"Little Regard For International Boundaries"
By Steve Hynd Monday Oct 27, 2008 4:30pmSyria has released footage it says is of U.S. helicopters on their way to an attack inside Syrian on Sunday.
The post headline is taken from NBC's Richard Engel in Baghdad, describing special forces crossing the border into Syria on Sunday, the first time U.S. forces have invaded Syrian territory in all these years occupying Iraq. The U.S. military, in an officially unofficial leak to the AP, are claiming hot pursuit of Al Qaeda fighters out of Iraq and have said little else about it other than that the U.S. is "taking matters into its own hands". Syrian eyewitnesses are claiming that US forces shot and killed seven men and a woman, perhaps even abducting two, while the Syrian government are taking it a step further and alleging children died too. So far, though, the only funerals that have been held were for the seven dead men, which locals and the Syrian authorities say were simply construction workers (and which Fox News' Mike Tobin, pulling faux facts unsupported by evidence or even official U.S. statements out of his ass, says were known Al Qaeda operatives).
What is certain among the conflicting reports is that U.S. forces have now ignored international laws and trespassed on sovereign territory in Pakistan and Syria in pursuit of dodgy intelligence, in both cases with reasonably credible reports of civilians wrongly slain. Technically, these are acts of war and only U.S. military might prevents them becoming so. We know that Bush has ordered that he must personally approve any incursion into Pakistan, and it seems that he must have done so for this Syrian trespass too, one that is unique in all the time that the U.S. has occupied neighbouring Iraq.
So why? Why now? Well:
Joshua Landis, an American expert on Syria, commented last night: "The Bush administration must assume that an Obama victory will force Syria to behave nicely in order to win favour with the new administration. Thus White House analysts may assume that it can have a "freebee" - taking a bit of personal revenge on Syria without the US paying a price."
There's also the possibility that this is partly just another attempt at boosting flagging Republican support, since there's only one hot-head Bush ally running for president who is likely to approve of creating an international incident at such a late stage of the Iraqi occupation. But it's a move that is likely to backfire badly in the region. Arab states, including Iraq, will be angered by this mini-invasion and will point to a continued U.S. prssence in Iraq as destabilizing. Iran will, of course, back its Syrian ally. And even Israel won't be happy. As BJ noted, Israel's been progressing quite well with negotiations involving Syria on Lebanese peace and this incursion will work to derail those negotiations simply because of guilt by association. Israel also has an election coming up, and a mood of belligerence and instability can only help the hardliners, allies of the neocons who largely steer Bush and McCain's policy thinking on the region.
It helps the White House, if it is simply after a "freebie", that all of these incursions are being carried out by U.S. Special Operations forces, which have their own independent command structure (and an independent budget) headquartered in the U.S. - allowing Proconsul Petreaus and his subordinates to have some plausible denial of culpability when talking to local officials. But it's hardly likely to help long-term strategic planning. Still, the Bush administration now wants to send thousands more of these troops to Afghanistan, a move that Senator Russ Feingold has said will "only perpetuate a counterproductive game of cat and mouse that has has led to a steep erosion in Afghans' support for foreign forces."
These raids are arguably illegal war crimes by international law, destabilizing in and of themselves, counterproductive in the long term, but unlikely to lead to war with either Pakistan or Syria on their own. However it's worth thinking about something - Iran appears to be the only possible target nation for such raids that's been left out so far. If the Bush administration decide to attempt a "freebie" there, it's far more doubtful that the blowback will be so containable.
Update: Iran expert Kaveh L Afrasiabi writes at the Asia Times that Iran is spooked.
"The chances are that the US incursion into Syria is a dress rehearsal for action against Iran and the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guards [Corps], just as they often portray Israel's aerial attack on Syrian territory last year as a prelude for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities," said the Tehran political scientist, adding that since the US had already branded Iran's Guards as terrorists, it had the necessary rationale to do so.
In the event the US indulges in such a gambit, the issue becomes whether it will be a one-shot single incursion or a series of raids and, more important, what will happen should Iran fight back and respond in kind, within Iraq's territory.
There are serious scenarios for major escalation nested in every micro action and US policymakers would be remiss to focus on their own action without taking into consideration the likely chain reaction that could lead to a regional flare-up.
(Many thanks to Heather for the video links)
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
No surprise to me.
Soldiers and airmen will follow illegal orders.
The terrorist currently occupying the White House has done enough damage already. Someone, plleeeaaaasssseeee, make it stop!
Let's start another war a week before the election, then formally do away with democracy altogether.
Despicable.
