By what right do we mount armed raids into Syria? Are we at war with Syria? Did I miss the memo? Or is it simply the assumption by the current administration that we can do any damned thing we choose because what can they do about it?
I don’t know any specs, but in my mind, if Syria is funneling terrorists through their land to the Iraqi border so they can cross, they’re fair game. And the raid was very low-level–it’s not like we sent a company of armor across. We blew up what the Syrians are saying was a simple farmhouse, but you can bet your last buck that it was more than that.
I’d also think that at the diplomatic level, we’d have covered our bases and demarched their ambassador beforehand–“Either take these steps to stop X and Y, or expect Z.”
I’ll be interested to see what happens with the investigation on our side–if it gets swept under the rug, then there was definitely State/POTUS endorsement. The Syrians can scream all they want–they have to, and we’d have expected it, but if they aren’t moving any troops to the border, then my guess is that they knew it was coming.
I’m sure we had a good reason for it; Bush wouldn’t invade a sovereign nation just because he felt like it.
This wasn’t an ‘invasion’.
Maybe they’ll justify it as ‘hot pursuit’, but they don’t even have to do that. This is no different than Israel attacking mortar positions in Lebanon or something. If the other side is attacking you, you have every right to attack back. Allowing terrorists to move freely in your country and across the border to stage attacks opens you up to retaliation.
To my way of thinking, it’s about bloody time. No sovereign nation should allow attacks on its soil to be staged from a neighbor like that. The U.S. attack was surgical and fast. It went straight at the terrorists in question. Sounds good to me.
So, if Mexican intel indicated there was a terrorist staging area in a farmhouse outside of El Paso, you’d be okay with them sending some gunships over to blow it up?
It’s no wonder other nations see us as a rogue nation with no regard to international law. This type of activity is going to end up biting us in the butt sooner than later.
My opinion exactly; I hope and pray this administration and all its ilk go down in flames. I wouldn’t mind one bit if our next president just arbitrarily issued orders for our troops to roll their packs and get on the airplane home.
And killed three children as well.
Let’s see… if we kept sending terrorists over the border from that farmhouse, and they repeatedly asked us to stop or do something about it, and we repeatedly ignored them, then f*ck yes. We’d deserve it.
However, I live in the real world, where the US simply does not stage terrorists seeking entrance into Mexico to blow up occupying soldiers bent on making Mexico a peaceful democracy. So it sounds to me like a bad analogy.
I have no personal problem withdrawing from Iraq, but I likewise have no problem attacking a country that actively supports terrorism against us. If you had irrefutable proof that Syria was pumping/funneling terrorists across the border to attack US soldiers, do you really think it’s inappropriate to start taking military action? Especially if diplomacy has failed?*
*And I have no idea if we have proof or what’s taken place on the diplomacy front; I’m assuming we do have proof and that some effort which we’re not privy to has taken place and failed.
It’s actually only good for us Americans to do the cross border raiding thing. Other countries/persons are “them”; therefore “un-American”, terrorists, liberals, socialists, or worse.;);)
Seriously, I’m staying tuned locally (here in Iraq) for the reasoning behind a human raid versus some serious high explosives. Our intel/connections (we’ve worked with Syrians some in the past regarding interrogations) must have been good to risk personnel for the extended period of time. We may also have been planning to abduct a target. Lots of scenarios.
It must have had significant pre-planning because HE is quicker the Helicopters.
I agree. I often times close my eyes and tell myself “There are no terrorists, there are no terrorists.” and when I open them the world is a peaceful place where everyone lets everyone else live the way the want. There was no 9/11 or countries whose stated goal is to remove Israel from the map or anything. In fact, I bet the day we get rid of our entire armed forces and other defenses, the world at large will say “Wow…that was nice, let’s never ever do anything bad to the US or it’s allies ever, ever again” Yep, it’s all our fault, bad bad America!
Yep, I sure like your world better that the real one that I live in.
Syria was never included in the “axis of evil”
Syria co-operates with the US wrt terrorist interogation covertly.
Hassad has no love for the terrorists, but can’t be seen as an opponent. That would be political suicide.
It is just as likely that the US secured permission for the raid and decline to announce that the approval was given.
flyboy, we had, or were told we had, irrefutable proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the means to deploy them against the USA. We had similar irrefutable proof, or were told we had, that Saddam was in league with Bin Laden to train and supply terrorists and then set them against us. Etc., etc.
I’m somewhat reluctant to accept the word of this administration that we have irrefutable proof of any damned thing at all. If dip shit McCain should win, my trust in the word of the next administration would diminish exponentially.
How? He’s a dictator.
Syria and Pakistan have two things in common, a flakey domestic situation that could erupt into civil war and talking the talk on terrorist activities and doing something about them.
Both countries have also had american combat tourists visit their respective nations and blowing stuff up and killing people.
Conclusion is that the American govt no longer is either worried about either syria or pakistan going tits up, or they think that its the least worse time for it to happen.
It might kill a few people, but its definitely going to put those govts between a rock and a hard place.
Still needs the support of the clergy and hence the population.
Apparently your definition of “terrorists” excludes Hezbollah, which has been an entrenched and violent destabilizing presence in Lebanon for years. Assad has long supported Hezbollah’s activities in Lebanon, in flagrant violation of international law and Lebanon’s lawful government. If the United Nations had any balls or integrity, there would’ve been a concerted action to support Lebanon and purge Hezbollah from that country many years ago.
So if a canditate was to say that he/she would pursue a terrorist like Bin Laden in another country you wouldn’t vote for him/her?
Please explain to me what in the holy god damned hell keeping our troops in the middle east is going to accomplish; you must have a must better idea that I do. After all, you are a realist while I am a dreamer. My own opinion is that we will accomplish nothing more that we already have and that we would not be missed if we left tomorrow. I further believe that if it were not for you so-called realist, we could have left long before now without being missed at all.
If you don’t understand the positive aspect of a democracy in a region that is controlled by religion and dictators then there isn’t much point in discussing it. By removing a dictator who had the third largest standing army in the world we have eliminated a regional power that no longer threatens Kuwait or Iran. Iran is a country full of unhappy citizens who would love to be out from under the thumb of a religious police state. With the fall of Saddam they are now making a yearly pilgrimage to Iraq which will expose them to democratic rule without religious interference.
While you may not agree with the events that happened your desire to abandon the efforts of a volunteer Army at the finishing line belays the notion that Iraq still needs us to ensure success.