'US troops' carry out Syria raid

Nothing shocking of the lawless bully that is the US government, there are already border tensions on the Pakistani side too.
I guess you get the right to bomb and kill anywhere you want and cross over borders to other countries as if they were US territory.
Well yeah , Bush authorized military assaults within Pakistan without permission from the Pakistanis didnt he? It doesnt get any more arrogant than that.

 

True.

If a hostage is used as a shield in the US, should we kill them too? I agree it poses a problem when civilians are used as shields, but it doesn't mean it's okay to kill them.

Swap Syria with US to see their side. Also, I don't think we should bomb civilians of countries even is we consider their government unhelpful.

(Why do you say "after the war in Iraq?")

I just think we should be very careful about killing civilians, whether or not they are being manipulated as shields. Not only is that "evil," but it also does not help us. For each civilian that gets killed, probably 2 or more terrorists can be recruited.

We have had terrorist in the US, and we didn't bomb the block, we were more careful, because it was our citizens rather than theirs, and because there would be outrage here. I wish that there was half the outrage when citizens of other countries are killed.

 

Unfortunately Obama plans to do the same.

McCain won't tell us what he would do on this issue because that would help the enemy.....right....it has nothing to do with him trying to attack Obama as being naive for saying he'd go into Pakistan if necessary, and then Bush doing exactly what Obama suggested.

 

you know, I get the feeling the Pakistani government is actually cooperating. They have to show the public they are angry, and that is just part of the info war.

 

That makes sense.

 

it saddens me because the US is a great country that is being spoilt by its bullying tactics.

the fact is Syria didnt give permission for the US to enter its country.
The US didnt give a fuck because it could kick Syria's ass in no time.... the actions of a bully.

Do you think the US would have chased down some 'terrorists' if the country it was going to illegally enter and kill people would have been China?

 

Syria directly harbors and supports terrorists. It's as simple as that.

I would rather see the U.S. invade Syria than see it disrupt its sovereignty though.

So, all in all, this is a pretty damn dumb move.

 

^ agreed

 

You are dead on.

 

Also since the US is not officially talking about the attack, its the Syrian version that's in the press, including the western press. So the Syrians get to say that the US flew in, attacked innocent women and children, and then left, and there's no other side to the story.

 

more on that : here and here

 

Isn't there something about them being able to sue us, and us having to pay for any buildings or whatever that get destroyed? NOT that that makes up for killing civilians, but you know what? If i lived in a country like that, and i was not a terrorist?

I'D STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE AREAS THAT KNOWN TERRORISTS FREQUENT!!!

Who is living on those borders? We have folks trying to cross the borders, right here in the US, not too awfully far from where i live. If things started getting hairy, regardless of the fact that i can't hardly afford to pay attention (yeppers! i'm a poor folk!), even if it meant just packing a little bag with essentials and hoofin' it on down the road, i wouldn't stay.

Staying is illogical, REGARDLESS of whatever excuse you give, because you are saying that you are willing to give up your life for whatever (your house, your belongings, etc.) and they aren't worth it.

When people act illogically, i pay attention, because there is something going on that i can't see, that they want to hide 'cuz it would condemn them.

If they truly WERE civie's, i'm so sorry they were there, but they weren't using their heads, but i'm not responsible for making other people think and if a WAR raging around them isn't enough to give them a clue about what's going on, well...

 

In the parlance of international relations, The US comitted "rough wooing" on Syria.

I am positive that Syria understands this concept and that the message has been received.

I hope that this helps to secure Iraq so that our forces can be withdrawn.

The Syrian goverment is a Bathist Dictatorship that has used AlQueda in Iraq against the elected goverment and its supporters. They knew the risks involved

 

i don't understand.

 

It was a reach out and touch someone moment.

We seem to have a lot of those lately.

As the civilian bodycount proves.

We have alot of those too.


x

 

You, of course, are correct. Syria allows anti-Iraqi forces to cross its border with impunity. Actually, may abet them rather than just ignore and allow.

Your second comment, however, is inexplicable. How do you invade a nation and not disrupt its sovereignty?

This was a brilliant move. Presumably the troops got their man. The man who was introducing insurgents into Iraq. This told the Syrians that if they wanted their territory not to be attack they would have to stop the insurgents themselves. It told the insurgents that they no longer had a free haven in Syria.

Have you ever hunkered down in a desert at night and watched for invading forces? It is the type of activity that allows body fluids to run free without your approval. Get me? Until you've done this you ought to be more circumspect in deciding what is dumb and what isn't.

 

Its not really anti Iraqi forces, they're anti American forces.

We've overstayed our welcome by 5 years.

They want us to go home.

So do I.


x

 

hear! hear!

 

Well, you obviously do disrupt its sovereignty when you invade it. What I was trying to say is that if you're going to disrupt it, you might as well do it in full force instead of creating unnecessary conflict with a provocation such as this.

Syria also directly supports and supplies the Fatah and Hizzbollah, among others.

This is not a brilliant move because it only takes out one man, which does not achieve much in this war since there will always be someone to replace him. A brilliant move would have been blocking or destroying the infrastructure that allows for smuggling of weapons and such to happen.

I have never hunkered down in the desert at night to watch for invading forces, I don't think that most people have. I have though lived in Israel for many years, survived two major wars and bombardments, and am extremely familiar with the area and its politics.

"Dumb" may have been a slightly harsh word, but I don't think that the U.S. is achieving much by simply taking out one man and creating a diplomatic crisis through it. You have to hit the strategic points and the supply lines, not the people who operate them.

All in all, the positive outcome of this attack is a reality check for Syria. No longer can they take comfort in the fact that the U.S. will not attack them, no matter what they do.

 

Got any real evidence for this?