U.S. Helicopters Attack Syrian Town

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942BBS00&show_article=1


DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Syria's state-run television and witnesses say U.S. military helicopters have attacked an area along the country's border with Iraq, causing casualties. The report quoted unnamed Syrian officials and said the area is near the Syrian border town of Abu Kamal. It gave no other details on Sunday's attack.
Local residents told The Associated Press by telephone that two helicopters carrying U.S. soldiers raided the village of Hwijeh, 10 miles inside Syria's border, killing seven people and wounding five.
The U.S. military in Baghdad had no immediate comment.


That's a big deal. Abu Kamal is a relatively big city and has plenty of outlying towns. I wonder how this turn out.

[Strike For The South]

The word sovereignty seems to be missing from American dictionaries.

[Hooahguy]

prob. american choppers but operated by israelis dressed as americans.
:clown:

he. now america is poking thier nose into there? they should have learned after what happened in 1983.....

[KarlXII]

The border has been known to be an exit point for insurgents entering and leaving Iraq.

[Strike For The South]

The border has been known to be an exit point for insurgents entering and leaving Iraq.

That doesnt give us a free ticket to just go in there and skirt sovrigenty

[Hooahguy]

That doesnt give us a free ticket to just go in there and skirt sovrigenty
agreed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We have long ago demolished the idea that nations harboring terrorists and not dealing with them are safe from isolated strikes. We did not start an invasion, rather a single incursion. Things would be hard pressed to get much worse between the two nations anyway, so we should really see what there is to lose. I don't believe that we should pull a Russia and launch an invasion into Syria, but single strikes are reasonable.

If we can do it to an ally like Pakistan, we will absolutely do it to an enemy that finances the deaths of Iraqis and U.S. Troops.

[Strike For The South]

We have long ago demolished the idea that nations harboring terrorists and not dealing with them are safe from isolated strikes. We did not start an invasion, rather a single incursion. Things would be hard pressed to get much worse between the two nations anyway, so we should really see what there is to lose. I don't believe that we should pull a Russia and launch an invasion into Syria, but single strikes are reasonable.

Single strikes get nothing done and produce more propaganda. It is a lose lose. We can either do this on a larger scale or respect Syria. These "probing" efforts are useless

[ICantSpellDawg]

Single strikes get nothing done and produce more propaganda. It is a lose lose. We can either do this on a larger scale or respect Syria. These "probing" efforts are useless

It is essentially saying - "unless you deal with this, you will have no national security". They can't attack us, so maybe they will deal with the problem. We arn't asking them to give up anything, just stop people from safely training to kill Americans and Iraqis. Not an unreasonable request.

[Hooahguy]

Single strikes get nothing done and produce more propaganda. It is a lose lose. We can either do this on a larger scale or respect Syria. These "probing" efforts are useless
well, the single strike can get something done if we went in to get a wanted terrorist leader or s/t. but from what what they give us, we cant really determine if it was useful or not.

[Strike For The South]

It is essentially saying - "unless you deal with this, you will have no national security". They can't attack us, so maybe they will deal with the problem. We arn't asking them to give up anything, just stop people from safely training to kill Americans and Iraqis. Not an unreasonable request.

I Think the Syrian leadership will tolerate a few casualties and bombed out buildings rather than bend to our wishes. Especially when its happening periodically. All this does is make the Syrian populace more hardened to America.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I Think the Syrian leadership will tolerate a few casualties and bombed out buildings rather than bend to our wishes. Especially when its happening periodically. All this does is make the Syrian populace more hardened to America.

Ha! More hardened to us? Right.

They should know that if terrorists are training in their towns, their towns are not safe. Maybe they will think twice about letting them train there, maybe not. It worked in Libya - we hammered the crap out of them intermittently and they eventually realized that terrorist training sites arn't the direction their economy needs to go.

Let them cut off as many noses as they deem necessary in order to spite their national face. We are asking them not to allow people to train to kill innocent people in their country.

[PanzerJaeger]

Single strikes get nothing done and produce more propaganda. It is a lose lose. We can either do this on a larger scale or respect Syria. These "probing" efforts are useless

You cannot say that without knowing what the goal was. A single, well informed strike in Pakistan could net Bin Laden.

[Strike For The South]

Ha! More hardened to us? Right.

They should know that if terrorists are training in their towns, their towns are not safe. Maybe they will think twice about letting them train there, maybe not. It worked in Libya - we hammered the crap out of them intermittently and they eventually realized that terrorist training sites arn't the direction their economy needs to go.

Let them cut off as many noses as they deem necessary in order to spite their national face. We are asking them not to allow people to train to kill innocent people in their country.

But we arent "hammering the crap out of them" Besides comparing Syria and Libya's situations are completely different. This just gives more propaganda

[Strike For The South]

You cannot say that without knowing what the goal was. A single, well informed strike in Pakistan could net Bin Laden.

And I'll marry into a chain of liquor stores. Maybe if there was some big time target you could talk me into it but doing for the simple fact of "making them think about it" is laughable.

[ICantSpellDawg]

But we arent "hammering the crap out of them" Besides comparing Syria and Libya's situations are completely different. This just gives more propaganda

Why are they so completely different? Nothing is identical, but one Islamic nation producing terrorists with the consent of government is very similar to another doing the same thing. Reasons may be different, response may be different, but the situations are comparable.

Iraq is totally different from Vietnam, but you hear about the situations being compared all the time.

Syria is essentially at war with the U.S., The Coalition, Israel, Iraq and Lebanon though the (transparently) clandestine support of armed brigands that ravage our respective countrysides.

[Strike For The South]

Why are they so completely different? Nothing is identical, but one Islamic nation producing terrorists with the consent of government is very similar to another doing the same thing. Reasons may be different, response may be different, but the situations are comparable.

Iraq is totally different from Vietnam, but you hear about the situations being compared all the time.

Syria is essentially at war with the U.S., The Coalition, Israel, Iraq and Lebanon though the (transparently) clandestine support of armed brigands that ravage our respective countrysides.

Then why dont we just declare war on Syria?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Then why dont we just declare war on Syria?
because it would be too expensive and we'd like to avoid larger conflicts when all we want to do is stop the harboring of terrorists.

We couldn't do it diplomatically or with sanctions, so what would the next step be? Abandon the principle or isolated strikes.

[Strike For The South]

because it would be too expensive and we'd like to avoid larger conflicts when all we want to do is stop the harboring of terrorists.

We couldn't do it diplomatically or with sanctions, so what would the next step be? Abandon the principle or isolated strikes.

I dont think the isolated strikes will do that though.

[Tribesman]

It worked in Libya - we hammered the crap out of them intermittently and they eventually realized that terrorist training sites arn't the direction their economy needs to go.

Errrrr...wasn't that years of negotiations with European nations topped of with a big financial package and a nice generous arms deal that worked in Libya .:yes:


Iraq is totally different from Vietnam, but you hear about the situations being compared all the time.

It isn't different , its a stupid expensive war , initially justified by lies being fought for the wrong reasons with the wrong policies that only an idiot would get into and it cannot be brought to a succesful conclusion , top that off with it making American government look really silly around the world and they are exactly alike .

[Ronin]

Iraq is totally different from Vietnam, but you hear about the situations being compared all the time.


I agree with you...they are totally different situations...

when it came to Vietnam Dubya had an exit strategy!!! :wiseguy:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Errrrr...wasn't that years of negotiations with European nations topped of with a big financial package and a nice generous arms deal that worked in Libya .:yes:


Yes - it was the whole kit and caboodle. Bombings, diplomacy and, eventually the odd gratuity all led to a better resolution to the situation. The package was a recent thing and things had settled considerably before it. I'm not averse to bombing them now, getting them to understand how absurd their position has been and then giving them an arms deal in 10 years in exchange for weapons agents to clean them out of any illegal arms programs they may be entertaining.



It isn't different , its a stupid expensive war , initially justified by lies being fought for the wrong reasons with the wrong policies that only an idiot would get into and it cannot be brought to a succesful conclusion , top that off with it making American government look really silly around the world and they are exactly alike .

So we can't compare Libya and Syria, but we can compare Vietnam and Iraq? Got it.

[Marshal Murat]

Did Dubya ever enter Vietnam in the first place???

[Ronin]

Did Dubya ever enter Vietnam in the first place???

the comedian knows he has failed when he has to explain the joke....~:(

[BigTex]

Single strikes get nothing done and produce more propaganda. It is a lose lose. We can either do this on a larger scale or respect Syria. These "probing" efforts are useless

No comment from the pentagon yet about it. So I'll hold off even calling this a strike into syria till then. Could very well be a pilot error in his location.

As for the usefulness of isolated strikes, as long as there is an overarching plan single strikes are effective. Without a strategy though, you would be right, singular strikes are worthless.

Petraeus is no longer in charge of iraq so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Update

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942DS980&show_article=1

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - U.S. military helicopters attacked territory inside Syria close to its border with Iraq Sunday, killing eight people in a strike the Syrian government condemned as "serious aggression." A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq in an area where the Americans have been unable to shut it down because it was out of the military's reach.
"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.
The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.
A Syrian government statement carried by the official Syrian Arab News Agency said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said.
The area is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency.
Syria's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq to protest against the strike.
The foreign fighters network sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Middle%20East&sid=breitbart.com) to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.
The U.S. military official said that while American forces have had considerable success, with Iraqi help, in shutting down the "rat lines" in Iraq, and with foreign government help in North Africa, the Syrian node has been out of reach.
"The one piece of the puzzle we have not been showing success on is the nexus in Syria," the official said.
The White House in August approved similar special forces raids from Afghanistan across the border of Pakistan to target al-Qaida and Taliban operatives. At least one has been carried out.
The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been cut to an estimated 20 a month, a senior U.S. military intelligence official told the Associated Press in July. That's a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence reports.
Ninety percent of the foreign fighters enter through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence. Foreigners are some of the most deadly fighters in Iraq, trained in bomb-making and with small-arms expertise and more likely to be willing suicide bombers than Iraqis.
Foreign fighters toting cash have been al-Qaida in Iraq's chief source of income. They contributed more than 70 percent of operating budgets in one sector in Iraq, according to documents captured in September 2007 on the Syrian border. Most of the fighters were conveyed through professional smuggling networks, according to the report.
On Thursday, U.S. Maj. Gen. John Kelly said Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Saudi%20Arabia&sid=breitbart.com) and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries but that Syria was a "different story."
"The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side," Kelly said. "We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement."
He added that the U.S. was helping construct a sand berm and ditches along the border.
"There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years," Kelly said.
The U.S. military in Baghdad did not immediately respond to a request for comment after Sunday's raid.
Iraqi insurgents (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Iraqi%20insurgents&sid=breitbart.com) seized Qaim in April 2005, forcing U.S. Marines (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=U.S.%20Marines&sid=breitbart.com) to recapture the town the following month in heavy fighting. The area became secure only after Sunni tribes in Anbar turned against al-Qaida in late 2006 and joined forces with the Americans.

[PanzerJaeger]

the comedian knows he has failed when he has to explain the joke....~:(

I got it, and it was actually pretty funny. :beam:

[KarlXII]

Apparently, from wht I gather, the raid was intended to sieze or kill an Al-Queda officer, 8 civilians were killed, including father and his 4 children and a married couple.


Another U.S. Military source told Assuras that the leader of the foreign fighters, an al Qaeda officer, was the target of Sunday's cross-border raid. Although that source told CBS News the attack was successful, he stopped short of saying that the terrorist was among those killed in the raid

[Husar]

Cross-border raids? Successful with a few killed children? Is the US going medieval on everybody now? :inquisitive:

But yeah, it was really bad when Russia raided a sovereign country. :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Cross-border raids? Successful with a few killed children? Is the US going medieval on everybody now? :inquisitive:

But yeah, it was really bad when Russia raided a sovereign country. :laugh4:

Russia invaded a sovereign country with a large force. We went in to this town with airborne troops for a surgical strike.

It is terrible that children died, but how do you know the father didn't get his family killed in some sort of last stand with troops? I hope this doesn't turn into "the U.S. went in to Syria in order to kill children because they ran out of decent kids to kill in Iraq".

The insurgency is notorious for killing themselves and their own families to make a point. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the U.S. troops.

[rory_20_uk]

The stike appears to have done little more than kill - and here I'm being massively optimistic - 20 insurgents. Oh, and a few kids, which never seem to matter unless they're American children, when only americans can shoot them.

Ammo dump? Nope
Head of intelligence network? Nope
Something of strategic or tactical value? Erm, no.

Isolated strikes failed in pretty much every way they've been used from Pakistan to Columbia and now Syria. If there is a high-value target then that's different, but mud huts? Please...

If you want to secure the border a mine field is an effective, cheap way to do it.

~:smoking:

[Slyspy]

Russia invaded a sovereign country with a large force. We went in to this town with airborne troops for a surgical strike.

It is terrible that children died, but how do you know the father didn't get his family killed in some sort of last stand with troops? I hope this doesn't turn into "the U.S. went in to Syria in order to kill children because they ran out of decent kids to kill in Iraq".

