMD and Al Quaeda links and 9/11, but was preplanned since the early nineties, and was about geostrategical goals and dominance over certain fields of Iraq's economy, namley the oil business, and the flow of oil in international trade patterns. "Control" is the message here.

Second, that in order to prevent this acting becoming a precedent for the future, it is needed that America fails in getting an economical advantage from this war, but indeed needs to pay for it more than it gets in return. I do not know how the profit caluclation for single companies like Mercenary corporations or Halliburton looks like, it seems they are making a fortune, but the American nation as a whole does not profit from this war, in fact it is paying more and more into this adventure at it'S own loss at home - and that is good, even if in the end last but not least we foreigners from other nations and China subsidise this war by keeping alive the patient the american financial system is, by investing money into it for different reasons than Iraq. From this experience it is unlikely that a future US government is easily tempted and as easy<-minded as bush has been to try something like Iraq again for vague calculations about national profit interests. the more painful and costly the lesson, the better it will be learned. "No economical profit" is the message here.

And third, I always said that one should get out there, and never should have gotten in. But as long as one is there, i also always said, this makes only sense in itself if one is waging war like war is meant to be waged, and that is not by saving the enemy, but by crushing him, and not acting weak, but strong, not being indiscriminating regarding target and civilian, but also not allowing the enemy being saved by hiding between civilians, or escaping due to the presence of civilians. After the enemy you go, and the less civilians are standing in the way, the better - but if there are some, bad karma. Cruel? Injust? Yes, it is cruel, it is inhumane, it is injust, I totally agree, I am completely aware of that, and I hate it. Welcome to war.

This I have said always, for five years now. Those who agree with bush'S war will not like points 1 and 2, and those who are against Bush and the war will not like point 3. So what - must I change my mind just to please them all, or because my position is under fire from all sides, Bush-fans and Bush haters alike? Either you fight a war, or you don't. either you have war, or not. either you kill the enemy, or he overcomes you. either you stay in Iraq and fight, or you don't want to fight - then you have to pull out. But two things you cannot have: being peaceful and civilised, and fighting a war at the same time.

Everything else is an egg-dance only.

[goldorak]

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind... :roll:

You know, the US of A is the exception that confirms the rule.
All countries must abide by international law, except of course the USA.
"Do as I say not as I do" would be the motto of the americans.

[Skybird]

But where's all the countries condemning this? Oh wait... it's the US breaking the laws.. nevermind... :roll:

You know, the US of A is the exception that confirms the rule.
All countries must abide by international law, except of course the USA.
"Do as I say not as I do" would be the motto of the americans.Nevertheless sometimes they are right. That's why I decide on an issue-by-issue basis wether I am suppoorting them or not. Neither do I always oppose them for principal reasons, nor do I make it a principal thing to always be with them, no matter what. I think that is the only intelligent solution to how to deal with american policies. Everything else is ideological trench warfare in defense or in attack against America.

[goldorak]

Nevertheless sometimes they are right. That's why I decide on an issue-by-issue basis wether I am suppoorting them or not. Neither do I always oppose them for principal reasons, nor do I make it a principal thing to always be with them, no matter what. I think that is the only intelligent solution to how to deal with american policies. Everything else is ideological trench warfare in defense or in attack against America.


Sometimes yes, as when they went to war with afghanistan.
Clear casus belli and clear goals.
With iraq not so. It was a farce from beginning to end.

[Letum]

You can't believe a rule to be right and simultaneously believe your self right to
break it. Not only because it is extreme hypocrisy, but because it makes rules
utterly worthless. No one ever breaks a rule because they think they are wrong to
break it.

[goldorak]

You can't believe a rule to be right and simultaneously believe your self right to break it.
Not only because it is extreme hypocrisy, but because it makes rules
utterly worthless. No one ever breaks a rule because they think they are wrong to
break it.

Of course, but such are the privileges granted to the last imperial superpower.

[Skybird]

In various political and economical fields, all nations break rules all the time, for selfish motives. In case of america the public looks especially sharp, for ideological reasons (in case of the poltiical left, for example) and the simple fact that due to it's extraordinary powerposition in the world even usually minor aspects of internal politcs of this country, that usually go by unnoticed or uncommented, in case of America stretch beyond the scale of being US-internal and in fact affect much of the rest of the world, thus making that close monitoring of and interest in America a totally legal and justified thing of nation'S legitimate self-interest (although America often gives the impresson of not knowing what "rest of the world" means :lol: ) Seen that way the amnerican perception that people shout easier about America than about the misdeeds of others, is an absolutely correct observation that describes the facts. But this circumstance has a reason, and america has to live with it as long as it clings to the top of the global world order. the more powerful China becomes, or the EU, the tighter they will be kept under public observation and commenting as well.

