So America attacked Syria

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

I am wondering how this is going to pan out for Obama/McCain. I can't see this as helping McCain by antagonizing another country.

While they can argue that Syria is lax with the border it still does not give the US the right to go into the another country.

Black Swan

Typical Bush Doctrine: Shoot first, ask questions later.

Hobbes

Actually there are reports now of US troops going into Pakistan as well now.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD942ONAG0

wtf is going on? Is Bush intent on inflaming the whole middle east?

brianthebard

Jesus, maybe they are going all out to kill Bin Laden before polling day. *senses a conspiracy afoot*

The Mad Hatter

Or the GOP is trying to get the next president involved in so many wars that he won't be able to lift the country out of the dungheap, and in four years they can say 'Now look how bad it was with a democratic president!'

Offy

I hope every one is ready for the new world order. Does anyone remember a few years ago when they were doing it because of weapons of mass destruction? What’s the excuse today? The CIA wasn’t invited to Bin Laden’s birthday party? :rolleyes:

Black Swan

Is it a coincidence that these attacks are occurring when the US general elections are about one week away? In 2004 the Bin Laden tape was released to the public approximately one week from the general election?

is_that_so

Given the fact that the US is involved in two theatres of war something like this is always a possibility anyway. The Syrian one at least is confirmed. The attacks on Pakistan have been going on for some time so even if it does turn out to be true no real surprise.
If nothing else I think it sums up this now seriously dysfunctional election campaign where the GOP are hoping that an "event" will bring their man up and the Dems, swing from the paranoia of robbed elections to linking anything McCain does to Bush. IMO if there is to be any benefit for McCain they need to get the big "O" to distract from the "minor" problem of the US economy.

Hobbes

is_that_so wrote: »

Given the fact that the US is involved in two theatres of war something like this is always a possibility anyway.

We aren't talking about accidents here. These are planned strikes into Syria and Pakistan. To you it might be nothing but if it was any other country to do it to the USA it would be an act of war.

brianthebard

is_that_so wrote: »

Given the fact that the US is involved in two theatres of war something like this is always a possibility anyway.

How was this a possibility? A war on two fronts is always monstrously stupid, but to open a third and possible forth? That's not an election campaign that's the end of a nation.

is_that_so

Hobbes wrote: »

We aren't talking about accidents here. These are planned strikes into Syria and Pakistan. To you it might be nothing but if it was any other country to do it to the USA it would be an act of war.

brianthebard wrote: »

How was this a possibility? A war on two fronts is always monstrously stupid, but to open a third and possible forth? That's not an election campaign that's the end of a nation.

As I said I am not surprised. And yes it was a possibility,given recent attacks on Pakistan and the Israeli adventure in Syria so not an unreasonable leap to see more of them. Is it wrong? Pretty obviously so, but as is always the case in these events the reasons/justifications behind them are not always black and white.

Lately Pakistan has also "miraculously" uncovered or killed lots of militants after attacks of this kind. I don't see it's the US business to tell them what to do and it certainly should not be launching attacks cross-border but I can see the warped logic behind it.

spoonbadger

maybe they're just trying to stimulate the economy?.

Whether you think it was a deciding factor or not, when the U.S. invaded Iraq it helped delay the recession, considerably. The U.S. economy has a lot to gain from employing more soldiers, building more weapons and stirring up more patriotic spirit in the red states and "squeel like a pig" areas .

Hobbes

spoonbadger wrote: »

The U.S. economy has a lot to gain from employing more soldiers, building more weapons and stirring up more patriotic spirit in the red states.

Billions of US taxpayers cash has been pissed away or lost in Iraq. I am not just talking about dodgy contracts but in some cases actual pallets (stacked higher then an average adult) of US currency stolen with no accounting for any of it.

And the US is trillions in debt now and no end in sight. I can't see how it helped the economy at all.

Phototoxin

All those effect middle eastern countries should just band together and kick 6 shades of shyte out of the US. They need a good sodomising (in war terms) to teach them that they are not Team America World Police

brianthebard

spoonbadger wrote: »

maybe they're just trying to stimulate the economy?.

Whether you think it was a deciding factor or not, when the U.S. invaded Iraq it helped delay the recession, considerably. The U.S. economy has a lot to gain from employing more soldiers, building more weapons and stirring up more patriotic spirit in the red states and "squeel like a pig" areas .

This is as joke right? Because if any of those things actually would work as a stimulus attempt, they could be done in Iraq. Another surge would go down well with some people and wouldn't involved a third and forth nation being invaded.

GuanYin

Hobbes wrote: »

While they can argue that Syria is lax with the border it still does not give the US the right to go into the another country.

This is exactly what Obama has said he would do all along.

Hobbes

GuanYin wrote: »

This is exactly what Obama has said he would do all along.

No it isn't. What he said was he would go into Pakistan to capture AQ if the Pakistan government refused to do anything with the existing terrorist cells there. Big difference. He has also said he would fund Pakistan in helping to shut down AQ if they agree to help.

The exact quote: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"

You could argue this is the case with Syria, except that Syria has asked for funds to help stop incursions on their borders but has been rejected by the US (for obvious reasons).

But I have seen nothing about the attack on Syria being anything of the sort. Just a lot of civilians being shot up. Most likely bad intel.

Overheal

So, calculated attack on Obama's comments that he would cross the Pakistan border to do just this?

According to the Military this was a precision raid against an Al Qaeda supporter/supplier. The Syrians are the ones up in arms to the International Community that Team America swooped in and massacred a farm full of unarmed workers and even 4 children - which just. sounds. dicey.

Nick_oliveri

Well, whatever happened, when they play the Al Queda card, it makes everything alright.