The insurgency is notorious for killing themselves and their own families to make a point. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the U.S. troops.

If you are going to violate a nation's sovereignty then you'd be better off doing a proper job like Russia did in Georgia. Either way everyone hates you, but at least in Russia's case they made a point. All your boys have done is make people angry and give the other guy(s) some lovely propaganda tools. Victory to the opposition! Even if you whacked a leading scumbag along with that bunch of kids you still lose.

[Strike For The South]

If you are going to violate a nation's sovereignty then you'd be better off doing a proper job like Russia did in Georgia. Either way everyone hates you, but at least in Russia's case they made a point. All your boys have done is make people angry and give the other guy(s) some lovely propaganda tools. Victory to the opposition! Even if you whacked a leading scumbag along with that bunch of kids you still lose.

:2thumbsup:

[Jolt]

Then why dont we just declare war on Syria?

Not enough oil to be found in that land.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It is terrible that children died, but how do you know the father didn't get his family killed in some sort of last stand with troops?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Make your mind up :dizzy2:If these were alledgedly foriegners on route to Iraq from North Africa what were they bringing their children along for ? Perhaps they were hoping to get across the border and become refugees living on Iraqi welfare:idea2:


Oh, and a few kids, which never seem to matter unless they're American children, when only americans can shoot them.

No no no , if you take Tuffs joke attempt and put it onto an American context like Ruby rigde for example then even if it is Americans killing children in a last stand by a nutter then it is because america has an evil government ~;)

But anyway what idiot sanctioned this attack ?
Someone without a brain obviously . The coilition now has just over two months to get a deal completely finalised and enacted , one major sticking point is the use attacks without the sanction of the government and another is the use of soveriegn Iraqi airspace ....since the deal needs the approval of the Iranian backed groups to stand any chance at all and since Iran has a partnership with Syria all America has done is to ensure that they either get no deal at all or that they get a deal under very very disadvantageous terms .
Once again we see that the coilition is being run by muppets who can't see farther than their nose .:thumbsdown:

[Strike For The South]

Well Tuff since "surgical" strikes are ok for us even apparntley on our allies. I must ask, What about the UK. Surely there are top level men and all we ask is that those Brits stop providing a place for these people to thrive Surely its ok yes? I mean its a surgical strike so downtown London wont be hurt to bad.

[Fragony]

This is... well not very smart

[rory_20_uk]

Well Tuff since "surgical" strikes are ok for us even apparntley on our allies. I must ask, What about the UK. Surely there are top level men and all we ask is that those Brits stop providing a place for these people to thrive Surely its ok yes? I mean its a surgical strike so downtown London wont be hurt to bad.

Very good point. There are several mosques with possible links to Terrorist organisations.
Our borders are pretty porus
Surely the hum of drones and the dull roar of hellfire impacts can only be a short time off - to ensure that once again freedom and democracy are practised throughout the UK.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

This is... well not very smart
:2thumbsup:
Most people can see that , well apart from Tuff ...but since he has some funny ideas about events in Libya thats not surprising as he is very very confused .
this move is as you say not very smart , frankly its bloody stupid . Not only did they do it when they are in a weak position but they did it while other countries are trying to solve territorial disputes and others are in negotiations about getting Syria to give up its WMDs .
They really are like a brainless drunk who kicks over a table of drinks because someone spilt a bit of his beer .
And while some might say .....
It is essentially saying - "unless you deal with this, you will have no national security". ...that is bollox , what it is saying that the land of freedom will murder people anywhere anytime on any flimsy pretext with no thought of justice or law , or consequences .
It does make you wonder though , is there something in the water source at the pentagon that makes them into brainless idiots ?:inquisitive:

[spmetla]

Syria Raid Kills Al Qaeda In Iraq Leader (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/27/world/main4547352.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories)


(CBS/AP) Families in this Syrian village on Monday buried relatives they said died in a U.S. helicopter attack. A U.S. counterterrorism official said American forces killed the head of a Syrian network that funneled fighters, weapons and cash into Iraq.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports the raid targeted and killed Abu Ghadiyah, who was a senior al Qaeda in Iraq operative responsible for funneling foreign fighters and money into Iraq. A U.S. official calls his death "very significant." Syria was the only pipeline through which al Qaeda in Iraq was getting its foreign fighters.

Also Monday, a villager said U.S. forces grabbed two men and took them away by helicopter during the cross-border raid.

During the funerals, residents shouted anti-American slogans and carried banners reading: "Down with Bush and the American enemy." Syria's foreign minister condemned the raid as "cowboy politics."

The Syrian government said four U.S. military helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown, killing eight people in Sukkariyeh - a village about five miles inside the Syrian border.

A U.S. military official in Washington confirmed Sunday that special forces had conducted a raid in Syria that targeted the network of al Qaeda-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack is another sign that the United States is aggressively launching military raids across the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq to destroy insurgent sanctuaries. In Pakistan, U.S. missile strikes have killed at least two senior al Qaeda operatives this year and ramped up the threat to groups suspected of plotting attacks on Western troops in Afghanistan and terror strikes in the West.

Martin reports special operations forces went in on the ground because unlike an air strike, it allows them to pick up intelligence. They undoubtedly left with every cell phone and laptop they could find. U.S. officials do not believe they killed any innocent civilians, although that remains uncertain.

Technically, this raid, like an earlier one into Pakistan, was conducted by the CIA using military personnel, a distinction which matters only to lawyers. The Pakistan raid required presidential approval and this one likely did as well.

A Sukkariyeh resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life, said he saw at least two men taken into custody by American forces and whisked away by helicopter. Another villager displayed amateur video footage he took with his mobile phone that shows four helicopters flying toward them as villagers point to the skies in alarm.

An Associated Press journalist saw the grainy video Monday.

At the targeted building, about a five-minute drive off the main road, the floor was bloodstained and white tennis shoes were surrounded by blood and pieces of human flesh. A tent pitched near the site had bags of bread, pots and pans and wool blankets.

The White House Monday refused to make any comment on the incident.

CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports that press secretary Dana Perino could not have been more adamant:

"You can come up here and try to beat it out of me - but I will not be commenting on this in any way, shape or form today,' she said.

Iran condemned the attack as did Russia, which has had close ties with Syria since Soviet times.

The raid also put the Baghdad government in an awkward position while negotiating a security pact with the United States. Iraqi officials said they hoped the raid would not harm their relations with Syria, but the government spokesman in Baghdad noted that it happened in an area known as a terrorist haven.

"We are trying to contain the fallout from the incident," Iraqi Foreign Ministry undersecretary Labid Abbawi said. "It is regrettable and we are sorry it happened."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, however, said the area where the raid occurred "is a theater of military operations where anti-Iraq terrorist activity takes place."

Syria's foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, described the raid as "cowboy politics." He spoke to reporters in London and warned that if there was a repeat attack on Syria, "we would defend our territories."

The Syrian government statement said eight people were killed, including a man and his four children and a woman. However, local officials said seven men were killed and two other people were wounded, including a woman among the injured.

An Associated Press journalist at the funerals in the village cemetery saw the bodies of seven men - none of them children. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained.

Sunday's attack came at a time when Syria appears to be making some amends with the United States. Though Syria has long been viewed by the U.S. as a destabilizing country in the Middle East, Damascus has been trying in recent months to change its image and end years of global seclusion.

The raid came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

In Sukkariyeh, villager Jumaa Ahmad al-Hamad told the AP he was walking Sunday when he saw four helicopters, two of which landed.

"Shooting then started ringing for more than 10 minutes," al-Hamad said Monday. After the helicopters stopped firing and left the area, he and other villagers went to the site and discovered the bodies of his uncle, Dawoud al-Hamad, and four of his uncle's sons, who he said were killed.

At the one-story family house of the deceased Dawoud al-Hamad and his sons, about 30 women dressed in black wept in a courtyard. They all dismissed allegations that the dead men had links to al Qaeda.

"They were innocent laborers who worked from dusk to dawn," said Abdullah's wife, Rima, while sitting on the floor. She said work at the construction site started last week.

Asked about U.S. reports that an al Qaeda-linked group used the site, Siham, the widow of one of Dawoud al-Hamad's sons, Ibrahim, said: "I don't know about any of that."

"All I know is that they went to work and never came back," said the mother of seven children, the youngest of whom is an 8-month-old girl.

Some Iraqi officials warned that the U.S. military raid into Syria could be used by opponents of the security pact under negotiation with the United States.

"Now neighboring countries have a good reason to be concerned about the continued U.S. presence in Iraq," Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman told the AP.

Abbawi said he did not believe the Syrian raid would affect the security negotiations but acknowledged that "some will use the incident for the argument against the agreement."

Sunday's attack comes as the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been declining. A senior U.S. military intelligence official told the AP in July that it had been cut to an estimated 20 a month. That's a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official.

The area targeted Sunday is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency.

Ninety percent of the foreign fighters enter through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence. Foreigners are some of the most deadly fighters in Iraq, trained in bomb-making and with small-arms expertise and more likely to be willing suicide bombers than Iraqis.

[ICantSpellDawg]

:2thumbsup:
And while some might say ........that is bollox , what it is saying that the land of freedom will murder people anywhere anytime on any flimsy pretext with no thought of justice or law , or consequences .
It does make you wonder though , is there something in the water source at the pentagon that makes them into brainless idiots ?:inquisitive:

You're right. The U.S. army ran out of women and children to kill in Iraq, so they figured they'd screw with Syrians because they wouldn't expect it. There was no purpose to the incursion, save for some macho :daisy: measuring contest.

The United States is morally equivallent to Al-Qaeda - scratch that - morally worse than Al-Qaeda because they kill on a larger scale.

[Strike For The South]

You're right. The U.S. army ran out of women and children to kill in Iraq, so they figured they'd screw with Syrians because they wouldn't expect it. There was no purpose to the incursion, save for some macho c*ck measuring contest.

The United States is morally equivallent to Al-Qaeda - scratch that - morally worse than Al-Qaeda because they kill on a larger scale.

You didnt answer my question Bubba

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well Tuff since "surgical" strikes are ok for us even apparntley on our allies. I must ask, What about the UK. Surely there are top level men and all we ask is that those Brits stop providing a place for these people to thrive Surely its ok yes? I mean its a surgical strike so downtown London wont be hurt to bad.

If the United Kingdom could not or would not eradicate or contain terrorist cells within its territory from waging war abroad, but rather contributed to their proliferation - YES, I would support surgical strikes in the United kingdom.

In short - if the UK was a Baathist state that bankrolled terrorism within numerous allied nations (including agaisnt U.S. troops) I would support surgical strikes there, too.

Did I really need to answer that? The U.K. works hard to keep terrorists out of their country or under the governments boot. It is not a comparable situation.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're right. The U.S. army ran out of women and children to kill in Iraq, so they figured they'd screw with Syrians because they wouldn't expect it. There was no purpose to the incursion, save for some macho c*ck measuring contest.

The United States is morally equivallent to Al-Qaeda - scratch that - morally worse than Al-Qaeda because they kill on a larger scale.

My first impression was Bush in the oval office, screaming "IT'S NOT FAIR! MY TIME IS ALMOST UP! ISRAEL GOT TO ATTACK THEM! NOW I GET TO!"

In seriousness, I think this is high profile theatrics trying to end Bush's 2nd term on an energetic note in the war on terror. After YEARS and YEARS of ignoring the fact that Iraq is NOT the central front on the war on terror, suddenly Bush decides militants in Syria and Pakistan need dealing with?

The timing is a little convenient.

[Strike For The South]

If the United Kingdom could not or would not eradicate or contain terrorist cells within its territory from waging war abroad, but rather contributed to their proliferation - YES, I would support surgical strikes in the United kingdom.

In short - if the UK was a Baathist state that bankrolled terrorism within numerous allied nations (including agaisnt U.S. troops) I would support surgical strikes there, too.

Did I really need to answer that? The U.K. works hard to keep terrorists out of their country or under the governments boot. It is not a comparable situation.

Saudi Arabia then? You know the only reason we did this is because we Syria has nothing to hurt us wether it be internationally or economically. There are plenty of states that harbor or have or train terrorists and we dont strike them. Im beginning to see wisdom in Tribesman's posts now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Saudi Arabia then? You know the only reason we did this is because we Syria has nothing to hurt us wether it be internationally or economically. There are plenty of states that harbor or have or train terrorists and we dont strike them.

It depends on whether or not we have the leverage necessary to pressure the governemnt to pursue the insurgents. Saudi Arabia plays ball to a large extent with our requests to subdue insurgency. They do it for mutual benefit. We find that diplomacy works with them where it doesn't work with Syria.

If we didn't feel threatened by Syria they wouldn't be a target for surgical strikes. They are clearly harboring a threat that needs to be dealt with.

Many states harbor or train terrorists. Is your advice to pursue only the ones that can be sucessfully dealt with diplomatically?



Im beginning to see wisdom in Tribesman's posts now.


