You’re aiding theirs. Who started it?
Are the Attack Syria drumbeats getting louder all of a sudden? Kristol, Ledeen, and various cohorts have been out there spouting this the last few weeks.
Here’s why it’s a bad idea:
MEMRI Reports return of Muslim Brotherhood to Syria (08/2004):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002957.php
Farid Ghadry is the Syrian Ahmed Chalabi. Here:
More here:
Hmm, I wonder if the intelligence sources coming from Ghadry are any more credible than Chalabi’s turned out to be… Do you feel lucky?
Firstly, an “amen” to Loop and pile on of a few more reasons why this is a brain-dead dumbfuk of an idea.
Are there people in Syria helping the our enemies. Of course. There are people in Turkey doing the same, certainly people in Iran, people in Jordan, people in Pakistan… We are not beloved. There is a broadly reflected sentiment that America is at war with Islam itself. This is ridiculous, of course, but that doesn’t matter when it’s widely believed. The very best way to make this broad sentiment universal would be to attack another Muslim nation.
If we demand that Syria stop aiding our enemies, how would we define that? That the Syrian government crack down on its own people, at our behest? Whatever would make you think that they would? Why should they? They are not our friends, they do not support our policies. Other than the threat of brute force, what are we offering? If the powers that be in Syria knuckled under to a threat of force (an implausible threat at best, as outlined above), they might very well be facing an insurrection of thier own. For us? Why?
They might clear their throat and make a few gestures, round up some Usual Suspects, maybe even execute a few of thier own political enemies and claim they were “insurgents”, but by no stretch of the imagination can we dream that they will effectively crack down on support, even if they wanted to. Which they don’t.
Our options range from the bad to the unspeakable, on the unspeakable end is expanding this further. The only glimmer of hope is the possibility of progress on the Israel/Palestine front, and that may only let Israel off the hook and leave us alone as the Great Satan.
This is a bad idea. “Bad” in the same sense that leprosy is “unpleasant”, and the Death By Ten Thousand Cuts is “uncomfortable”.
So, invasionists, if the US invaded Syria and found no insurgents, the invasion will not have been justified?
(If you agree, please answer quote this post and answer ‘yes’ below it so as to provide an expilict permanent record).
How so?
So… he’s a traitor. Are you comfortable with that accusation?
Let’s asked the dead fungibles in Iraq whether they were properly equipped shall we?
Even if they were properly equipped, they weren’t properly deployed. GeeDubya isn’t a traitor, GeeDubya is a fool. It is a fine distinction, perhaps, doesn’t mean shit to a tree, even less to a corpse.
I think, in order to shore up his fundamentalist base, Bush wants to conquer Syria in order to get the +1 piety bonus.
That does not alter your implication.
So what? “GeeDubya” does not matter, same as Rumsfeld. This is WAR and that is that.
‘… And after all, there was a war on. But isn’t there always?’ – Harlan Ellison, ‘Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman
And Lord knows helping a country thats not America is perfect justification for having your government overthrown and your country invaded and occupied!
I have no doubts that our current plan is to just plain take over the middle east so that it isn’t a problem anymore. Our US-supported regime in Saudi Arabia seems to be working out pretty well, but installing favorable leaders through coups and the like is a pretty long process and (as shown in Afghanistan and Iraq) often works against us in the end. The new plan is just to roll in with tanks and call the place ours.
I don’t think Syria is next through. Iran is. We’ve got them surrounded in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m pretty sure we thought we could just set up shop in Iraq and use it as a base to “institute a regime change” in Iran. After such an easy time in Afghanistan, we wern’t counting on Iraq being such a pain in the ass. After we control Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, we will have a pretty tight grip (and some great bases) in the area and can use that to get others to play along at the risk of being taken over.
We won’t attack anyone else until we are sure we can keep Iraq, which could be a while. But as long as we have the current bunch of polticians, we will be in war. We will not stop until we control the region and they can no longer “act up” by controlling the oil supply and the like.
Where is your evidence?
What is this supposed to mean?
But Iran’s nicely outmanuevered us on the nuclear proliferation issue, and all that pent up aggression has got to come out somewhere. Going after Syria’s got it’s problems too, especially now that the pentagon’s fired John Shaw, their main guy for beating the Syria has Saddam’s WMD’s drum. Also, with the AIPAC spy case heating up
it’s unlikely that Israeli bullshit, such as linked to in the OP, will gain much traction in Washington. Things might have been different if more than 10 or 20 of the 1000 plus insurgents captured in Fallujah had been foreign nationals, but that’s the way the cookie crumbled.
ninetypercent, who’s killed more American soldiers, Rummy or Syrian nationals? Can you even point to a Syrian national that’s been captured as a combatant in Iraq? If Syria is a major factor, we should have hundreds in captivity by now. Handwaving notwithstanding, the Iraqi uprising appears to be mostly an internal affair.
(You steal from the best luc. That was pretty Slick)
The CIA and Defense Department said so. When are they ever wrong?
Well, um, you see, things aren’t going so well in Iraq. Sooooo…it would be a nice break from that whole thing for the American people. They could revel in another quick, successful military invasion.
Just something I heard some old fart mutter when I was doing volunteer work at the Home for the Chronicly Groovy.
They are not Syrians. They are refugees from Iraq and Syria already has agreed to help out, but on the contrary has actively provided for their support. That is just not from my link, but has been shown in numerous sources.
** Squink**
No, that’s the tip of the iceberg. But it’s not just foreign nationals. It’s that Syria is harboring fugitive Iraqis and providing them with support.
With 18 foreigners in the 1100+ captured, I’d like some proof that there is an iceberg.
Who, uncaptured leaders from the deck of 52, or tribal leaders? How much support; looking the other way, or a couple of armored divisions? With regard to the article’s claim:
Was not the most highly publicized incident of this type triggered by Americans straying FIFTEEN MILES into Syrian territory? What are the Syrians expected to do under those circumstance, give all our boys in uniform blow jobs? There’s provocation going both ways across that border.