Overheal

Not really.. but I find it hard to beleive that they managed to shoot up children. 4 children at that.

According to even the Syrians:

"American soldiers" emerged from helicopters and "attacked a civilian building under construction and opened fire on workers inside

So its not like they went Apocalypse Now on the place. Either way, theres no conclusive evidence provided in that video. If you can clear away a body before you shoot the footage, you can clear away a rifle, too.

Manic Moran

When opportunities present themselves, I would not expect the US military to forgoe them just because there's an election going on. I mean, given the most recent jaunt into Pakistan, how many Mohammad Omars can there be in the Taliban leadership?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7692373.stm

NTM

Overheal

So, they launched a UAV missile, blew up the bastard and no children were killed??? :eek:

conceited

Typical yanky terrorism.

Mr.Micro

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Typical Bush Doctrine: Shoot first, ask questions later.

Hell do'nt worry about the questions either.

Bush trying to stir it before he leaves his disasterous tenure. His term made a global mess of the economy and all the other stuff, so why not add a few more to the hundreds of thousands that have died. He can leave office a proud man for all he has achieved. The world paid the price for the American mistake.

Biggins

I think its a bit late in the day to start using these tactics.
Bush knows he is out the door soon so has nothing left to lose (literally).
Had he used such tactics in the North of Iraq against the border crossing Taliban a bit earlier he might have made a bigger difference!

As it is, I think he's setting the groundwork for one of two things, maybe both.

1. Expect him to use the same tactics soon to go after Bin Laden. He's (partly) testing the world reaction to his late tactics. Getting Bin Laden now would be a MAJOR boost for the republican party - perhaps the only thing beside the economy subject, that might boost the voting numbers in their direction.

2. Creating a situation/mess for Obama to be left with. Forcing him into a situation that will leave his hands tied.

SteveS

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that these attacks are occurring when the US general elections are about one week away? In 2004 the Bin Laden tape was released to the public approximately one week from the general election?

I don't think that it is that hard to believe that some "terrorist" would pick a transition time to start something. Biden suggested this in one of his speeches.

GuanYin

Hobbes wrote: »

No it isn't. What he said was he would go into Pakistan to capture AQ if the Pakistan government refused to do anything with the existing terrorist cells there. Big difference. He has also said he would fund Pakistan in helping to shut down AQ if they agree to help.

According to the US military, they went after an AQ leader and it was a precision strike. Obama said he would authroize such strikes to get AQ if the situation called for it.

Tellingly, there has been no official WH brief, which could mean a couple of things: 1) The operation is still ongoing 2) There was a screw up and bystanders were killed 3) there was a total screw up on bad intel.

There isn't any evidence to confirm any of these scenarios except an outraged Syrian leadership, which you would expect.

I'll sit out and wait for the facts before I judge.

The exact quote: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"

You could argue this is the case with Syria, except that Syria has asked for funds to help stop incursions on their borders but has been rejected by the US (for obvious reasons).

Well US ended official diplomacy with Syria in 2005 when they withdrew their ambassador there, so yes, I would imagine the US would want that restored before entering into an intelligence pact with Syria. You don't support people you don't trust.

As it stands, they appear to have had actional intel on a high-value target. Syria aren't trusted to deal with the matter, the US went in. Obama has said he would do the same, assuming you don't believe that the US would be able to re-engage intelligence operations with Syria, re-establish diplomatic channels AND THEN still expect the terrorists to be sitting around and not have heard about all this.

But I have seen nothing about the attack on Syria being anything of the sort. Just a lot of civilians being shot up. Most likely bad intel.

Based on what? You have nothing except and anti-US bias and a Syrian statement with no evidence to back that up.

Overheal wrote: »

So, calculated attack on Obama's comments that he would cross the Pakistan border to do just this?

According to the Military this was a precision raid against an Al Qaeda supporter/supplier. The Syrians are the ones up in arms to the International Community that Team America swooped in and massacred a farm full of unarmed workers and even 4 children - which just. sounds. dicey.

I think Obama comments basically justified these actions. Maybe he would have acted differently, but if he meant he'd go after targets, then this is most likely the way he would have had to do it in this situation.

As I've said, the dead children need to be verified before you can condemn.

Biggins wrote: »

2. Creating a situation/mess for Obama to be left with. Forcing him into a situation that will leave his hands tied.

Thats a bit of a stretch....

Black Swan

Well, we are not getting much media attention in California regarding the American attack on Syria. The economic meltdown and forthcoming election continues to dominate air time.

Trojan

GuanYin wrote: »

There isn't any evidence to confirm any of these scenarios except an outraged Syrian leadership, which you would expect.

I'll sit out and wait for the facts before I judge.

You could be waiting a while. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3889303.stm

Biggins

Originally Posted by Biggins
2. Creating a situation/mess for Obama to be left with. Forcing him into a situation that will leave his hands tied.

GuanYin wrote: »

Thats a bit of a stretch....

Not really. Bush and Cheney have been tied to Haliburton (Cheney sits on the board of Haliburton) and similar companies (Blackwater, etc) that are raking in vast profits from this (illegal) warfare. What other quiet benefits will they gain when out of office - if they are not quietly receiving them or promised them already!
If they could leave/create a situation that will further justify a continuing ongoing militaristic presence, they could make the best out of a bad situation alone.
There are other reasons why they would want to keep the military there but I suspect that more (not all) of those reasons will only come to light in many years to come.

GuanYin

Trojan wrote: »

You could be waiting a while. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3889303.stm

Surgical Strike Vs. Military Invasion......

As I said, Obama already justified tthe scenario for such an attack.