There is often wit, but don't confuse that for wisdom. His posts are full of callousness and anger at the United States. There is a point to be made for every arguement, but some are more novelty than practicality. I'm not aksing you to agree with me, but beware all posters who preach anger and contempt - cynicism and apathy (including myself). They don't offer a better way.

[Koga No Goshi]

It depends on whether or not we have the leverage necessary to pressure the governemnt to persue the insurgents. Saudi Arabia plays ball to a large extent with our requests to subdue insurgency. They do it for mutual benefit. We find that diplomacy works with them where it doesn't work with Syria.

I don't recall this level of delicate, nuanced consideration of where and how we should engage terrorists with full military force when it came to Iraq or Afghanistan. At all.

[Strike For The South]

It depends on whether or not we have the leverage necessary to pressure the governemnt to persue the insurgents. Saudi Arabia plays ball to a large extent with our requests to subdue insurgency. They do it for mutual benefit. We find that diplomacy works with them where it doesn't work with Syria.

If we didn't feel threatened by Syria they wouldn't be a target for surgical strikes. They are clearly harboring a threat that needs to be dealt with.

Many states harbor or train terrorsits. Is your advice to persue only the ones that can be sucessfully dealt with diplomatically?
.

I dont trust SA farther than I can throw them. They still funnel millions to men who want to kill us wether or not the "corporate" I think that skirting a nations sovrigenty to kill some terrorists that dont amount to much is counter productive. Especially when children are part of the collateral. Im merely trying to do whats best for our country I dont want us to fail.


There is often wit, but don't confuse that for wisdom. His posts are full of callousness and anger at the United States. There is a point to be made for every arguement, but some are more novelty than practicality. He doesn't preach peace, so ask yourself what he is selling

Eh. He takes down the high horse from time to time and I always like seeing another man who enjoys the drink

[Koga No Goshi]

There is often wit, but don't confuse that for wisdom. His posts are full of callousness and anger at the United States. There is a point to be made for every arguement, but some are more novelty than practicality.

Critically thinking discussion of U.S. foreign policy comes off like "America bashing" to people who don't want to hear anything negative about America, ever. I am not sure there's a fix for that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't recall this level of delicate, nuanced consideration of where and how we should engage terrorists with full military force when it came to Iraq or Afghanistan. At all.

Afghanistan was always going to be a hard won fight. Do you beleive that we shouldn't have gone in? That we didn't think about it hard enough? Look at the now functional central, northern and western parts of the country. Do you not think that we did an impressive job there? The conflict is now isolated in a pretty desolate part of the country where specific ethnolinguistic groups are responsible for the insurgency. The insurgency is also now largely based ex-territorially.

Iraq was executed virally. We directed our attacks fast and at the regional nucleii. Once we established our strategic urban centers we fortified them and branched out. We expected to meet predominately uniformed conventional resistance, but soon realize that it didn't exist. Iraq then became a Middle Eastern extremist drain. They came to play in the sandbox that had been created just for them. I have been impressed by our strategy in Iraq, even though that is hard to imagine for so many people. Understandably people focus on what was done wrong, but everyone seems to gloss over what was donme right - this has been the most successful military invasion in world history. The occupation has had many more bumps, but still, by all historical standards is has been pretty great for the occupying military.

We can never win with people at home wishing and wanting for us to fail. People view it as a failure because an opposing narrative was never written to that of a "modern vietnam". War is hard and we have performed very well. We can always learn and do it better, but failure is uncharacteristic of our time in these regions. This has been a great refresher course for our Military and I never expected them to perform as well as they have, to be honest. I wish time, money and constituency allowed us to do this in Sudan, Somalia, the Phillipines, Central Africa, North Korea and anywhere else that needed it.

I don't beleive that Iran or Syria need it. I believe that they are backwards, but we have all seen pretty normal relationships with the two countries relativly recently. Guys like Khatami were great for Iran - a county that is not run by the Taliban, but just happens to have a nut in power now. I think that baby-Assad is much more reasonable than his father, much less Saddam. I don't see any reason that infrequent surgical strikes wouldn't work with him. I hope that we don't invade these countries. They don't need it by any standard, they are capable of doing it themselves.

[Koga No Goshi]

Tuff-- no, I'm not saying we had no business in Afghanistan. Nor am I even really saying that there isn't some reason to what you say. But I think that if someone had been applying this type of thought to the overall war on terror from day one, we wouldn't be in Iraq. At all. And the justifications, both prior to and after-the-fact, regarding Iraq, conflict very much with the strategic thinking you are giving now.

Although it's rather cynical, I'm seeing the public's "demand" that we go into Afghanistan as having just been exploited as a pretext to slide into Iraq. And one cannot credibly make the argument that Iraq was strategically more important in the war on terror than Saudi Arabia, UAE's money laundering, etc. While we were there one of the new "axis of evil" we named as the greatest threats to world security actually developed a nuke.

The whole thing is just such a botch-up.

[Samurai Waki]

Both valid and agreeable points, good thread. :thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff-- no, I'm not saying we had no business in Afghanistan. Nor am I even really saying that there isn't some reason to what you say. But I think that if someone had been applying this type of thought to the overall war on terror from day one, we wouldn't be in Iraq. At all. And the justifications, both prior to and after-the-fact, regarding Iraq, conflict very much with the strategic thinking you are giving now.

Although it's rather cynical, I'm seeing the public's "demand" that we go into Afghanistan as having just been exploited as a pretext to slide into Iraq. And one cannot credibly make the argument that Iraq was strategically more important in the war on terror than Saudi Arabia, UAE's money laundering, etc. While we were there one of the new "axis of evil" we named as the greatest threats to world security actually developed a nuke.

The whole thing is just such a botch-up.

Do you deny mass gravesites in Iraq? Or that Saddam gassed his own people for some genocidal treason link?

I know that you remember how absurd the fact that Saddamn had no records of destorying the chemical weapons that he had (AND USED on his own people) was. Or that he deliberately made it seem like he still had them to trick the Iranians(????) by driving around secretive convoys during weapons inspections. Or how all international intelligence agencies took it for granted that Iraq still had weapons and was previously working on a nuclear program.

It is disingenuous to suggest that we went into Iraq for no reason. There could have legitimately been the weapons that we had feared. You have to look back and remember Clinton and Biden's vote. If these guys are so seasoned in foreign policy, why were they so easily duped? They may not have been working directly with Al-Qaeda (aside from an understandable meeting or two which even we have surely had), but the concept was to secure what we beleived were unstable chemical or nuclear regimes from the temptation of selling more devestating armaments to the newly popular terror groups. I always like the idea of a terror sink in the heart of the middle east that would be able to quickly become economically self-sufficient through oil reserves.

I wish that we had pressured the Iraqi governemnt to use more of its surplus to pay for its own civil programs in hindsight. We should be pushing that now. My position has been consistent on the war - before we went in I made it clear that whether Iraq had the weapons or not it was irrelevant. They (along with all intelligence except for the always present doubters) made it seem like they had the weapons and if they had them it would have been worth it. They didn't have them, but the risk was still worth taking.

A big fear, though is that because there was no imminent threat from Iraq that time, we will now be reluctant to deal with other threats that may turn out to be legitimate. If you were to aks any gambling man whether there were those weapons in Iraq prior to the invasion, what do you think the ration of yes:no would have been?

[Strike For The South]

This thread has gone above my pay grade:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

This thread has gone above my pay grade:laugh4:

We should start a thread about best figures of speech from this election. That is surely one of them.

[Strike For The South]

We should start a thread about best figures of speech from this election. That is surely one of them.

Yea I concede defeat! Im good on demography, illegals, education, domestic government this foreign affairs stuff is a bit above me....for now.

[Koga No Goshi]

Do you deny mass gravesites in Iraq? Or that Saddam gassed his own people for some genocidal treason link?

Where did you read that into anything I said? To quote a British comedian, there's an alphabetical list of dictatorships in the world and the U.S. started with the letter "S." Being able to make a case that Iraq's regime was not a good one by the standards of western democracy, is not the same as making the case that arbitrarily picking Iraq out of a list of threats to us, both conventional and terrorist-based, makes any sense whatsoever. You have made it clear several times that you support the Iraq War, that you think it's a good thing, that you think the Iraqis will be better off than they were in 20 years. That's fine. It still doesn't change the fact that the rationale that it was connected with 9/11 or the forefront of terrorism in the world was utter bunk and that if we are fighting a war with those goals then being there is a mistake and a waste.


I know that you remember how absurd the fact that Saddamn had no records of destorying the chemical weapons that he had (AND USED on his own people) was. Or that he deliberately made it seem like he still had them to trick the Iranians(????) by driving around secretive convoys during weapons inspections. Or how all international intelligence agencies took it for granted that Iraq still had weapons and was previously working on a nuclear program.

Same point as above. You can make equally horrific human rights cases about Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Kuwait, Pakistan, North Korea, the Israel/Palestine conflict, Darfour, and a host of others. Even though awful things are going on in Darfour if we went in to "stop terrorism" and said we ain't leavin till we have victory against terrorism, I'd still call it a strategic f-up. Wouldn't you?


It is disingenuous to suggest that we went into Iraq for no reason.

No it isn't. The basis upon which Bush led the call to war and got the yes vote on his force resolution was a purported tie between Iraq and Al Qaida. The rationale of "freeing people" was only used later, after the WMD story and connections to terrorism were revealed to be complete bunk. If every reason we went in was a lie so that we could accomplish the "real goals" you are now using, then I fail to see why we are still there. Iraq is free of Saddam. Mission accomplished. Why are we still there?


I wish that we had pressured the Iraqi governemnt to use more of its surplus to pay for its own civil programs in hindsight. We should be pushing that now. My position has been consistent on the war - before we went in I made it clear that whether Iraq had the weapons or not it was irrelevant. They (along with all intelligence except for the always present doubters) made it seem like they had the weapons and if they had them it would have been worth it. They didn't have them, but the risk was still worth taking.

Almost any hindsight plan is good compared to going in with virtually no plan.


A big fear, though is that because there was no imminent threat from Iraq that time, we will now be reluctant to deal with other threats that may turn out to be legitimate. If you were to aks any gambling man whether there were those weapons in Iraq prior to the invasion, what do you think the ration of yes:no would have been?

You are correct that America spent a lot of its "moral capital", both with the international community as well as with the voting public. An overwhelming majority of the public feel this war was a mistake and that it should be ended. Though I have little faith that, given enough time, the public won't be easily herded into supporting another war on pretexts which should be transparent to anyone who is at all paying attention.

[Divinus Arma]

yay

[Tribesman]

You're right. The U.S. army ran out of women and children to kill in Iraq, so they figured they'd screw with Syrians because they wouldn't expect it. There was no purpose to the incursion, save for some macho :daisy: measuring contest.

The United States is morally equivallent to Al-Qaeda - scratch that - morally worse than Al-Qaeda because they kill on a larger scale.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Wow thats Pathetic with a capital P


Critically thinking discussion of U.S. foreign policy comes off like "America bashing" to people who don't want to hear anything negative about America, ever. I am not sure there's a fix for that.
Oh my thats nasty , blunt yet precise , a real stinging rebuke to the people who choose to play blind deaf and dumb like the three monkeys . However I am sure there must be a fix for it :yes:
Perhaps we could start with some simple re-education say take something like ......
We can never win with people at home wishing and wanting for us to fail. ...and ask them to think about what they are saying , open their eyes and ears and finaly unblock their mouths when what they are going to say makes more sense .
Then again , when it comes to stuff like ....
His posts are full of callousness and anger at the United States....it does imply that the education is going to be very very hard :yes:

[Mailman653]

Seems to me if Mexican police or Canadian police came into the US without asking and started shooting up a town in TX or MI and innocent people got injured or killed with the justification that they had to go into catch a wanted drug smuggler or arms dealer, people in the US would be in an uproar and demand the government for sanctions against those two countries and what not. But when the US sends a helicopter over someones border and takes someone out and everything around him, the other country's pleas fall on deaf ears.:2cents:

I love my country as much as the next person, but I can't agree with everything it does.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seems to me if Mexican police or Canadian police came into the US without asking and started shooting up a town in TX or MI and innocent people got injured or killed with the justification that they had to go into catch a wanted drug smuggler or arms dealer, people in the US would be in an uproar and demand the government for sanctions against those two countries and what not. But when the US sends a helicopter over someones border and takes someone out and everything around him, the other country's pleas fall on deaf ears.:2cents:

I love my country as much as the next person, but I can't agree with everything it does.

However, if either Canada or Mexico asked for assistance in such an apprehension, they would receive it (possibly with enough promptitude to be useful, though that's harder to be sure of). Syria has demonstrated that it would not do so at the behest of the USA.

[ICantSpellDawg]

However, if either Canada or Mexico asked for assistance in such an apprehension, they would receive it (possibly with enough promptitude to be useful, though that's harder to be sure of). Syria has demonstrated that it would not do so at the behest of the USA.

