Not necessarily; depends how you play it. Bush Sr. put US troops into Somalia after loosing an election to Clinton, I believe. There was a lot of media coverage on how Bill and Hillary were consulted, given all the information and expressed approval, IIRC. There was no outrage.
Whether you think Syria was originally in the grand plan or not, I think this is the big issue. It’s just not practical to do it now, we’re stretched to the max and it’s not practical (or smart) to take troops away from Afghanistan or Iraq at the moment.
Did you read your own cite?
Even that doesn’t claim that soldiers are going to Syria. All it claims is that “terrorists” are either crossing the border into Syria, or are getting equipment into Syria from Iraq.
Nothing about troops going into Syria. And given that Syria is a different country than Iraq, troops wouldn’t “deploy” to Syria, they would have to invade Syria.
Please provide evidence that the US military is about to invade Syria.
"We absolutely have no troops in Cambodia, Laos, or Thailand … "
Let the secret bombings begin!!
(wait, can we keep bombings secret these days? Like we did in Cambodia?)
rjung, if Kerry wins are you still going to maintain the completely absurd belief that the election was fixed by some monolithic corporation? Or is it only if Bush wins, because you personally are completely unwilling to believe that he might actually have enough popularity to beat a candidate with nothing going for him except that he’s not Bush?
Well, I never claimed the US is “about to invade” anyone.
I said “deployed.” Two different words.
And I am providing some very strong evidence that it may well happen. These are the same signals that preceded deployments to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and as Squink so helpfully pointed out, Cambodia and Thailand during the Vietnam conflict. Except back then the demons were “communists,” not “terrorists.”
The Neocons have been itching for almost two decades for a crusade in the middle east, and now they have it. To any rational being, they are clearly as fanatical as the Moslem fundamentalists they demonize. And their signals are becoming predictable.
Declaring that a state harbors terrorists, and imposing economic sanctions are two repeated early signs. Next they are going to step up the accusations and claim that sanctions aren’t working fast enough or well enough.
Provided they aren’t booted out on their asses by either an election or impeachment.
Too bad they aren’t going after the one state where those accusations really are valid: Saudi Arabia. But Bush & his Texas Cronies are far too incestuous with their fellow oilmen-slash-cowboys who run the show over there. It’ll never happen.
Not to contribute to the hijacking of my own thread, but…
When the average citizen regards such corruption as “completely absurd” is when we are most susceptible to it.
We place far too much assumption of virtue on our political and business leaders, somehow ignoring or forgetting that the skills and methods that make one successful in those endeavors are far from virtuous.
If it weren’t so scary, the irony would be hilarious.
Let’s wait until the results come in, hmmm? At the very least, I believe some folks will try to use electronic voting machines to throw (parts of) the election in Bush’s favor.
Here, scope out the numbers on six surprise upsets in the 2002 elections, then go read this article for the analysis. Though I’m sure you’ll find nothing unusual about Republican candidates pulling highly improbable upsets in races where Diebold voting machines are involved…
Or, conversely, perhaps the tin foil is too tight?
I fail to see what the distinction is as you are using it. You obviously think that the US will be going into Syria to hunt for terrorists similarly to the US incursions into Cambodia during the Vietnam war (at least, I THINK thats what you are getting at). This would constitute an ‘invasion’, not a deployment, as the troops would be going in as an unfriendly act, and not creating perminent bases in Syria. Thats an invasion in my book, though of a limited scale.
Actually, I COULD see the US special forces crossing the border occationally and attacking terrorists or supplies coming into Iraq…covertly of course. But the implication of this thread originally (again, I THINK it was) was that the US would be going into Syria in a more substantial way…i.e. a REAL invasion using the regular Army supported by the Air Force and Navy a la Iraq. THAT contention is patently ridiculous, as we simply don’t have the force to do it unless we are willing to abandon Iraq and let it completely melt down. I don’t care who is elected this time, we won’t be invading Syria on trumped up charges…and I think after our little temper tantrum demonstration of force in Iraq, Syria will be walking softly in the near future with reguards to overt acts against the US.
Again…full scale invasion of Syria? I’ll believe it when I see it.
-XT
Gee – I can always tell what side of a political agenda someone is on by how quickly they resort to personal attacks when the details of an issue arise.
And yet, the ones who want a fair and honest evaluation of the issue are the ones who are the crackpots.
I refer you, sir, to my sig.
Well, actually I was refering obliquely to rjungs post re: conspiricy theory of the election, which has been discussed several times on this board, but if you want to take it on yourself, thats your affair. 
And which side am I on exactly? Probably the side of darkness from your perspective I’m sure because I don’t by into theories that the election in 2000 was rigged (or ‘stolen’), that there is a vast conspiricy to use electronic voting machines to manipulate the up and coming election, nor do I buy into your ‘inside information’ that we are poised to invade (or deploy too :rolleyes:) Syria.
No, its the ones who piece together assorted ‘facts’ and concoct elaborate conspiricy theories without a shred of hard data (or with shreds of unrelated hard data that they piece into their theories to make them seem believe-able) but then what to be taken seriously…those are crackpots IMO. Not to say that YOU (or even rjung) falls into this category…
-XT
Well, it certainly sounds like you are implying it.
There’s no concoction. No fabrication. No vast ominous conspiracy.
There rjung and many others observing a that a) every upset was squeaked out by a Republican, b) no Dems won any close races, and c) all those elections were run by Diebold machines. Oh, and lest we forget: d) the Diebold CEO said he would do anything in his power to win elections for the GOP.
OK, those are facts. They have been measured, published, verified, and acknowledged.
All some people are asking is “Is there a connection betwen a and d? Let’s look into it.”
And the response from people who stand to benefit from the status quo is: “That’s a crackpot conspiracy theory. Your tinfoil is on too tight. That’s a completely absurd suspicion.”
Hey, people are asking legitimate questions and instead of honest inqury and fair debate about the issue, we get a small vocal minority engaging in personal attacks and character assassination.
Do you deny that, if the Diebold CEO had thrown his weight behind the Democrats, and the Dems had won a majority in the House or Senate, that we’d have every right wing real crackpot from Anne Coulter to George Will screaming bloody murder that the elections were completely rigged, and even the NY Times would have to write something asking “Were they rigged” or else face a whispering campaign driven by people who don’t even read their pages?
The hypocracy is stunning.
Well, being as I’m not a republican but an independant, ya…I can safely say that if Milum or december himself came up with the same crack pot theory because Democrats had won those victories, I’d be saying pretty much the same thing.
But this is hardly the forum for this…and its been discussed to death in other threads (at least 4 I can think of off the top of my head…on by rjung himself). If you would like to revive one of them (or just look through one, where both sides are presented, as opposed to the one side YOU presented), be my guest.
I thought we were talking about the 'invasion/deployment of Syria" here…
-XT
In one case, the bartcop site is definately in error. Blagojevich won his race.
As for the others, I’d like to see these polls as they were published by the pollsters, because your link to them lacks two very important things: the margin of error, and how the polls were conducted.