American Raid in Syria
 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...-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.

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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

It seems at times we can agree on some things. ;)

Aye aye,America is in its Worst Recession ever,Which Corporate Banks Created so,,,Could this be an Excuse for War?:hmm:

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.

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.

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.