Right

[yesdachi]

Seems to me if Mexican police or Canadian police came into the US without asking and started shooting up a town in TX or MI and innocent people got injured or killed with the justification that they had to go into catch a wanted drug smuggler or arms dealer, people in the US would be in an uproar and demand the government for sanctions against those two countries and what not. But when the US sends a helicopter over someones border and takes someone out and everything around him, the other country's pleas fall on deaf ears.:2cents:

I love my country as much as the next person, but I can't agree with everything it does.

The trouble is that you are comparing the US to Syria. They are apples and rocks.

If a Mexican strike force hit a target in the US without authorization and the US made a stink about it the Mexicans would say if the US would take care of their own mess we wouldn’t have had to make that move into US territory. The US people would fly into outrage over our lack of control of these bad guys and our inability to control our boarder whereas the Syrians are only pissed because they got caught thinking they could hide terrorist supporters behind a boarder and a claim of ignorance.

Sure they are a sovereign nation, but realistically they can’t do anything that they aren’t already doing to stop us from jumping in and killing a bad guy and jumping out. They would never move into open war with us and aside from them casually supporting terrorists we have no real reason to go to war with them. If the US were wearing a conquers hat we would use the fact they harbor and support terrorists to invade but we are not conquers (bummer:laugh4:) and they don’t have anything we want so why bother doing anything more than strike their terrorist support locations when we have a decent chance.

What negative does it do us to ignore their sovereignty? Nothing but bad press which we already have so who cares. Let Syria know we are not afraid to take matters into our own hands and that they can’t be so blatant in their support of terrorists without us smacking them with a rolled up news paper.

[Koga No Goshi]

What negative does it do us to ignore their sovereignty? Nothing but bad press which we already have so who cares. Let Syria know we are not afraid to take matters into our own hands and that they can’t be so blatant in their support of terrorists without us smacking them with a rolled up news paper.

Does this rationale for ignoring/violating sovereignty equally apply for other powers? Russia, for instance?

Or would that be different, because they're... Russians... and we're America? :)

[yesdachi]

Does this rationale for ignoring/violating sovereignty equally apply for other powers? Russia, for instance?

Or would that be different, because they're... Russians... and we're America? :)

Sure, of course if Russia were supporting the trafficking of terrorists into our country we would have bigger problems than bad PR. ~D

If Turkey were ignoring an anti Syrian militant group operating just inside their boarder and Syria jumped in and blew the heck out of them I would also be ok with that too, assuming that Syria had asked Turkey to handle it and Turkey didn’t.

Sometimes diplomacy fails and action must be taken.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sure, of course if Russia were supporting the trafficking of terrorists into our country we would have bigger problems than bad PR. ~D

If Turkey were ignoring an anti Syrian militant group operating just inside their boarder and Syria jumped in and blew the heck out of them I would also be ok with that too, assuming that Syria had asked Turkey to handle it and Turkey didn’t.

What i had meant was, do you support the right of other countries, besides the U.S., to cross borders and perform actions in their own interests/security?

Or does just the U.S. have this special pass?

[Tribesman]

However, if either Canada or Mexico asked for assistance in such an apprehension, they would receive it (possibly with enough promptitude to be useful, though that's harder to be sure of). Syria has demonstrated that it would not do so at the behest of the USA.

Hold on there Seamus , wasn't syria in the early years of the war on terror a country that was helping bush ..you know arrests interogations transition and rendition and all that crap ...it went on up until Bush lost the plot really didn't it .

[Guildenstern]

Bush is doing his best to start as many wars as he can before leaving office. It's how he operates. What an absolute disgrace. This is all an attempt to cause another war so that McCain can be installed as the new war commander. There is simply no other reason to provoke these countries 10 days out from the election. These incursions need to be authorised at the highest level which means that Bush and his band are throwing their last dice. God I hope these people burn in hell. :shame:

[Strike For The South]

Bush is doing his best to start as many wars as he can before leaving office. It's how he operates. What an absolute disgrace. This is all an attempt to cause another war so that McCain can be installed as the new war commander. There is simply no other reason to provoke these countries 10 days out from the election. These incursions need to be authorised at the highest level which means that Bush and his band are throwing their last dice. God I hope these people burn in hell. :shame:

Lies and hate dont lead to the best discussion

[Koga No Goshi]

It's not a lie. The timing of these sudden "opportune strikes" is crap. They never saw fit to take any notice of anything going on outside of Iraq until 10 days before the election? Come on.

[Strike For The South]

It's not a lie. The timing of these sudden "opportune strikes" is crap. They never saw fit to take any notice of anything going on outside of Iraq until 10 days before the election? Come on.

Im pretty sure Bush isnt authorizing it cowboy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What i had meant was, do you support the right of other countries, besides the U.S., to cross borders and perform actions in their own interests/security?

Or does just the U.S. have this special pass?

I was OK with Columbia's quick response to the FARC activity in Ecuador. I'm OK with Ethiopia's involvement in Somalia. I wouldn't have had a problem with Russia repelling aggressive Georgian forces in Ossetia if they hadn't followed them back into Georgia afterward. I'm ok with many of the actions taken by Israel in Lebanon and Syria (although many I'm not ok with). When a nation is unwilling or unable to resolve a terrorist threat within their borders, other affected countries should resolve it for them if they can do it without making the situation much worse.

Too often the military actions of smaller countries can lead to a more drawn out and devastating conflict. That doesn't tend to happen when the U.S. interjects, therefore the destabilization doesn't have unraveling consequences.

[Koga No Goshi]

I was OK with Columbia's quick response to the FARC activity in Ecuador. I'm OK with Ethiopia's involvement in Somalia. I wouldn't have had a problem with Russia repelling aggressive Georgian forces in Ossetia if they hadn't followed them back into Georgia afterward. I'm ok with many of the actions taken by Israel in Lebanon and Syria (although many I'm not ok with). When a nation is unwilling or unable to resolve a terrorist threat within their borders, other affected countries should resolve it for them if they ca ndo it without making the situation much worse.

Too often the military actions of smaller countries can lead to a more drawn out and devestating conflict. That doesn't tend to happen when the U.S. interjects, therefore the destabilization doesn't have unraveling consequences.

Understood. As long as people are consistent about it, I can see their point.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Im pretty sure Bush isnt authorizing it cowboy.

I believe that he is. Extra-regional activity is the kind of stuff that the Administration would need to authorize.

[Guildenstern]

Lies and hate dont lead to the best discussion
US troops murdered innocent civilians in that raid, half of them were CHILDREN. Is it patriotism to slaughter innocent kids, women and men? :no:

[Strike For The South]

I believe that he is. Extra-regional activity is the kind of stuff that the Administration would need to authorize.

Well could we get some concrete evidence? Im just asking I really wanna know

[Strike For The South]

US troops murdered innocent civilians in that raid, half of them were CHILDREN. Is it patriotism to slaughter innocent kids, women and men? :no:

If you choose to believe the issue in that much black and white there is no hope for you. You will not win over anyone here because you capitalized CHILDREN.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well could we get some concrete evidence? Im just asking I really wanna know

Just think about it - We attacked another country with our regular military. We can defend it as necessary and acceptable, as I believe it is, but it tends to be "above the pay grade" of individual Commanders to make that kind of call. International diplomatic equations are out of their scope and the consequences are potentially enormous.

If I had money to bet, I would put it on the Bush administration giving the green light, but I don't know either.

[Strike For The South]

Just think about it - We attacked another country with our regular military. We can defend it as necessary and acceptable, as I believe it is, but it tends to be "above the pay grade" of individual Commanders to make that kind of call. International diplomatic equations are out of their scope and the consequences are potentially enormous.

If I had money to bet, I would put it on the Bush administration giving the green light, but I don't know either.

Do you think it was Bush himself?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Do you think it was Bush himself?

He'd need to sign off even if it wasn't his idea. Buck stops with him.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hold on there Seamus , wasn't syria in the early years of the war on terror a country that was helping bush ..you know arrests interogations transition and rendition and all that crap ...it went on up until Bush lost the plot really didn't it .

Well, IIRC, Syria was officially on that list, at first. As to how helpful they were in practice, I am not sure, but I'm inclined to play Thomas' role on that one.

[Guildenstern]

If you choose to believe the issue in that much black and white there is no hope for you.

Do you think that believing the issue in shades of gray will give me a little of hope?

[Strike For The South]

Do you think that believing the issue in shades of gray will give me a little of hope?

Im just saying man calling soldiers murders without any thought of "why" or "how" isnt very productive same goes for wanting "these people to burn u=in hell" They day you dehumanize something is the day you lose the battle.

[Koga No Goshi]

Im just saying man calling soldiers murders without any thought of "why" or "how" isnt very productive same goes for wanting "these people to burn u=in hell" They day you dehumanize something is the day you lose the battle.

Then we lost the war on terror pretty much on 9/12. Unfortunately.

[Husar]

So Strike, you're basically saying that the commander of the Army has no say in whether his army(which he is ultimately responsible for as a represent of the people of the United States of America who are indirectly also responsible) attacks a sovereign country or not?
Maybe that's why he doesn't blame Pakistan for being a safe haven for the Taliban because he knows that he has no more control over his own army than the Pakistani president over his. :laugh4:

[yesdachi]

What i had meant was, do you support the right of other countries, besides the U.S., to cross borders and perform actions in their own interests/security?

Or does just the U.S. have this special pass?

I thought my hypothetical example made my stance clear but to make it crystal :bow:, I do support the right of other countries, besides the U.S., to cross borders and perform actions in their own interests/security because sometimes diplomacy fails and action must be taken. The unique thing with the US is even if it were “wrong” to do we are big enough that there is not a lot of retaliation that can be given from a smaller country like Syria and because we are big anytime we do something like this we are looked at like the big bully pushing the little guy around.


@Guildenstern I would love to see what defines "children" in this instance, a couple of eight year olds playing hopscotch or a couple of eight year olds helping daddy pass out maps and ammunition to terrorists about to cross the boarder. The US or anyone else can’t be held responsible for the lives of “children” if their parents are putting them in harms way. Putting a human shield in front of you is not a free pass to conduct terrorist activities.

[Tribesman]

The US or anyone else can’t be held responsible for the lives of “children” if their parents are putting them in harms way.Putting a human shield in front of you is not a free pass to conduct terrorist activities.
Since there is no current evidence that the parents did anything wrong or that they were using children as human shields you are talking bollox .
The US is responsible an only the US is responsible no matter how big it is or how its power can avoid retaliation .
This is a crime plain and simple , violation of soveriegnty , well actually violation of two soveriegnties as the Iraqi government are chiming in now , an act of war , extra judicial murder , violation of the treaties to which it is party , violation of the UN charter , violation of the mandate under which it operates in Iraq .
To see you attempt to justify this really shows how low you have sunk .

BTW Seamus , your doubting Thomas routine .
What did Gen Petraus have to say about Syria during his term in Iraq ?
Did he say they were helping , did he say they were working together , did he say they were improving co-ordination .....?:yes:
And now the muppets currently doing their term have managed to piss of Syria and Iraq in one stupid stunt (and of course the semi-autonamous Kurdish assembly who joined in the condemnation of the strike)

[yesdachi]

Since there is no current evidence that the parents did anything wrong or that they were using children as human shields you are talking bollox.

Just because we haven’t been privy to the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any, in this case their word is good enough for me. The situation goes down something like this and you think that is wrong, I think it is fine. Maybe the Syrians and other enemies of the US will have to try a little harder to be discrete in their support of our enemies. Standing on the boarder of Iraq with a sign that reads “This way to kill Americans and disrupt the growth of freedom” is not acceptable to me.

Syria allows “foreign fighters” to enter Iraq thru their boarder.

The US and Iraq asks them to tighten the security of their boarder to stop allowing the foreign fighters thru.

Syria allows “foreign fighters” to enter Iraq thru their boarder.

The US and Iraq asks them to tighten the security of their boarder to stop allowing the foreign fighters thru.

Syria allows “foreign fighters” to enter Iraq thru their boarder.

The US smacks Syria in the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

The US hating people who support Syria allowing foreign fighters to cross their boarder into Iraq are in protest at the despicable behavior of the US.

[Strike For The South]

So Strike, you're basically saying that the commander of the Army has no say in whether his army(which he is ultimately responsible for as a represent of the people of the United States of America who are indirectly also responsible) attacks a sovereign country or not?
Maybe that's why he doesn't blame Pakistan for being a safe haven for the Taliban because he knows that he has no more control over his own army than the Pakistani president over his. :laugh4:

Do you think Bush knows everything that goes on? I dont. I already said this was the wrong thing to do. I just think telling Bush he needs to burn in hell brings the disscusion nowhere.

[Tribesman]

Syria allows “foreign fighters” to enter Iraq thru their boarder.

The US and Iraq asks them to tighten the security of their boarder to stop allowing the foreign fighters thru.

Syria allows “foreign fighters” to enter Iraq thru their boarder.

The US and Iraq asks them to tighten the security of their boarder to stop allowing the foreign fighters thru.

Syria allows “foreign fighters” to enter Iraq thru their boarder.