My thoughts exactly. A war with syria will get our minds off the economy.
"this incursion will work to derail those negotiations"
Maybe that's the reason even. But the important thing to remember here is that it is indeed an international war crime no matter the reason. But then again every single thing done by the US in Iraq the past 5 1/2 years are international war crimes also.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/17/u...
Which could be the neocon plan, attack the weaker and easier Syria, hoping to draw Iran out.
Interesting.
Just like the elder boosh left war for clinton.
what a fucked up family the booshes are.
the Bush's are just middle management.
they just enact or issue the edicts that their handlers give them.
and it isn't the US people.
an international incident and more war will help the GOP is beyond me. American's want less war, not more war.
But keep fucking things up, Bush. Great legacy you have going for you.
but this is sooooo PNAC. First Iraq, then Iran, Syria and I don't recall the other...that was their overall plan for redesigning the Middle East to their own desires.
It reminds me of Michael Richards doing his Battle Boy thing on Fridays years ago. Sick, sick stuff.
Here's Your TimeLine
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Its disheartening to see PBS, seemingly an educated source, portray the UNSCOM weapons inspections in such a cherry-picked and misleading manner. Having read Scott Ritter's "Iraq Confidential," among other accounts, I can only say reading this presentation of events will only make you stupid. The so-called "evidence" in 1998 was really that the programs had been discontinued in or around 1993, but the records of component destruction had gaps or inconsistencies, and the Iraqis had retained program documentation.
The real issue here, which so few people understand, is this: The Americans never intended for UNSCOM inspections to work. They subverted the process continually. Their thinly hidden agenda was to impose sanctions in order to weaken Saddam. They never wanted a definitive answer as to the state of weapons programs. As it became more and more obvious that there was nothing to be found, the Americans created a situation where they could claim non-compliance and use force.
It was a personal agenda, and at one point they inserted an assassination team inside a UNSCOM inspection in an attempt to take Saddam out. It failed miserably and the US lost its Iraqi intelligence network as a result. Duplicitous retards.
The irony of the Iraq invasion and the 2002 inspections is not only that they knew there was nothing to be found, they had throughout the whole process never really cared what was there. These people will manipulate and lie to any extent in order to achieve a goal. The discrediting of the UN to the American public makes me throw up, knowing what the US did to UNSCOM.
I don't think you can understand any of this Iraq business unless you put it in context with American regional alliances against Russian influence. The Great Game is still at play.
Cheney and lil' Bush are fucking nuts! If these bastards are not prosecuted when they leave office, I will never regain the pride I once had in this country.
The U.S. needs to grow up, and put criminal psychopath's in their place!
might as well get used to it.
there will be no prosecutions. hell, there won't even be REAL investigations.
Sigh!
They haven't even had a real investigation into 9/11.
with criticisms of actions ordered or authorized by (or in the name of) the current administration. Except in, perhaps, the clearest of cases, you cannot expect armed services personnel to question the legality of their orders. The cost of being wrong is too great. (The cost of being right is likely too great as well(.
...To be frank your average servicemember doesn't have the necessary info needed to make the judgment call of legal/illegal anyway. This is not a statement about servicemembers as much as an acknowledgment that the military doesn't make it a habit to tell the rank and file what the hell is going on.
Even the densest bloodthirsty grunt should be able to know this is illegal and wrong.
...You have to show that the people who pulled the trigger were cognizant that they were shooting at children before your statement applied to this case.
Ignorance, willful or negligent is not a defense.
is a complete defense, however.
You don't get tried for causing unintended collateral damage. If a target appears legitimate in the circumstances, you get to shoot it.
That's one of the reasons why wars should be avoided in the first place.
Agreed negligent or willful ignorance is not a defense.
However you leave open the option, and frankly I can tell you in today's military it is the most probable option, of true ignorance. We're not talking about guards in a camp where genocide was occurring but guys in a chopper who are receiving orders to engage from someone probably quite far away. I'm not defending these people, saying THEY ARE innocent, just saying without evidence I won't say they are guilty either. Note: I'm referring to the people on the immediate scene, the 'grunts'. I believe the majority of the administration is guilty of war crimes.
that excuse didn't fly at Nuremburg.
if you will note,
the Israeli's go after the most tertiary of violators, 70+ yr old camp guards still.
Are you seriously claiming that members of the US military have anything in common with death camp guards?
"Just following orders" works in every other situation. When US troops are successfully prosecuted (hello Lieutenant Calley), it's been for exceeding their orders (either that of for failing to follow their orders).
