I very much doubt it. Necessity impels diplomatic posturing and the occassional flurry of saber-rattling. Plus, the Admin has not been laying sufficient groundwork to paint the needful picture of Syria as Arch-villain. The previous Mr. Assad was a certifiable Bad MoFo, his son lacks a lot when it comes to villainy and threat.
Damn, if the US propaganda machine isn’t effective! It’s amazing, the spoonfed justifications and outright lies people will align with to support their nationalist, neocon, agenda. You really think this tripe is the correct perception…you need to take off the red white and blue glasses, perceive in truth.
Can you clearly state the truth for us?
How do you know the “neocon agenda” is not the best way of dealing with the world? Your moral objections to this war are not correct. They aren’t the “truth”. I appreciate and understand them, but they aren’t automatically logical just because you consider them to be blatantly obvious.
Given the weakness of the arguments as to why it might be in the interests of the US to conquer Syria, it seems to me that the sunglasses have more of a blue and white tint.
Squink
At first I wasn’t going to dignify these obnoxious, insulting responses with a reply, but since they were made public, a response is necessary. If the facts don’t fit, insult the mesenger. **Squink’s]/b] reply is not only obnoxious and insulting, but bigoted if he thinks that an American citizen would put Israel’s interest ahead of his country. In the first place, I didn’t advocate attacking Syria, but put that as a debate, as Syria is harboring and abetting terrorists (“insurgents” if you wish to continue the euphemism). Sanctions would be the first option. But instead of debating that issue, posters have decided to just use generalities, slurs, insults, and avoid the facts. And the issue of “conquer” wasn’t even considered.
Show me where I used a goddamned slur or insult. Show me where the bigotry is. There’s a goddamned elephant in this room, and it’s ridiculous to try to ignore its existence. What the heck does the US care about water supplies in the mideast? Nothing, yet we have that advanced as a reason for us to conquer Syria. Bullshit. If I were an Israeli citizen, that would be a valid reason to want a friendlier regime in Syria, but I’m not, and it isn’t.
You’ve so far failed to show that the terrorists, which you claim Syria is harboring and abetting, pose a significant risk to us in the states. You’ve yet to show that the troubles at the Iraqi border amount to anything more than the actions of a few hot-headed yahoos on both sides. Until there’s properly documented evidence that Syria poses an actual and significant threat to US interests, it’s ridiculous for us to contemplate invading.
It’s no euphemism, nor are these mutually exclusive terms. They are “terrorists” if they use terrorist tactics and “insurgents” if they are rebelling against Iraq’s Coalition-supported interim government.
Sanctions? You never mentioned sanctions in your OP or your thread title – nor, IIRC, in any post before this one. (Maybe I missed it.) Why should other posters be expected to bring that up before you do?
The thread title is “Should We (USA) Attack Syria?” In this instance, “attack” means nothing less than “conquer.” What else could it mean? We’re not going to root out the terrorists/insurgents with a punitive raid. If we attacked at all, the goal would have to be total regime change. The Admin might not use the word “conquer,” but it didn’t use it with respect to Iraq either. Makes no difference.
They propose a significant risk to our being able to leave Iraq in a stable state. The terrorists are being harbored and financed by Syria and there’s plenty of facts to support that. I’m not going to look up cites due to your not being able to read the newspapers.
BrainGlutton:
They’re doing both, so I guess they are terroristic insurgents.
I guess I overestimated the posters. They were too busy bashing Bush and his policies to think of anything else.
Conquer means to take over the land. Of course a punitive raid would be fruitless. A regime change is not a conquest. Did we conquest Afghanistan? No. We hope to withdraw from all these countries. A conqueror does not withdraw.
He does when he is defeated.
Ok, so many people here hate the fact the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan etc and compare its actions like an imperialistic bully, well I say, what great power has never abused its position? I’m not saying its right, but don’t expect the US or any power which holds sway to act completely lateral.
Yeah, all that talk about ours being a peace-loving nation was just so much hot air – when the opportunity comes, Americans can be just as obnoxious and barbaric as anyone else. :rolleyes:
Doesn’t sound like something to be proud of, if you ask me.
Ryan, truth be known, I do expect the USA to behave differently, better, more nobly. Point of fact, I’m going to insist upon it, to the extent that is possible.
I think it would totally unnecessary and a waste of money and lives to invade Syria.
However, I think there is an advantage to having them believe we might. Maybe it’ll make them clean up their act a bit.
…or else encourage them to accelerate their weapons stockpiling efforts, in order to better prepare for the inevitable “liberation.”
If we’ve now reached the point where people are actually saying that invading a country, killing thousands of its people, and placing it under a military dictatorship isn’t “conquest,” we surely have gone through the looking-glass.
Here’s a handy chart for those who want to invade Syria and think invading Iraq was a great idea:
Don’t Say:
Conquest
Do Say:
Regime Change
Don’t Say:
Dead Children
**Do Say: **
Collateral Damage
Don’t Say:
Bombs
Do Say:
Improvised Explosive Devices
Don’t Say:
Occupation
Do Say:
Happy Fun Visit
And
Don’t Say
Draft
Do Say
Patriot Raffle! 
Boy, there’s no pleasing you liberals! We show you freshly painted schools, and you whine that the kids are all on crutches!
How many did Hussein kill before we overthrew his regime? Hundreds of thousands, not to mention the number he just tortured without killing. Hussein wasn’t a dictator? And the goal, of course, is to establish a democracy. But debating or arguing with people with a closed mind and tunnel vision is a hopeless task. I’ve been a lifelong Democrat, but I voted for Bush. Sure he botched the aftermath of the invasion - he and the Defense Department. Certainly Iraq was a nation that demanded UN intervention, as was the Sudan and Rwanda. Unfortunately, the UN was even more feckless in regards to Iraq, so we had to do it ourselves, along with the other nations that participated.
We could be an isolationist country and ignore what’s going on elsewhere. This was our position prior to WWII. No nation, let alone the League of Nations, intervened to stop the Holocaust although the world knew what was going on. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement. Bargain with Hitler, give him a little, and the problem will go away. Well, Hussein was a neo-Hitler and only the fact that we had the courage to go in when the UN did not (due to France’s pecuniary interest), has prevented more atrocities in Iraq. (Hussein’s sons were even more brutal, something that was not known until the conflict.) If we did not engage in the first Gulf War, Hussein would’ve taken over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was next. Actually, since Hussein did not live up to the terms of the surrender agreement (which included inspections to verify that he had no WMD, along with unimpeded air patrol over the north and south sections), the present situation is an extension of the first Gulf War.
Although many of the “insurgents” are Iraqis (but only from one religious faction and some are from other countries so they are not even “insurgents” by any definition), all have been given aid and comfort by Syria. If Iraqi is ever going to have a democratic government and its infrastructure rebuilt, Syria must change its position. Try sanctions first, but attacking it is not out of the question if they are unwilling to change.