The US smacks Syria in the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

The US hating people who support Syria allowing foreign fighters to cross their boarder into Iraq are in protest at the despicable behavior of the US.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well that is a pathetic attempt indeed .
The most pathetic part of which must surely be .....
The US hating people who support Syria allowing foreign fighters to cross their boarder into Iraq ...which is so lame it really should be too cruel to laugh at it , it should be pitied instead .


in this case their word is good enough for me.
Ever heard of being gullible ?
Given their track record I wouldn't believe their word if they said the sky was blue unless they provided a clear definition of what they meant by blue and sky and that definition was independently verified and supporting evidence from a neutral source confirmed that the sky was what they said it was and the pigmentation matched it .
Your problem is that you are to willing to "believe" with no evidence whatsoever , besides which your mililtary leaders statements contradict your assertions and your expectations appear to reside in a land of fantasy .

[Spino]

Seems to me if Mexican police or Canadian police came into the US without asking and started shooting up a town in TX or MI and innocent people got injured or killed with the justification that they had to go into catch a wanted drug smuggler or arms dealer, people in the US would be in an uproar and demand the government for sanctions against those two countries and what not. But when the US sends a helicopter over someones border and takes someone out and everything around him, the other country's pleas fall on deaf ears.:2cents:

I love my country as much as the next person, but I can't agree with everything it does.

Uh, bad analogy. See, if the US was sponsoring and training terrorist organizations that infiltrated across the border and brought chaos and death to the lives of Mexican citizens (or those of Mexico's allies) then I'd say Mexico would be morally & ethically justified in violating sovereign US territory in order to deal with the situation more effectively.

There's something to be said about maintaining the initiative and forcing the enemy to react to your moves as opposed to taking a purely defensive posture and letting him dictate the time, place & tempo of the fight. If we force ourselves to wait for the perfect moral, ethical & legal moment to arise so we could kill or apprehend these terrorists then nothing is going to get done.

[Guildenstern]

I just think telling Bush he needs to burn in hell brings the disscusion nowhere.
I just hope Bush won't start WWIII before he leaves office. But then again maybe he won't leave office. Maybe he will declare a national emergency and no election.

[Strike For The South]

I just hope Bush won't start WWIII before he leaves office. But then again maybe he won't leave office. Maybe he will declare a national emergency and no election.

Is this one of those things we can bet a twelve pack on? Because Im rather confident.

[yesdachi]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well that is a pathetic attempt indeed .
The most pathetic part of which must surely be .....
The US hating people who support Syria allowing foreign fighters to cross their boarder into Iraq ...which is so lame it really should be too cruel to laugh at it , it should be pitied instead .


Ever heard of being gullible ?
Given their track record I wouldn't believe their word if they said the sky was blue unless they provided a clear definition of what they meant by blue and sky and that definition was independently verified and supporting evidence from a neutral source confirmed that the sky was what they said it was and the pigmentation matched it .
Your problem is that you are to willing to "believe" with no evidence whatsoever , besides which your mililtary leaders statements contradict your assertions and your expectations appear to reside in a land of fantasy .

By pathetic did you really mean awesome?

Do you think Syria’s boarders are tight and they do everything they can to stop foreign fighters from leaving their country into Iraq? Do you think the US/Iraq hasn’t asked Syria to help curb the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq? Do you disagree that US hating people who support Syria allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq are not protesting? I think I have made sense of a convoluted situation. Go ahead and read it again and by the way your welcome :wink:

I am not gullible; I just choose to believe they are telling the truth. I will never know the real situation but I can either trust them (the situation seems reasonable enough) or not trust them. I don’t think they would cross the boarder of a hostel neighbor and blow up a house under construction, killing a handful of civilians and their kids for no reason but its Sunday night and we haven’t taken the gunships out in a while.

[Tribesman]

I think I have made sense of a convoluted situation.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually you have written nonsense and demonstrated you have no grasp of the situation at all .

Go ahead and read it again
Oh please I can't , have a thought for others won't you , too much nonsense wears out the laughter reserve . It really strained it getting through your most recent effort without having to go back to the same old tripe again .

[Hooahguy]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually you have written nonsense and demonstrated you have no grasp of the situation at all .

Oh please I can't , have a thought for others won't you , too much nonsense wears out the laughter reserve . It really strained it getting through your most recent effort without having to go back to the same old tripe again .
a challenge for you, tribesman: dont use the ":laugh4:" smiley for a week......

if you can resist i will take a hiatus from these forums for 3 days.....
lets see if you can do it.... :beam:

just had to challenge you to it....

[JR-]

Errrrr...wasn't that years of negotiations with European nations topped of with a big financial package and a nice generous arms deal that worked in Libya .:yes:


if you are referring to libya agreeing to give ups it nuclear program, then no, it wasn't just a bunch of european diplomats with some strong coffee, a lot of patience, and an EADS sales brochure.

it had far more to do with the fact that MI6 among others had thoroughly penetrated their nuclear program, along with the fact that the US/UK (among others) had just invaded iraq and deposed Saddam because he was supposed to have naughty WMD's.

the conversation will have gone something like this:

US - "Post 911 is a very serious world as you have just borne witness, we know what you are up to so don't you think you'd better come clean, before things take a turn for the worse?"

Libya - "We'll give it some serious thought, and be right back to you."

the idea that the imminent threat of massive force in response to undeniable culpability was not the biggest reason for Gaddafi to throw his hands up in their air with a Mea Culpa is ridiculous.

[Sarmatian]

@Guildenstern I would love to see what defines "children" in this instance, a couple of eight year olds playing hopscotch or a couple of eight year olds helping daddy pass out maps and ammunition to terrorists about to cross the boarder. The US or anyone else can’t be held responsible for the lives of “children” if their parents are putting them in harms way. Putting a human shield in front of you is not a free pass to conduct terrorist activities.

Definition of child:
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:
2. a son or daughter:
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

I don't know how should it be defined in "this instance". I've tried googling "definition of child in the case of an American helicopter attack" but nothing came up. Maybe you should send an email to Webster to include one.
5. in the case of American helicopter attack, an eight year old who helps his father with terrorist activities:

You know, maybe eight year olds in the middle east are more advanced types than your average, domestic, everyday western eight year olds, but I sincerely doubt they are able to grasp stuff like terrorism, war on terror, military maps etc... Holding kids responsible for the crimes of their parents is like, so two thousand years ago.

[LittleGrizzly]

I've tried googling "definition of child in the case of an American helicopter attack" but nothing came up.

lol

Libya was nothing, a little joker on the sidelines, it was clear gaddafi didn't have it in him anymore, so he took the money and diplomatic brownie points, let the west declare a big success and have thier photo opportunity, we managed to scare the bad guys into submission with our 'war on terror' and everyone was happy....

[yesdachi]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually you have written nonsense and demonstrated you have no grasp of the situation at all .

Oh please I can't , have a thought for others won't you , too much nonsense wears out the laughter reserve . It really strained it getting through your most recent effort without having to go back to the same old tripe again .

Stand aside logic and reason here is Tribesman with his own brand of common sense to shed light on the entire situation… with laughter! Everything makes sense when you call it nonsense and look at it thru :laugh4::laugh4: colored glasses. Whatever:kiss2:.

[yesdachi]

Definition of child:
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:
2. a son or daughter:
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

I don't know how should it be defined in "this instance". I've tried googling "definition of child in the case of an American helicopter attack" but nothing came up. Maybe you should send an email to Webster to include one.
5. in the case of American helicopter attack, an eight year old who helps his father with terrorist activities:

You know, maybe eight year olds in the middle east are more advanced types than your average, domestic, everyday western eight year olds, but I sincerely doubt they are able to grasp stuff like terrorism, war on terror, military maps etc... Holding kids responsible for the crimes of their parents is like, so two thousand years ago.

Your mistake is clearly in your choice of words to define, I said “children” and you tried to define child, lots of graet examples come up when I search “definition of children in the case of an American helicopter attack”. At least on FOX news it did.

Seriously it’s about context and you know it. The Syrian media called out “children” in an attempt to get a bigger heart-string response, we don’t know if they were little kids innocent to the evils of the world or if they were a day before being fully grown (taken from you definition of child) and already brainwashed into helping dad smuggle foreign fighters into Iraq.

I don’t hold the child responsible for the crimes of the parent (nice to see you admit that the parent is committing a crime) but I think it is bullox (I borrowed that one from my buddy Tribes) that the parents are using their children as human shields to garner outrage when they get them killed.

[Sarmatian]

Your mistake is clearly in your choice of words to define, I said “children” and you tried to define child, lots of graet examples come up when I search “definition of children in the case of an American helicopter attack”. At least on FOX news it did.

Seriously it’s about context and you know it. The Syrian media called out “children” in an attempt to get a bigger heart-string response, we don’t know if they were little kids innocent to the evils of the world or if they were a day before being fully grown (taken from you definition of child) and already brainwashed into helping dad smuggle foreign fighters into Iraq.

I don’t hold the child responsible for the crimes of the parent (nice to see you admit that the parent is committing a crime) but I think it is bullox (I borrowed that one from my buddy Tribes) that the parents are using their children as human shields to garner outrage when they get them killed.

I didn't know Fox is an authority on English language, but hey, you live and learn.

A child is a child. Unless I know that a child was a young adult, brainwashed and already a full-fledged terrorist, I'll consider it a child like any other... You're defending the attack on "it might not have been". That's not good enough, because it just "might have been". If you already violating half the treaties you signed, you better have a damn good reason to and be sure about the intel you've got...

[KukriKhan]

If you already violating half the treaties you signed, you better have a damn good reason to and be sure about the intel you've got...

Surely, words to live by.

This to all: Let's tone down the personal rhetorical remarks a notch, please?

[Tribesman]

the idea that the imminent threat of massive force in response to undeniable culpability was not the biggest reason for Gaddafi to throw his hands up in their air with a Mea Culpa is ridiculous.

You neglect the fact that every time you bombed Libya it led to more terrorism , more funding of terrorism and more arms shipments to terrorists from Libya .
Your attempt to imply that the invasion of Iraq was the golden card in the deal is ridiculous , just about everyone with any brains knew the invasion of Iraq was a recipe for disaster that America couldn't succeed in , and while daffy might be a crazy loon (actually there is no might about that , a read of his little green book will show you how nuts he is) , but he isn't brainless .


Stand aside logic and reason here is Tribesman with his own brand of common sense to shed light on the entire situation… with laughter!
There is no logic or reason in your posts in this topic .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...but I think it is bullox (I borrowed that one from my buddy Tribes) that the parents are using their children as human shields to garner outrage when they get them killed.

From our sense of morality, of course its bollocks. However, from their perspective, it is simply good planning to locate your terrorist safehouse in the basement of a daycare. Decent camouflage and it forces your opponent into a lose-lose situation. Either they do not attack (you win) or their attack is likely to kill innocents (you lose some, but you win again). Note: this presumes that your side operates under a different set of values regarding life and that your larger opponent needs to maintain "PR" on some level.

Having made that general comment, I would like to note that I have no idea whether or not it pertains to this situation -- I haven't read a lot of the details.

[Strike For The South]

From our sense of morality, of course its bollocks. However, from their perspective, it is simply good planning to locate your terrorist safehouse in the basement of a daycare. Decent camouflage and it forces your opponent into a lose-lose situation. Either they do not attack (you win) or their attack is likely to kill innocents (you lose some, but you win again). Note: this presumes that your side operates under a different set of values regarding life and that your larger opponent needs to maintain "PR" on some level.

Having made that general comment, I would like to note that I have no idea whether or not it pertains to this situation -- I haven't read a lot of the details.

Yup lose lose is the correct term here:2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

Yup lose lose is the correct term here
Which is why even if by some remote chance the intelligence and targetting were 100% right (not a very good track record on that front is there) it was a bloody stupid thing to do .
It is doing stupid things like this that makes Americas job harder , and of course attitudes like some expressed here which give a very repellant view of what some see as American "values" .

[Strike For The South]

Which is why even if by some remote chance the intelligence and targetting were 100% right (not a very good track record on that front is there) it was a bloody stupid thing to do .
It is doing stupid things like this that makes Americas job harder , and of course attitudes like some expressed here which give a very repellant view of what some see as American "values" .

We're not so different, you and I

[Tribesman]

We're not so different, you and I
I don't live in Texas ~;)

[Strike For The South]

I don't live in Texas ~;)

No ones perfect

[Husar]

Since there is no current evidence that the parents did anything wrong or that they were using children as human shields you are talking bollox .

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply for them evil terrorist kids in terrorististan or wherever. :sweatdrop:

[spmetla]

Which is why even if by some remote chance the intelligence and targetting were 100% right (not a very good track record on that front is there) it was a bloody stupid thing to do .
It is doing stupid things like this that makes Americas job harder , and of course attitudes like some expressed here which give a very repellant view of what some see as American "values" .

Honestly this sorta sums up my opinion on this incident. While there is cause for it I just don't see it as worth it. However I do support the US's cross border forays into Pakistan though, it seems to have spurred the Pakistani Govt. into a bit more action in their Tribal Regions.

