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.

nice1franko

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Ironically, it was America who was "up in arms" here.

If it were the other way round and Syria launched an attack on American soil (killing children amongst others with their 'precision attack') would America be 'up in arms'?

Otacon

GuanYin wrote: »

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

Obama was talking about a country that the US still engages with, Pakistan. He also mentioned actionable intel. We have no idea what kind of intel they were working off of.

As you have stated before, we need to wait for all the details before we can say whether this fits Obama's criteria. The fact that there has not been a WH brief suggests this is not the case.

Manic Moran

The WH is not in the habit of giving a brief over every operation the US military does. I'm sure the question will crop up in the next CENTCOM or MNF press conference.

NTM

Manic Moran

nice1franko wrote: »

If it were the other way round and Syria launched an attack on American soil (killing children amongst others with their 'precision attack') would America be 'up in arms'?

AP is apparently in some disagreement with the official Syrian news agency over this one.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ianwYiLFrnJxFSAgjT1DqydYeinQD9430CD80

The Syrian government statement said eight people were killed, including a man and his four children and a woman. However, local officials said seven men were killed and two other people were wounded, including a woman among the injured.

An Associated Press journalist at the funerals in the village cemetery saw the bodies of seven men — none of them children. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained.

NTM

Trojan

Manic Moran wrote: »

The WH is not in the habit of giving a brief over every operation the US military does.

Not every operation is an invasion of a new country.

Spyral

why dont america keep teffoc away from countries that aren't their own. They aren't being invaided and no one is attacking them. They really need a good ass kicking, they think they can roll on anyone and win. I just hope all these wars turn into vietnam and demolish america.

oscarBravo

Insofar as the thread topic has any bearing on next week's election, can we keep it on-topic? Ta.

GuanYin

Otacon wrote: »

Obama was talking about a country that the US still engages with, Pakistan. He also mentioned actionable intel. We have no idea what kind of intel they were working off of.

So you think that America should only go after terrorists hiding out in countries that America does engage with but can't or won't deal with the terrorists themselves?

Otacon

Not at all, but implying that Obama would have made the same decision based on what we think we know is wrong imo.

GuanYin

Otacon wrote: »

Not at all, but implying that Obama would have made the same decision based on what we think we know is wrong imo.

I'm not, I'm saying that Obama said that if he had intel on terrorists and the local authorities are unwilling or unable to help, he would OK a surgical strike.

This appears to be a surgical strike againt terrorists in an area wher ethe local authorities would not help.

Of course, it may not turn out that way, but assuming it is, it is within Obama's own ethos.

nice1franko

Obama wrote:

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

So the difference is Obama has manners. He'll ask first but if doesn't get the answer he wants he'll steamroll in anyway.

Manic Moran

nice1franko wrote: »

So the difference is Obama has manners. He'll ask first but if doesn't get the answer he wants he'll steamroll in anyway.

The US used to do that. Leaks in the Pakistani security services tended to result in the notification simply resulting in warning the target, and the missions tended to fail. American success rates seem to have improved of late, now they've stopped letting Pakistan know in advance.

[ETA: Ronen Bergman claiming that the Syrian intel services were in the loop on the raid. It would certainly account for the ability of US helicopters to fly around at medium altitude for a quarter hour and thensome without attracting Syrian military attention.]

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote:

[ETA: Ronen Bergman claiming that the Syrian intel services were in the loop on the raid. It would certainly account for the ability of US helicopters to fly around at medium altitude for a quarter hour and thensome without attracting Syrian military attention.]

15 minutes in a border area ? On that basis some of the 911 planes should have been stopped ;-)

But it's a real faux pas
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/iraq-turns-on-us-and--condemns-cia-raid-into-syria-1511906.html

The Iraqi government has unexpectedly denounced a CIA raid on a compound in a Syrian border village that killed an al-Qa'ida commander who dispatched fighters into Iraq.

"The Iraqi government rejects US aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria," said an Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, in a surprise rebuke to Washington. "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighbouring countries."

The raid, the first on Syrian territory by the US since the invasion of Iraq five years ago, highlights the way the US carries out military operations without consulting the Iraqi government. This is humiliating for the Iraqi government and reinforces Iraqi doubts about signing a security pact with the US by the end of the year.

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

15 minutes in a border area ? On that basis some of the 911 planes should have been stopped ;-)

The US was not particularly paranoid about Israeli commando raids coming over the border in helicopters back in 2001. The Syrian border defense network isn't all that bad.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US was not particularly paranoid about Israeli commando raids coming over the border in helicopters back in 2001.

The Syrian border defense network isn't all that bad.

It's probably worse than the US one which has been continuously improved since the 50's but wasn't any help on 911.
It's probably not in the same league as the USSR one which let Mathias Rust fly into Red Square.
And you can bet your bottom dollar those helicopters had a AWACS looking for anything in nearby airspace. But to twist "we got in and out quickly without getting shot down" into "of course the Syrians allowed us in" is a bit rich. Maybe they did, but 15 minutes is no evidence.

some more countries with half decdent air defense
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

At 15:55 on 07 June 1981, the first F-15 and F-16's roared off the runway from Etzion Air Force Base in the south. Israeli air force planes flew over Jordanian, Saudi, and Iraqi airspace After a tense but uneventful low-level navigation route, the fighters reached their target. They popped up at 17:35 and quickly identified the dome gleaming in the late afternoon sunlight. Iraqi defenses were caught by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25237 "in the long term, the Israeli attack did not delay the nuclear weapons program – it accelerated it by stimulating a sense of domestic political urgency."