US Into Syria? 11/25/05

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Nov 24, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    It's Debka, but there is a bit of corraboration. If it turns out true, could be very interesting:

    http://www.debka.com/

    Corraboration:

    http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=148

     
  2. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Interesting...but not new.

    <center><a href=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590727.stm>Invade Syria? Insane</a></center>

    Any incursion into Syrian territory without the express authiorization of Congress would be a violation of the 1973 War Powers Act, and an expansion of an already unjust and illegal war.

    Of course, the Bush administration has been ramping up the pressure on Syria in recent months with increasingly bellicpse rhetoric, as well as pulling the US ambassador from Syria in February 2005 after the Harirri assasination in Lebanon.

    I don't think Dubbyuh and his bloody-handed cabal will get much traction, or support for the invasion of Syria. With his popularity at historic lows, the loss of public support for the war in Iraq, and Congressional Republicans feeling free to thumb their collective noses at the White House on a number of issues, the presence of US troops in Syria will be a short-lived phenomena. Particularly with the '06 mid-term elections looming large in the consciousness of the RNC.

    And there's another irony...Plans are afoot for US troops to begin drawing down starting in early 2006. Just in time for the '06 elections and regardless of whether the Iraqis are capable of taking up the burden.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Drawdowns do not happen in a few months, you know that. That is what IS not NEW. The drawdown begins through rotations after the election on Dec. 15 in Iraq, you know, the third one that some said were never going to happen. :rolleyes:

    I included skepticism of debka, yet there have been major ops on that border for over a month now. A raid is not unthinkable, especially for high value targets.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,203
    Why is it despite your claims you cant provide why liberating Iraq is illegal or unjust? Congress authorized it. Hence according to the Constitution it's perfectly legal. And I dont know how eliminating a tyrant can be unjust. Can you explain that please?

    As for the 73 War Powers act, there is debate whether the war powers act is even constitutional. However, thats not relevant to this discussion. Because the war powers act would allow the President to wage war with any nation for 60 days prior to getting Congress's approval. The whole basis to your post is shot right there.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I think withdrawing our troops from Iraq via Damascus is a pretty cool way to kill two birds with one stone !
     
  6. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    What's to prove? Invading Iraq was a war of choice...a war of aggression...instigated under questionable premises. Launching a war of aggression is inherently unjust, and a violation of many inter national treaties which the US us signatory to and whose terms the US is bound by and is thus illegal.

    That <a href=http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>the premises for war have mutated some 27 times</a> is an indication of just how questionable those premises were, and and raises the spectre of possible war-crimes indictments against American leaders in the Hague. And let's not forget the abandoning of the Geneva Conventions as "qaint and obsolete", thus putting our troops in danger, not only in this conflict, but in any future conflicts.

    What's to prove?
     
  7. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    And, hopefully, all will be well in Iraq. But given the Administrtion's track record on predicitions for Iraq, I hold little hope. You remember these memorable predictions, now, misstatements don't you?

    <blockquote>"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/2003</blockquote>

    <blockquote>"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." - Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003</blockquote>

    <blockquote>"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” - George W. Bush, 06/26/2002</blockquote>

    <blockquote>"[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” - Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/2002</blockquote>

    <blockquote>"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” - Dick Cheney, 8/26/2002</blockquote>

    And let's not forget all of the dire warnings if the "Immediate", "Imminent", "unique", "urgent" and any other adjective implying s sense of immediacy or urgency used by the administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq. The lie has been given to the above statements by the facts on the ground in Iraq. So, I'll wait and hope that, this time, the Administrations predictions come true. I'll hope that Iraq doesn't spiral into a vicious 3 way civil war between Sunnis, Shii'as and Kurds, thus destabilizing the whole region for decades to come and breeding ever more terrorists, who, bound in their cherem of hatred for the West, will continue to take innocent lives.
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You would be incorrect. Invading Iraq was a continuation of the Gulf War that began with Iraq invading Kuwait. Peace was never negotiated following Saddam's ouster from Kuwait .... on a ceasefire was, and it was contingent on Saddam complying with UN demands. In that ceasefire, the US specifically stated they reserved the right to act unilaterally if the UN would not.

    The premise that Saddam invaded Kuwait is not questionable.

    The premise that Saddam used chemical weapons in his own little ethnic cleansing program is nto questionable.

    The premise that the US spent 13 years and countless dollars and man-hours protecting ethnic minorites from Saddam is not questionable.

    The premise that Saddam routinely fired SAAMs at our pilots is not questionable.

    Without our military being tied up to contain the bastard, who obviously violated any and all UN mandates at his whim he was a threat to every Nation he thought he could bully. He already had invaded two Nations bordering Iraq.

    So the only thing that is questionable is the mentality of someone who purposefully blinds himself to the truth for no more reason than partisan politics.

    If the Syrian Army has engaged the US military in combat they're going to get their asses kicked and it's about time.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Not exactly, Bully:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0511250148nov25,1,1768154.story

     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    The Tribune started this series on the Iraq situation last Sunday, the above was the second installment, the following is the opening from Sunday.

    Before Bully or anyone wishes to state that the Trib is a 'conservative rag', hardly, most of the time it's indistinguishable from the NYTimes or the Trib's sister paper, the LA Times.



    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...v20,1,2349026.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed



     

Share This Page