[JR-]

You neglect the fact that every time you bombed Libya it led to more terrorism , more funding of terrorism and more arms shipments to terrorists from Libya .
Your attempt to imply that the invasion of Iraq was the golden card in the deal is ridiculous , just about everyone with any brains knew the invasion of Iraq was a recipe for disaster that America couldn't succeed in , and while daffy might be a crazy loon (actually there is no might about that , a read of his little green book will show you how nuts he is) , but he isn't brainless .


There is no logic or reason in your posts in this topic .

that is irrelevant, we are talking about why libya gave up its nuclear program.

and yes the invasion of iraq was a golden card, it told arab nations that yes the west was nuts enough to depose their regimes, all of a sudden they had to factor in the possibility that they could find themselves looking down the barrel of an abrams.

this is now not the case, the US/UK lost so much credibility over WMD's and are so patently bogged down in iraq that such nations know we cannot march into another country for at least another ten years, but that wasn't how things looked in the summer of 2003 after a seven day campaign rolled up one of the most powerful armies in the middle east.

[spmetla]

Yeah, I definitely remember the 'will Syria or Iran be next?' talk that was happening in the weeks after Baghdad was taken. Wasn't it during this time period that Iran made some sort of great offer to the US about oil, diplomatic relations and such that the US unfortunately turned down because "we don't speak with evil?" The subsequent failure of the postwar war definitely destroyed any positive international political gains that invading Iraq provided us.

[Tribesman]

You are wrong Furunclu5 , the clue to why you are wrong is in your post.

this is now not the case, the US/UK lost so much credibility over WMD's and are so patently bogged down in iraq that such nations know we cannot march into another country for at least another ten years, but that wasn't how things looked in the summer of 2003 after a seven day campaign rolled up one of the most powerful armies in the middle east.
As it was the case in 2003 and it was exactly how it looked before the invasion , the only ones that didn't see it that way were the chickenhawks who acted without thinking .

[JR-]

which part, the bit about arab dictators deciding to be very wary because post 911 the US/UK really were prepared to roll around the world and remove their regimes from power...........?

i fail to see how that argues against what i say, and i find it laughable that you think Javier Solano with a posse of EADS execs persuaded libya to admit to, and renounce, their nuclear program.

[Tribesman]

which part, the bit about arab dictators deciding to be very wary because post 911 the US/UK really were prepared to roll around the world and remove their regimes from power...........?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Which bit ???????
About the coilition showing that they were going to get stuck for a long time and not be able to do anything else .
What you fail to understand is that the action didn't shock and awe the world with amazement of their might , it instead showed the limitations of Americas abitities .
The invasion didn't increase the threat to other unsavoury regimes around the world from America , it effectively removed it , aswell as removing the broad consensus that America had prior to Iraq .

[JR-]

not in the summer of 2003, when Gaddafi was making his decision to renounce his nuclear weapons program.

your trying to make this a broader argument about the utility of force, and how the perception of it has been damaged post iraq2.

i am not, i am talking about why libya kissed goodbye to an illegal nuclear weapons program.

you think it Javier solano with an EADS catalogue, i think it was MI6 and iraq2 bringing Gaddafi a new appreciation of what the post 911 world was like.

[yesdachi]

I didn't know Fox is an authority on English language, but hey, you live and learn.
That was my attempt at a joke. Sorry if the subtlety was missed.


A child is a child. Unless I know that a child was a young adult, brainwashed and already a full-fledged terrorist, I'll consider it a child like any other... You're defending the attack on "it might not have been". That's not good enough, because it just "might have been". If you already violating half the treaties you signed, you better have a damn good reason to and be sure about the intel you've got...
Who says the intel is bad? Our enemies? Big surprise.

[yesdachi]

Which is why even if by some remote chance the intelligence and targetting were 100% right (not a very good track record on that front is there) it was a bloody stupid thing to do .
It is doing stupid things like this that makes Americas job harder , and of course attitudes like some expressed here which give a very repellant view of what some see as American "values" .

I would consider lose lose better than just lose, especially when the second lose is in a PR battle that America has already lost. What’s a little more bad press when we plan to be there for the foreseeable future, getting bad press everyday, it might be different if we were planning on leaving tomorrow and want to do so on a good note (which there will never be).

The article I read says that 90% of the foreign fighters that come into Iraq come in thru Syria, if we make a strike, after diplomatic attempts have failed, into an underground railroad checkpoint, stopping or at least slowing the number of fighters entering Iraq and effectively saving lives, I support it. It also shows (like it or not) that the US is not going to sit idly by as our enemies act against us, right across a boarder. That is bullox. It happened in Viet Nam and it was one of the most defeating parts of the war. We couldn’t do anything about it then but we can now and I support that we are in Syria and in Pakistan.

[Tribesman]

not in the summer of 2003,
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Not unless you were really dumb and thought Iraq was possible to be done succesfully in a short time with available resources ...let alone the allocated resources .


I would consider lose lose better than just lose
I bet your bookie is very very rich :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


That is bullox. It happened in Viet Nam and it was one of the most defeating parts of the war. We couldn’t do anything about it then but we can now and I support that we are in Syria and in Pakistan.
Errrrr...in Vietnam you invaded the neighbouring countries , bombed the hell out of the routes , set up "friendly" regimes to do the job for you and still lost .
Then again that was political and military incompetance and really bad PR , so now you have political and military incompetance and you say PR don't matter as its really really bad:dizzy2:

[JR-]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Not unless you were really dumb and thought Iraq was possible to be done succesfully in a short time with available resources ...let alone the allocated resources .

who says the reaction has to be outright invasion, there are many ways for this to be done, as witnessed at osirak and by libya a few decades earlier.

[Guildenstern]

@yesdachi: The US aided the Mujahedeen againt the Russians in Afghanistan. The US provided arms and training to Georgia so that they can attack Russia. The US overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in Iran an re-instated the Shah. The US provided arms and soldiers to fight in Vietnam and Korea. The US provided arms to Israel so that it could fight the Arabs in all the various wars. By your reasoning about Syria all these countries should regard the US as a combatant and therefore a terrorist.

[Tribesman]

who says the reaction has to be outright invasion, there are many ways for this to be done, as witnessed at osirak and by libya a few decades earlier.

Errrrr....did bombing cause a regime or policy change :no:

[JR-]

did i say those examples were intended to? no. they enacted israeli and US policy.

as i have already said, this is a matter of judgement where you and i differ:


your trying to make this a broader argument about the utility of force, and how the perception of it has been damaged post iraq2.

i am not, i am talking about why libya kissed goodbye to an illegal nuclear weapons program.

you think it Javier solano with an EADS catalogue, i think it was MI6 and iraq2 bringing Gaddafi a new appreciation of what the post 911 world was like.
there is no mileage in me expending further time and effort chasing down your vague and puerile tangents that serve no purpose but to obscure a losing argument.

at the end of the day this is a judgment call on both our parts, and in my opinion you have failed to display any.

[MerlinusCDXX]

the comedian knows he has failed when he has to explain the joke....:wiseguy:

when it came to Vietnam Dubya had an exit strategy!!!
(

yeah, it was called Texas Civil Air Patrol :wiseguy:

good 'un Ronin

[Tribesman]

Now we see the stupidity of the strike bear fruit .
Syria is removing all the extra border patrols they had put in place in co-operation with the US , they are stopping all construction work on the projects to make the border more secure and have announced they are pulling out of the intelligence sharing deal they had with Washington .
Whoda thunk it eh , a bombing raid that people say was intended to scare the Syrians into doing more has resulted in Syria deciding to do much less .
That really pisses on he bonfire of those who strangely think that US attacks improve the situation .
Now all we have to do is wait and see how many more restrictions Iraq puts on America as America begs for a status of forces deal to be written up and passed .

[Hosakawa Tito]

Now we see the stupidity of the strike bear fruit .
Syria is removing all the extra border patrols they had put in place in co-operation with the US , they are stopping all construction work on the projects to make the border more secure and have announced they are pulling out of the intelligence sharing deal they had with Washington .
Whoda thunk it eh , a bombing raid that people say was intended to scare the Syrians into doing more has resulted in Syria deciding to do much less .
That really pisses on he bonfire of those who strangely think that US attacks improve the situation .
Now all we have to do is wait and see how many more restrictions Iraq puts on America as America begs for a status of forces deal to be written up and passed .

If one really believes the Syrians were seriously trying to stop the use of their borders as an entry and exit point for these incursions the point may be valid. Who you kidding?

How can they expect others to respect the sovereignty of their own borders when they disrespect their neighbors and turn a blind eye to their own?

[Tribesman]

If one really believes the Syrians were seriously trying to stop the use of their borders as an entry and exit point for these incursions the point may be valid. Who you kidding?

Is the Syrian regime one of those that the foriegn jihadis call a corrupt regime that they want to overthrow ?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Obviously not till it suits them otherwise and in their own time, so the Syrians can spare me the drama and crocodile tears.

[Guildenstern]

Anytime the US attack a country the US are not 'technically' at war with that country. It becomes an act of war against that country. Then that country doesn't need an excuse to attack the US, because the US already attacked them first.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Now we see the stupidity of the strike bear fruit .
Syria is removing all the extra border patrols they had put in place in co-operation with the US , they are stopping all construction work on the projects to make the border more secure and have announced they are pulling out of the intelligence sharing deal they had with Washington .
Whoda thunk it eh , a bombing raid that people say was intended to scare the Syrians into doing more has resulted in Syria deciding to do much less .
That really pisses on he bonfire of those who strangely think that US attacks improve the situation .
Now all we have to do is wait and see how many more restrictions Iraq puts on America as America begs for a status of forces deal to be written up and passed .

So what is your advice to the United States? Pursue things only diplomatically and just learn to stomach an acceptable rate of troop loss?

Or we could just shove off from Iraq "because it was a mistake in the first place". You recognize that there are foreign forces beefing up the insurrection, but you think it would be prudent to just cut out.

Or would you have us turn into a tiny, short sighted economy that just floats around the North Atlantic with no fear - putting .7 percent of GDP into what i'm sure somebody might call "security forces"?

None of those things are going to happen. Not even under Obama. We just have to listen to bad advice from toothless chihuahuas while we try to deal with real problems.

You are right about one thing. Jihadi's pose a much larger threat to the Baathists in Syria than the Coalition does. Maybe you should be giving advice to Assad?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Anytime the US attack a country the US are not 'technically' at war with that country. It becomes an act of war against that country. Then that country doesn't need an excuse to attack the US, because the US already attacked them first.

And when a country harbors/abets/ignores the use of their border territories & towns as launching points for attacks on a neighbor they have in fact all but declared war and will suffer the consequences.

[rory_20_uk]

So first off, they haven't declared war.
By your own definition, Syria can now attack Iraq as they have allowed attacks from their soil, along with Pakistan into Afganistan.

Oh, and as both of these incidents were with the American armed forces, I imagine that they now have the moral backing to attack targets on the US mainland?

Or is it only OK when the USA is doing it and says so? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[Guildenstern]

So what is your advice to the United States? Pursue things only diplomatically and just learn to stomach an acceptable rate of troop loss?

Or we could just shove off from Iraq "because it was a mistake in the first place". You recognize that there are foreign forces beefing up the insurrection, but you think it would be prudent to just cut out.
Invasion of a country is, by international law, illegal and an act of war. I was taught only fascist and communist countries used such tactics. I just think the United States and the United Nations were supposed to inspire and follow higher principles. Since Bush took office the United States has invaded two countries without consent of the United Nations, and occupied one. Now, they make insurgent preliminary strikes into another. The United States is doing exactly what I was taught was the act of a fascist organization. What is wrong for one should be wrong for anyone. I think there is reason enough to be concerned and opposed to this action against the Syrian town.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Invasion of a country is, by international law, illegal and an act of war. I was taught only fascist and communist countries used such tactics. I just think the United States and the United Nations were supposed to inspire and follow higher principles. Since Bush took office the United States has invaded two countries without consent of the United Nations, and occupied one. Now, they make insurgent preliminary strikes into another. The United States is doing exactly what I was taught was the act of a fascist organization. What is wrong for one should be wrong for anyone. I think there is reason enough to be concerned and opposed to this action against the Syrian town.

We have made incursions since this nations inception. Whoever taught you that only Fascist or Communist regimes did them was wrong.

[Koga No Goshi]

So what is your advice to the United States? Pursue things only diplomatically and just learn to stomach an acceptable rate of troop loss?

Or we could just shove off from Iraq "because it was a mistake in the first place". You recognize that there are foreign forces beefing up the insurrection, but you think it would be prudent to just cut out.

Or would you have us turn into a tiny, short sighted economy that just floats around the North Atlantic with no fear - putting .7 percent of GDP into what i'm sure somebody might call "security forces"?

None of those things are going to happen. Not even under Obama. We just have to listen to bad advice from toothless chihuahuas while we try to deal with real problems.

You are right about one thing. Jihadi's pose a much larger threat to the Baathists in Syria than the Coalition does. Maybe you should be giving advice to Assad?