In any case, situations like Nuremburg only happen when one side loses a war and is overrun by the winners. Unless the U.S. is successfully invaded and conquered, no such mass trials will ever occur.
are you claiming that since the US has the military power to win - or at least, not demonstrably lose to the point where the troops would be subject to war crimes trials -
that no such war crimes exist?
also, the situation of Calley is almost moot now. the media does not have the same level of access to the front lines, and they are heavily censored, or self-censored.
...and with the death toll of Iraqi's estimated to be pushing 1+ million, yes, I would start to put them in the same category. or are you comfortable with the US military forces being ONLY 1/6 as bad as the camp guards?
and that is not including the the toll exacted by the US military from its war in Vietnam - which cost 3.5+ million vietnamese - all on the basis of the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin incident.
...some intellectual noted that war crimes are only for the losers.
Not that I think its right, but it generally works out that way.
I'm claiming that US war crimes, if they exist, will never be prosecuted in the same manner as Nuremburg.
As to the alleged "war crimes" themselves, before we can meaningfully discuss this issue, we have to agree on a definition of a war crime. For example, if "war crime" means intentionally targetting civilians, then we're back to unintended collateral damage being a legitmate defence.
Even intended collateral damage is not a war crime. (Did any Nazi bomber crews get charged with war crimes? Did the US and UK aircrews that firebombed Dresden?) If you bomb a military target surrounded by civilian homes and some civilians die, that is not a war crime.
If you want to prevent this from happening, don't start the war in the first place. Don't turn on the troops who volunteered to fight the war because they cannot live up to an idealized view of warfare.
well for starters, we don't have a Constitutionally declared war...
we also have the use of direct fraud and lies to justify a war in the Middle East. the Downing Street Memo's and the phony - hoaxed - Yellowcake docs. Not to mention the lies of the officially accepted account of nine eleven.
We are going to disagree. I know this endeavor is evil - pure and simple. And the troops are participating. You can make the value judgment to whatever standard you want. I am comfortable in mine.
Remember, there are right wingers who argue if the US tortures it's enemies, it's okay-
BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICA!!!!
But America argues that American POWs must be accorded the rights under the Geoneva Conventions (which the US ignores when it tortures)
Double standard?
This is why when nationalist Americans boast how much better we are than everyone else, and how only America has freedom, it evokes laughter and eyerolls- rather than awe and respect from abroad..
You correctly mention the 1+ million in Iraq... You also mention the 3.5+ million in Vietnam. (I wasn't aware of the numbers there)
But if you want to measure the rest of the World's contempt/perception of American Foreign Policy, you would also have to include the numbers from Korea, the first Gulf War, the 500,000+ children that died because of sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s and the estimated number of people that have been killed in CIA covert operations. I think that number was estimated to be around 6 million, but that figure was from 1987. Of course, this is not an official figure. (is an official figure on this even possible???) but it is coming from John Stockwell, who was the CIA station chief in Angola and is/was the highest ranking CIA officer to leave the agency and go public...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...
Let's just hope that when America is not the lone super-power in the World (already starting) and that others have the opportunity to take advantage of Americans that they do it in a slightly more humanitarian manner.....
Your example of Lt. Calley being "successfully prosecuted" does not make for a very persuasive argument. What you do not say is that Calley was initially sentenced to life imprisonment. One day later, Nixon reduced his sentence to house arrest which Calley served for only 3 and a half years. Curious that you also failed to mention Hugh Johnson who had the temerity of disobeying orders that he was given by American officers [perhaps Calley himself] to allow American soldiers to fire upon Vietnamese peasants. Not only did Johnson refuse those orders he also informed the officers that if any Americans were to fire on those villagers he and the people that were in his helicopter would shoot at the American soldiers. It is people like Hugh Johnson who are the true heroes of this country who recognize that it is their duty not to obey illegal and immoral orders despite what they are erroneously told by their superior officers.
yep. Hugh Johnson.
funny how the history books don't mention him so much, if at all.
you have to dig deep for this kind of info.
I'll simplify.
My argument is:
1. Very few US troops commit verifiable war crimes;
2. Very few of those who do will ever be prosecuted;
3. This situation is obvious and easily forseeable;
4. Legitimate military actions (which are not warcrimes) can and often do cause massive civilian casualties;
5. The only way to prevent this is not to start the war in the first place - or not to vote for an administration that will start such a war; and
6. The fact that the invasion of Iraq was founded on intentional misrepresentations (or, at least, on wilfully ignorant misstatements) does not reflect badly on US troops.
reply:
this is not a legitimate war.
this is a war started by using fraudulent evidence
this is a war started by a New Pearl Harbor - of very questionable sourcing.