[Skybird]

You can't believe a rule to be right and simultaneously believe your self right to break it.
Not only because it is extreme hypocrisy, but because it makes rules
utterly worthless. No one ever breaks a rule because they think they are wrong to
break it.

Of course, but such are the privileges granted to the last imperial superpower.
Yes, and every empire there ever was, was like that. However, these privileges can be used for good or bad. Fifteen years ago, the prospect of a Pax Americana, if it would have been balanaced and just towards everybody, looked tempting, even if being enforced by hegemonial power, like the ruling of Rome in many regions brought more positives than negatives for the local population as well, and added to the basis of the later western development we enjoy the benefits from. If you do not believe that a pax americana also could have had benefits, just look at the mjaor war unfolding again in Congo, or the decades of war and bloodshed in the middle East. But in the last eight years we have seen these imperial privileges being abused unbalanced and injust, for completely selfish, even criminal motives and ignoring the legitimate interests of others completely. Different to Rome, the Bush years just claimed to be about bringing civilisation and justice, but in fact were about economical dominance and maximum exploitation. This corruption of american idealism, even at American'S own costs, just for the interest of a small plutocratic elite at the top, is what has discredited the historic reputation of Bush's government, forever. And almost all people associated with him, are burned and have no powerful political future anymore, will not recover frokm having been asscoiated with Bush, with maybe the only exceptions of colin Powell who left the shipwreck just in time, and Condy Rice.

[Diopos]

If the strategy is flawed a tactical "succes" is meaningless.
... but the "colateral damage" real.

[Skybird]

If the strategy is flawed a tactical "succes" is meaningless.
Indeed. That's why the troops should get out there better sooner than later.

[heartc]

This corruption of american idealism, even at American'S own costs, just for the interest of a small plutocratic elite at the top, is what has discredited the historic reputation of Bush's government, forever. And almost all people associated with him, are burned and have no powerful political future anymore, will not recover frokm having been asscoiated with Bush, with maybe the only exceptions of colin Powell who left the shipwreck just in time, and Condy Rice.

Radical Islam has been on the rise again long before Bush ever took office. It is the same Islam that was put to hold in front of the gates of Vienna in the past. It has risen again, attacking our life lines in the Middle East and elsewhere, and those societies in the area that would rather do without them, and it was the Bush administration that was the first one in recent times that ATTACKED BACK and took the fight BACK to them. What has discredited the Bush administration is closet commies like you. If there would be more sane persons around and the media were less one sided and not run by closet commies who still didn't get over the Vietnam war and the fact that the Soviet Union failed miserably, then the Bush policy of hitting BACK against the Islamists after countless attacks conducted by THEM, culminating in 9/11, would be rightously praised.
If there had been as many pu**ies and confused people around when the Islamists stood in front of Vienna as there are today, then all the women in Europe would be wearing headscarfs today.

[baggygreen]

woah, skybird a closet commie??

.

.

.
.
:rotfl:

Not quite.

I agree with some of what you said, not with other bits.

[caspofungin]

@heartc

that's one interpretation. a very one sided interpretation. i'm not naive enough to suggest that all was roses in the middle east before the us started getting involved about 70 years ago, but to lay all the blame on the current situation on the locals? us foreign policy has nothing to do with this?

[Letum]

@heartc

that's one interpretation. a very one sided interpretation. i'm not naive enough to suggest that all was roses in the middle east before the us started getting involved about 70 years ago, but to lay all the blame on the current situation on the locals? us foreign policy has nothing to do with this?

The blame goes back much more than 70 years if you count the UK. Much, much further.

[August]

The blame goes back much more than 70 years if you count the UK. Much, much further.
Well if you want to go back in time it seems to me the blame really lies with the Ottoman Turks. Had they joined the right side in WW1 they might still have their empire...

[Skybird]

The cultural climate of stagnation created by islamic ideology, the arbitrary setting of borders by foreign european ruling that ignored ethnic patterns on the ground, and the two constant and eaons-old confrontations between Shia and Sunni as well as between Muhammedans and Jews are the three factors to be mentioned.