I guarantee you that all foreign influences helping to stir up the trouble in Iraq are doing so at a miniscule decimal of the price tag we are spending in Iraq. Iraq has not just been a wreck tactically, it's been a wreck strategically as well, and placed our country in a very vulnerable position, not just in terms of overdeployment and overstretching, but financially as well. Note the lack of a proper response to Katrina, for example, because a significant proportion of guards, reserves and their supporting equipment were in Iraq.

It could very well be that if you look at the 100 year scope of history, there will be ultimate beneficial effect out of what we are doing in Iraq. But if our economy slides off the superpower map and/or other countries like Russia are emboldened by our inability to seriously react because of our open-ended operations in the Middle East, I don't know if you could say it was worth it-- even if Iraq winds up being a success story for our great-great-grandkids.

I see no "good reason" for staying in Iraq as long as it takes, except to save face and play a manhood measuring contest against enemies who are doing more damage with vastly less resources, and contributing to our economic precariousness in the meanwhile.

[Guildenstern]

@TuffStuffMcGruff The only purpose of hit and run operations is to provoke and such provocations only guarantee that these mid east nations will form an alliance against the US, or better, against the western countries. It's as if you can't wait for WWIII. Hit and runs are bait. Bait in the hopes of the one being hit will retaliate.

[CrossLOPER]

@TuffStuffMcGruff...It's as if you can't wait for WWIII...
Welcome the the Backroom.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I guarantee you that all foreign influences helping to stir up the trouble in Iraq are doing so at a miniscule decimal of the price tag we are spending in Iraq. Iraq has not just been a wreck tactically, it's been a wreck strategically as well, and placed our country in a very vulnerable position, not just in terms of overdeployment and overstretching, but financially as well. Note the lack of a proper response to Katrina, for example, because a significant proportion of guards, reserves and their supporting equipment were in Iraq.

It could very well be that if you look at the 100 year scope of history, there will be ultimate beneficial effect out of what we are doing in Iraq. But if our economy slides off the superpower map and/or other countries like Russia are emboldened by our inability to seriously react because of our open-ended operations in the Middle East, I don't know if you could say it was worth it-- even if Iraq winds up being a success story for our great-great-grandkids.

I see no "good reason" for staying in Iraq as long as it takes, except to save face and play a manhood measuring contest against enemies who are doing more damage with vastly less resources, and contributing to our economic precariousness in the meanwhile.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that the U.S. military can deal with any threat that Russia could pose tactically and win without a doubt EVEN with our forces stretched in the middle east. That is just the reality. We have had the discussion countless times regarding what the possible response would have been to the Ossetian conflict even if we had been out of Iraq - and it wouldn't have been different.

A stable and abstract thinking government in Iraq will do well for the region - Syria included. Terrorism should not be condoned or protected anywhere in the world, least of all where our troops or democratic regimes are located.

Syria would be hard pressed to be more hostile to the U.S. presence in the Middle east. Since it would be hard for them to be more hostile, their hostility should take a back seat in deciding whether to use our strike capability against training camps and villages in the border region as a last resort.

A more united middle east is not something that I am opposed to - their problems arise from too little centralized authority or compromise. In order for the various political or religious sects to come together there must be some consensus. Consensus tends to be organized either by an iron fist or centrist moderation. With our help, centrist moderation can be the stabilizing and unifying force at the expense of Iron fists - that is our objective in cultivating the political landscape Iraq.

[Tribesman]

Obviously not till it suits them otherwise and in their own time, so the Syrians can spare me the drama and crocodile tears.

And since when Syria did a massive slaughter on the fundamentalists the US was among the countries that took in the rebels and gave them asylum so spare the drama and crocodile tears

And when a country harbors/abets/ignores the use of their border territories & towns as launching points for attacks on a neighbor they have in fact all but declared war and will suffer the consequences.
Interesting , under the UN mandate which America is currently operating under they are responsible for security and borders , yet terrorist operating from safety in Iraq and in some cases with US assistance are launching terrorist attacks into 3 other countries , so cry me a river about attacks on US forces in Iraq .


So what is your advice to the United States? Pursue things only diplomatically and just learn to stomach an acceptable rate of troop loss?

Exactly , because in the current mess its the only viable option that might yield results .
It may not be nice , it may leave a nasty taste , but thats the situation they have got themselves into .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Exactly , because in the current mess its the only viable option that might yield results .
It may not be nice , it may leave a nasty taste , but thats the situation they have got themselves into .

I suspected as much.

The "do nothing and die" strategy, no matter how tempting it may be(...), is no longer an option.

[Tribesman]

I suspected as much.

The "do nothing and die" strategy, no matter how tempting it may be(...), is no longer an option.
Well thats tough tuff , its the way the cookie crumbles and the coilition is fast running out of options
America has a mandate to keep its side of the Iraqi border secure , if the worlds leading democracy and superpower is unable to do it then how or why can it expect a tinpot dictatorship to do it ?
The only way to make a border reasonably secure is to have both authorities working together in co-operation , that requires lots and lots of diplomacy and probably a great deal of concessions .
Bombing a country is not diplomatic is it , it leads to a breakdown in the diplomacy and as was obviously going to happen in this case (unless you were so retarded as to think that bombing would work) it leads to the withdrawing of co-operation .
American leadership has once again shot itself in the foot ...and some here are crazy enough to call it a good shot .:dizzy2:

[PanzerJaeger]

Errrrr...in Vietnam you invaded the neighbouring countries , bombed the hell out of the routes , set up "friendly" regimes to do the job for you and still lost .


Why do people believe this? :no:

[CrossLOPER]

Why do people believe this? :no:
...because Laos and Cambodia's involvement are seen as critical parts of the war that reshaped the region's political landscape entirely and had a profound effect on Americans' feelings about the war and the Nixon administration?

[KarlXII]

Why do people believe this? :no:

Because it's true?

[Husar]

I suspected as much.

The "do nothing and die" strategy, no matter how tempting it may be(...), is no longer an option.

Would you apply similar principles when you have problems with your wife? ~;)
I mean you have to admit that diplomacy is not doing nothing and talking can actually change things.

[spmetla]

Though I know this thread is not so much about Syria/US anymore here's some more speculation:

Questions raised over Syrian complicity in US raid (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5062848.ece)

The 38-year-old farmer was watering his maize in the scrubby vastness of eastern Syria when four Black Hawk helicopters swooped in low over the palm trees, heading from the border with Iraq formed by the Euphrates River.

It was late afternoon. The light was fading and the chill of the desert winter night was setting in. The helicopters, following their leader in a disciplined arc, hovered just above the one-storey concrete and mud homes of the village of Sukariyeh before the attack began.

Two of them landed next to a ramshackle building site and uniformed men hit the ground firing. Two other helicopters gave aerial cover.
Related Links

* US says attack on village was 'warning to Syria'

* A warning Syria's President Assad must heed

* Syrian minister condemns US 'terrorism'

“To begin with I thought they were Syrian helicopters, but then I saw eight or nine soldiers armed to the teeth. They carried big black M16s,” said Mohammad al-Ali, the farmer. His land lies closest to the site where an American commando squad last week staged an unprecedented strike in Syrian territory.

The guns were the clue to their identity – only Americans or their allies carry M16s; the Syrian army has Russian-made AK47s.

Ali said the troops raced to a compound of new homes, where men of the al-Hamad family were working. “Even before they ran from their helicopters they began to shoot at the workers,” Ali said. “The whole operation took 10 to 15 minutes and they left behind seven corpses.”

According to one eyewitness, the Americans took two men, alive or dead, back with them.

The Americans’ target was an Al-Qaeda commander identified as Badran Turki Hashim al-Mazidih, also known as Abu Ghadiya, an Iraqi-born terrorist in his late twenties. It is believed that he died in the firefight and his body was removed.

The Syrian regime immediately denounced the raid for violating its sovereignty, froze high-level diplomatic relations with Washington and protested at the United Nations in a ritualised show of anger.

However, sources in Washington last week revealed to The Sunday Times an intriguingly different background to the events in Sukariyeh.

According to one source, the special forces operation had taken place with the full cooperation of the Syrian intelligence services.

“Immediately after 9/11, Syrian intelligence cooperation was remarkable,” said the Washington source. “Then ties were broken off, but they have resumed recently.”

Abu Ghadiya was feared by the Syrians as an agent of Islamic fundamentalism who was hostile to the secular regime in Damascus. It would be expedient for Syria if America would eliminate him.

The threat to the Syrian government has made the regime of President Bashar al-Assad jittery. In September a car bomb exploded in Damascus near its intelligence headquarters. Many of the 17 victims were Shi’ite Muslim pilgrims at a nearby shrine.

The Washington source said the Americans regularly communicate with the Syrians through a back channel that runs through Syria’s air force intelligence, the Idarat al-Mukhabarat al-Jawiyya.

In the time-honoured tradition of covert US operations in the Middle East, this one seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.

The operation should have been fast and bloodless. According to the sources, Syrian intelligence tipped off the Americans about Abu Ghadiya’s whereabouts. US electronic intelligence then tracked his exact location, possibly by tracing his satellite telephone, and the helicopters were directed to him. They were supposed to kidnap him and take him to Iraq for questioning.

According to defence sources, when the four US helicopters approached the Syrian border, they were detected by Syrian radar. Air force headquarters in Damascus was asked for permission to intercept.

After an Israeli airstrike against a suspected nuclear reactor in the same region last year, Syrian air defence has been on high alert. The request was turned down by senior officers because the American operation was expected.

It is not clear what went wrong, but it is believed that the helicopters were spotted by the militants on their final approach and a gun battle broke out. That is supported by an account from a local tribal leader, who said a rocket-propelled grenade had been launched from the compound at the helicopter. The firefight blew the cover on a supposedly covert operation.

Ninety minutes after the raid, according to a local tribal leader, agents of the feared Mukhabarat, the Syrian intelligence service, flooded into the village. “They threatened us that if anyone said anything about what happened in this area, their family members would die,” he said.

Local residents were happy to identify the seven dead villagers as Daoud al-Hamad, who owned the land, and his four sons, who were helping him to build the new houses, along with the site watchman and his cousin. The area is isolated and poor. Locals speak with Iraqi accents, as their tribe extends across the border, and smuggling is the most lucrative local profession.

The tribal leader revealed that everyone in the village knew that “jihadis” – extremist Islamic fighters – were operating in the area.

“You could often hear shooting from close to the border, which was not clashes but fighters training,” he said.

“There are areas along the border where the Mukhabarat doesn’t let people go and that’s where I think the jihadis are. The areas are some of the best ways into Iraq.”

Despite the furore over the raid, there can be little doubt that the Americans will celebrate the death of Abu Ghadiya, whom they described as the “most prominent” smuggler for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He allegedly ran guns, money and foreign fighters along the “rat lines” that lead across the desert into northern Iraq and sometimes led raids himself.

In February the US Treasury Department identified Abu Ghadiya as a “high value” Al-Qaeda commander in charge of smuggling “money, weapons, terrorists and other resources . . . to Al-Qaeda in Iraq”.

It described him as a Sunni Muslim born in the late 1970s in Mosul and said he had been an aide to the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006.

Damascus may have other motives for its cooperation with Washington. Some diplomats in the capital think the regime would like to stage its own cross-border strikes against terror groups in Lebanon, which it sees as a threat.

“Syrian cross-border incursions into northern Lebanon in pursuit of Fatah al–Islam [a group affiliated with Al-Qaeda] are plausible,” said one source. They may be relying on the United States to turn a blind eye to do so.

American officials refused to apologise for the botched raid on Syria. They said the administration was determined to operate under a definition of self-defence that provided for strikes on terrorist targets in any sovereign state.

For Al-Qaeda militants, the safe haven of Syria will be looking decidedly cooler as winter sets in.

Additional reporting: Hugh MacLeod in Beirut

And what I consider the key points:

However, sources in Washington last week revealed to The Sunday Times an intriguingly different background to the events in Sukariyeh.

According to one source, the special forces operation had taken place with the full cooperation of the Syrian intelligence services.

“Immediately after 9/11, Syrian intelligence cooperation was remarkable,” said the Washington source. “Then ties were broken off, but they have resumed recently.”

Abu Ghadiya was feared by the Syrians as an agent of Islamic fundamentalism who was hostile to the secular regime in Damascus. It would be expedient for Syria if America would eliminate him.

The threat to the Syrian government has made the regime of President Bashar al-Assad jittery. In September a car bomb exploded in Damascus near its intelligence headquarters. Many of the 17 victims were Shi’ite Muslim pilgrims at a nearby shrine


In the time-honoured tradition of covert US operations in the Middle East, this one seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.

[Koga No Goshi]

Would you apply similar principles when you have problems with your wife? ~;)
I mean you have to admit that diplomacy is not doing nothing and talking can actually change things.

There are people who believe that all pretenses of diplomacy are a fraud and that the only way of possibly even having a remote shot of getting the result you want is to use force to get it.

Of course, this mindset tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, IMHO.

[yesdachi]

There are people who believe that all pretenses of diplomacy are a fraud and that the only way of possibly even having a remote shot of getting the result you want is to use force to get it.