Moral and legal dilemma: What is the proper conclusion of a fraudulent war? What is the proper conclusion of war waged on an innocent (or at least not-guilty) party?
Assume, for the moment, that I agree with your characterization of the invasion of Iraq as "not a legitimate war".
The proper legal conclusion is a withdrawal of US forces, followed by a formal apology from the US government in about 50 years' time. (Admittedly, the second part is optional).
There is unlikely ever to be consensus on the proper moral conclusion. There are as many moral views as people, since morality is an individual sense. My own view is that anyone who can be proved beyond all doubt to have intentionally caused an illegitimate war should be locked away for life.
An immoral conclusion would be to punish the troops who took part in that war because of a personal view that the war was "evil".
What is your background Mr. Roberts? Are you a veteran of one of the US' wars in the last 40 years?
I'm a pacifist. I think military action in any guise is almost never the answer to any international problem. (Military action to stop a genocide or to resist a war of aggression may be exceptions).
I think Bush just wants to make it as difficult as possible for Obama in the event of a win. He sees an Obama victory in Nov. and wants to leave the situation as bad as possible. It's the same in Pakistan. Just recently he escalated the confilct there as well.
bush wants to totally fuck up the middle east
bush is indeed the anti christ
he wants to bring armegeddon
Small children are not military targets, were they killed to stop them being shown crying on TV !?
They hated us for our freedoms, with all their childish immature innocent little hearts.
Sorry, humor is my outlet for rage.
so how does this play into obama's plan to redeploy in afghanistan along the pakistani border?
how is he going to discern which information is reliable and needs action if and when the pakistani gov't doesn't react?
we get our oil from canada, saudi arabia, mexico, venezuela, and nigeria (there are more, but this is the top 5). it is apparent we have missed our mark on bin laden and their stated goal is to get us out of middle eastern affairs.
why not just leave.
pakistan doesn't want to help. afghani's are sick of us. iraqi's are sick of us. just pull everyone out and let the middle easterners deal with their problems. why do we always have to be in a state of war?
Lewis
Extremely well said. Will Americans find out on Countdown that, unless I am mistaken, Obama has not said a peep concerning US aggression in the Middle East? Since Keith Olbermann is one of Obama's principal cheerleaders, that prospect seems highly unlikely. As you correctly note, since Obama, the [alleged]anti-war candidate, wishes to escalate the war in Pakistan while also approving of Bush sending in US forces into Pakistan, it would not do for Obama to speak out as that would also indict him for his advocacy for military intervention into the Middle East. This post's concern over the US's incursion into Syria is justified but so is the relevance as to why a candidate who is so quick to call attention to the fact that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning [even though he has continually voted to fund it along with the so-called good war in Afghanistan] has not protested against American imperialism, But as I noted earlier, in all likelihood for Obama to do so would alert Americans to his own desire to maintain American aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
It would appear that the [alleged] agent of change has taken a page from the playbook of John Kerry by not only moving to the right of Bush but also McCain, which would seem to substantiate the allegation that Obama is more similar to McCain than he is dissimilar. The agent of change is looking more and more like the agent of the status quo.
its because one of Obama's advisers - Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the chief architects of this middle east policy. Zbigniew is the one who orchestrated the entire start-up of the Mujahideen which morphed into Al Qaeda.
You will note, Obama bought and resold the Administration version of the recent Georgian bombings of the Russian civilians and the Russian overwhelming counter-response
Syria asked for Iraq to investigate the situation, as this action by the U.S. forces on the Syrian border was performed as a "Reprisal" action for Syria's inability to control that sector and prevent unidentified groups with guns, training, and purpose from crossing over and conducting military operations against the Iraqi government and its coalition forces.
6 years into this gwot and folks still don't understand legal, illegal, or whatever.
Facts are as follows,
U.N. Charter affirms nation states retain the right of self defense and we have here a good definition of how the reprisal action works under these kind of circumstances.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/reprisal.html
other than that, I disagree with the broad brush description of servicemembers "Following Illegal orders" and casting the Special operations folks as some foreboding group of fingermen laying in wait to do a kafka'esque snatch and grab.
When you do that type of presentation, without paying attention to the tools of statecraft in place to deal with the incursions, you become another example of narrow thinking practised by the neocons.
ITs no longer about the facts, its about the general commentary of criminalizing the actions of all servicemembers, who in esence are where they are, cuz the majority of their countrymen sent or ALLOWED them to go into harms way.
who ever wins, the wars will still be there to deal with. Obama will deal with it intelligently, without the hype..
how bout you??