Without a reason, very few people will agree to treat you fairly, especially one country to another. If there is leverage someone will use it, if they don’t they will get burned and learn to use it next time. Force or some kind of negative repercussion is the only thing that keeps society in balance.

[rory_20_uk]

Syria has as much to gain having religious nuts killed off as America does. Possibly more so if they can portray themselves as the victim whilst at the same time rubbing out a thorn in their side. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

As a follow up to the discussion that we were having regarding who had ordered the cross border raids.

I maintained that the President had authorized the action. The article maintains that the President made the order that there was an all-nation policy (with numerous noted exceptions) regarding the pursuance of terrorists of interest to the U.S. I take, under assumption, that the President knew about each instance (through the daily brief) - therefore that he made the general order and monitored the actions loosely.

Also, of particular interest, is the articles statement that the October 26th raid was not the first incursion into Syria, but rather the first one that was large enough for use to have heard about.

Secret order lets U.S. raid al Qaeda around the world
By Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti

Monday, November 10, 2008
Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/10/america/10military.php?page=1)


WASHINGTON: The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.


These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President George W. Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.


In 2006, for example, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants' compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Officials watched the entire mission captured by the video camera of a remotely piloted Predator aircraft in real time in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center at the agency's headquarters in Virginia 7,000 miles away.
Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the CIA, according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on Oct. 26 of this year, the military commandos acted in support of CIA-directed operations.


But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence.


More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.


Apart from the 2006 raid into Pakistan, the American officials refused to describe in detail what they said had been nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks, except to say they had been carried out in Syria, Pakistan and other countries. They made clear that there had been no raids into Iran using that authority, but they suggested that American forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.


According to a senior administration official, the new authority was spelled out in a classified document called "Al Qaeda Network Exord," or execute order, that streamlined the approval process for the military to act outside officially declared war zones. Where in the past the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days when there were only hours to act, the new order specified a way for Pentagon planners to get the green light for a mission far more quickly, the official said.


It also allowed senior officials to think through how the United States would respond if a mission went badly. "If that helicopter goes down in Syria en route to a target," the official said, "the American response would not have to be worked out on the fly."


The 2004 order was a step marking the evolution of how the American government sought to kill or capture Qaeda terrorists around the world. It was issued after the Bush administration had already granted America's intelligence agencies sweeping power to secretly detain and interrogate terrorism suspects in overseas prisons and to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and electronic communications.


Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush issued a classified order authorizing the CIA to kill or capture Qaeda militants around the globe. By 2003, American intelligence agencies and the military had developed a much deeper understanding of Al Qaeda's extensive global network, and Rumsfeld pressed hard to unleash the military's vast firepower against militants outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.


The 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official said.
Even with the order, each specific mission requires high-level government approval. Targets in Somalia, for instance, need at least the approval of the defense secretary, the administration official said, while targets in a handful of countries, including Pakistan and Syria, require presidential approval.


The Pentagon has exercised its authority frequently, dispatching commandos to countries including Pakistan and Somalia. Details of a few of these strikes have previously been reported.
For example, shortly after Ethiopian troops crossed into Somalia in late 2006 to dislodge an Islamist regime in Mogadishu, the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command quietly sent operatives and AC-130 gunships to an airstrip near the Ethiopian town of Dire Dawa. From there, members of a classified unit called Task Force 88 crossed repeatedly into Somalia to hunt senior members of a Qaeda cell believed to be responsible for the 1998 American Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.


At the time, American officials said Special Operations troops were operating under a classified directive authorizing the military to kill or capture Qaeda operatives if failure to act quickly would mean the United States had lost a "fleeting opportunity" to neutralize the enemy.
Occasionally, the officials said, Special Operations troops would land in Somalia to assess the strikes' results. On Jan. 7, 2007, an AC-130 struck an isolated fishing village near the Kenyan border, and within hours, American commandos and Ethiopian troops were examining the rubble to determine whether any Qaeda operatives had been killed.


But even with the new authority, proposed Pentagon missions were sometimes scrubbed because of bad intelligence or bureaucratic entanglements, senior administration officials said.
The details of one of those aborted operations, in early 2005, were reported by The New York Times last June. In that case, an operation to send a team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers into Pakistan to capture Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy, was aborted at the last minute.


Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting in Bajaur, in Pakistan's tribal areas, and the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command hastily put together a plan to capture him. There were strong disagreements inside the Pentagon and the CIA about the quality of the intelligence, however, and some in the military expressed concern that the mission was unnecessarily risky.


Porter Goss, the CIA director at the time, urged the military to carry out the mission, and some in the CIA even wanted to execute it without informing Ryan Crocker, then the American ambassador to Pakistan. Rumsfeld ultimately refused to authorize the mission.


Former military and intelligence officials said that Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, who recently completed his tour as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, had pressed for years to win approval for commando missions into Pakistan. But the missions were frequently rejected because officials in Washington determined that the risks to American troops and the alliance with Pakistan were too great.


Captain John Kirby, a spokesman for General McChrystal, who is now director of the military's Joint Staff, declined to comment.


The recent raid into Syria was not the first time that Special Operations forces had operated in that country, according to a senior military official and an outside adviser to the Pentagon.
Since the Iraq war began, the official and the outside adviser said, Special Operations forces have several times made cross-border raids aimed at militants and infrastructure aiding the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.


The raid in late October, however, was much more noticeable than the previous raids, military officials said, which helps explain why it drew a sharp protest from the Syrian government.
Negotiations to hammer out the 2004 order took place over nearly a year and involved wrangling between the Pentagon and the CIA and the State Department about the military's proper role around the world, several administration officials said.


American officials said there had been debate over whether to include Iran in the 2004 order, but ultimately Iran was set aside, possibly to be dealt with under a separate authorization.
Senior officials of the State Department and the CIA voiced fears that military commandos would encroach on their turf, conducting operations that historically the CIA had carried out, and running missions without an ambassador's knowledge or approval.


Rumsfeld had pushed in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks to expand the mission of Special Operations troops to include intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations in countries where American commandos had not operated before.


Bush administration officials have shown a determination to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a legal rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries' consent.


Several officials said the negotiations over the 2004 order resulted in closer coordination among the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, and set a very high standard for the quality of intelligence necessary to gain approval for an attack.


The 2004 order also provided a foundation for the orders that Bush approved in July allowing the military to conduct raids into the Pakistani tribal areas, including the Sept. 3 operation by Special Operations forces that killed about 20 militants, American officials said.


Administration officials said that Bush's approval had paved the way for Defense Secretary Robert Gates to sign an order separate from the 2004 order that specifically directed the military to plan a series of operations, in cooperation with the CIA, on the Qaeda network and other militant groups linked to it in Pakistan.


Unlike the 2004 order, in which Special Operations commanders nominated targets for approval by senior government officials, the order in July was more of a top-down approach, directing the military to work with the CIA to find targets in the tribal areas, administration officials said. They said each target still needed to be approved by the group of Bush's top national security and foreign policy advisers, called the Principals Committee.

[Banquo's Ghost]

An executive order (secret or otherwise) by the US president does not confer the right to break international law. Any more than a similar fatwa issued by, say, the Supreme Leader of Iran allows attacks on the United States with impunity.

You might well argue that international law is irrelevant because the USA is powerful enough to ignore it. You might also argue that burglars are entitled to break the law if they invade your home with sufficient deadly force.

"Might is right" is short-sighted and foolish. But this administration has long taken the decision that it forms the foundations of foreign policy, so it is unsurprising to discover yet another implementation.

Even supporters of the policy must surely ask: Why secret? Secret from whom? The people? Their elected representatives?

[ICantSpellDawg]

An executive order (secret or otherwise) by the US president does not confer the right to break international law. Any more than a similar fatwa issued by, say, the Supreme Leader of Iran allows attacks on the United States with impunity.

You might well argue that international law is irrelevant because the USA is powerful enough to ignore it. You might also argue that burglars are entitled to break the law if they invade your home with sufficient deadly force.

"Might is right" is short-sighted and foolish. But this administration has long taken the decision that it forms the foundations of foreign policy, so it is unsurprising to discover yet another implementation.

Even supporters of the policy must surely ask: Why secret? Secret from whom? The people? Their elected representatives?

C'mon. Do you believe that everything that the U.S. intelligence or the military does should be transparent? What about arms grade nuclear technology?

[CrossLOPER]

C'mon. Do you believe that everything that the U.S. intelligence or the military does should be transparent? What about arms grade nuclear technology?
People tend to throw a fit when you are testing new nukes and not letting them know.

Also, you are equating advanced arms research to entering a foreign village, firing wildly on buildings, and saying it was for the greater good.

[yesdachi]

People tend to throw a fit when you are testing new nukes and not letting them know.

Also, you are equating advanced arms research to entering a foreign village, firing wildly on buildings, and saying it was for the greater good.

Don’t forget eating babies and bla bla bla…

[Vladimir]

An executive order (secret or otherwise) by the US president does not confer the right to break international law. Any more than a similar fatwa issued by, say, the Supreme Leader of Iran allows attacks on the United States with impunity.

You might well argue that international law is irrelevant because the USA is powerful enough to ignore it. You might also argue that burglars are entitled to break the law if they invade your home with sufficient deadly force.

"Might is right" is short-sighted and foolish. But this administration has long taken the decision that it forms the foundations of foreign policy, so it is unsurprising to discover yet another implementation.

Even supporters of the policy must surely ask: Why secret? Secret from whom? The people? Their elected representatives?

Yes, yes it does. Yes. And yes.

We’re not legal experts in international law. You might as well argue that Turkey constantly violates international law by striking PKK bases in northern Iraq. Would you mind telling me who enforces international law? The UN security council? Any law which is unenforceable is irrelevant. Which law are you referencing? Comparing it to domestic criminal law is hardly an accurate comparison.

Might is right is the foundation of law. What does authority mean? What is law without an enforcing authority?

Oh and yes; any U.S. President forms the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. That’s how it works.

Oh, and yes; classification at whatever level means that the information is to be kept secret. Secret from whom? From whomever does not need to know it. Yes, that includes “the people,” elected representatives who have no need to know, and the New York Times.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, yes it does. Yes. And yes.

We’re not legal experts in international law. You might as well argue that Turkey constantly violates international law by striking PKK bases in northern Iraq. Would you mind telling me who enforces international law? The UN security council? Any law which is unenforceable is irrelevant. Which law are you referencing? Comparing it to domestic criminal law is hardly an accurate comparison.

Might is right is the foundation of law. What does authority mean? What is law without an enforcing authority?

Oh and yes; any U.S. President forms the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. That’s how it works.

Oh, and yes; classification at whatever level means that the information is to be kept secret. Secret from whom? From whomever does not need to know it. Yes, that includes “the people,” elected representatives who have no need to know, and the New York Times.

There's very little point in me engaging with such a point of view. You might want to do a little research - not least into how the system of free trade works.

:no:

[Tribesman]

Originally Posted by Vladimir
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Vladimir]

There's very little point in me engaging with such a point of view. You might want to do a little research - not least into how the system of free trade works.

:no:

Well that's a little better than the post which followed it. However trade policy is hardly the same as national security policy. And international law? Quite often it is law by consensus.

[CrossLOPER]

Don’t forget eating babies and bla bla bla…
I'm sure US Military rations aren't THAT bad.

Also, I hear miniguns and rockets are the most accurate weapons ever and create zero collateral damage.

[Tribesman]

Well that's a little better than the post which followed it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

Have you got some kind of special button which prints a series of laugh 4's off ?

because you always seem to mess up one of them with a space...

Crossloper, yesdachi wasn't looking for logic, he was having fun stuffing his man full or straw and your going to mess it up trying to be well reasoned...

[yesdachi]

I'm sure US Military rations aren't THAT bad.

Also, I hear miniguns and rockets are the most accurate weapons ever and create zero collateral damage.

MRE’s aren’t that bad but they are not nearly as tasty as the flesh of an innocent Syrian, but you would have as good a chance of finding one in Al-Sukkariya as you would the Easter Bunny:laugh4:. You said, firing wildly, and although there has been plenty of proof that the US crossed the boarder there has been nothing mentioned about their lack of aiming. They hit 23 “civilian construction workers” that’s pretty good shooting, YeeHa! Argue the legality of entering a sovereign nation or something else relevant but why try and make an issue out of collateral damage when we don’t even know what the mission’s goal was or what was really damaged. Every article I have read mentioned that a building that was under construction was attacked. No mention of the reckless machinegun and rocket fire destroying neighboring buildings. There are plenty of relevant arguments to make surrounding this issue you don’t need to throw straw on it.

And speaking of straw...
LG, Insinuating that the US fired wildly on a foreign village is… well reasoned? Check the label on that argument – 100% straw. :strawman2:

[Tribesman]

LG, Insinuating that the US fired wildly on a foreign village is… well reasoned?
Hmmmmmmm...the US fired wildly eh . I wonder where he could have found that line of reasoning , your allies havn't by any chance called some of your forces trigger happy cowboys have they ?
Some of your puppet regimes are repeatedly calling you worse ar they not .
So 100% straw ....no