OK so they suspect persons living at an address are doing support for the insurgency.
Airborne and local covert surveillance could have watched for X leaving the house and going south across the border, then pounced.
Just because somebody has the power to do cross border raids, doesnt mean they have the legal right to.
With no women and children killed it was a PR and military/diplomatic blunder, with them dead its a global PR nightmare for the US.
Since he seems to love death, whether it be sending scores of people to the death chamber on death row (when governer of Texas) or whether it be the continuation and expansion of the 2 pronged war based on lies.
And to think Bush and the other Republicans claim to cherish life....
According to a Psychiatrist who studied the stupid nutjob, his friends said he loved blowing up frogs with fire crackers.
Babs probably taught him that one, when she was too busy to take him down to watch the orphan's starve for a good laugh.
The Bushies are America's version of the Borja's.
And hazing pledges to the fraternity - where he was preZnut - by burning them with hot coat hanger wires.
"No worse than a cigarette burn," was his defense.
Sweet guy, doncha know?
and that isn't close to what happened to him and others in his company when he pledged Skull and Bones.
your reference is to his undergrad fraternity, not the Order in his senior year.
"We were terrible to animals," recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out.
"Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them," Mr. Throckmorton said. "Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up."
When he was not blowing up frogs, young George -- always restless and something of a natural leader -- would lead neighborhood children on daredevil expeditions around town, seeing how close they could come to breaking their necks. George also quickly acquired a colorful vocabulary.
No doubt Bush and all his enablers (including Democrats) need to be held accountable. And if there is any justice in this universe They Will All Pay The Highest Price.
When are we going to rise above all the petty issues and start talking about things that really affect our lives, like achieving ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Obama and McCain both say that is their top priority, however they say it will take 10 years (conveniently after they would be out of office).
There are technologies available today to give us Clean, Renewable ENERGY in a year even (especially if we took just a fraction of what is being spent in Iraq).
I am not talking about BS stuff like bio, nuclear, coal or more oil, I am talking about wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and electric/magnetic (also hydrogen using Tesla methods not conventional methods). The best thing about these is that they are abundant, completely clean, and renewable.
Whoever gets elected needs to be reminded that this is the top priority and not allowed to slack off on this. Look up Tesla and geothermal energy and check out some videos on it, also zeitgeist:addendum for more info.
Read This
The silence is deafening. Not a mention in the MSM or progressive blogosphere about the Aipac Rosen/Weissman espionage trial that starts tomorrow. The news is all about the Stevens trial, more on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THIS ESPIONAGE TRIAL. NOTHING. JUST THE WAY THE ISRAELI LOBBY LIKES IT.
There has not even been a whisper in the MSM about this trial (under the radar) not even a whisper in the blogosphere.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/may/07/0...
WILL CROOKS AND LIARS OR FIREDOGLAKE WILL ANY OF THE BLOGGERS BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO WRITE ABOUT THIS FIVE TIME DELAYED TRIAL THAT STARTS TOMORROW? THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT BRINGS THE MSM AND THE BLOGOSPHERE ON THE SAME PAGE...SILENCE
Aipac Duo Wins Intermediate Court Victory
http://www.forward.com/articles/13665/
By Nathan Guttman
Thu. Jun 26, 2008
The indictment
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/...
Here's an article showing photos of the carnage from the Argentinian paper Clarin
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2008/10/27/um/m-...
Hope those dead people were happy to know that they are part of a "freebie"
First of all the if they were bad guys then they would look like civilians and be reported as such. The scary part is to think what if that happened here. If someone flew over San Diego and killed some felons we'd be pretty upset too and call them civilians. This is very disturbing because of not who was killed or that, but that we attacked inside a country that didn't give us permission or we were at war with in a populated area.
These F*cking NeoCons will do anything to destroy what remains of this once great nation.I hope and pray that the international courts go after these scum bags and bring charges,Kinda like Kissinger not being able to go to certain countries because if he steps off the plane his sorry ass is going to the slammer for war crimes.The list this time would be quite long.
Think about the countries that we have attacked or invaded over the last seven years. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria. Israel in Lebanon. When Bush said that he was going to light the middle east on fire. He meant it. Forget International law. We do as we please. Foget the borders
Aljazeera reports about the U.S. attack in Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzRAmgaSqg
Dana Perino refused to answer any questions about the attack
U.S. State Department refuses to comment on deadly attack in Syria
The spokeswoman (Dana Perino), during the daily press conference, rarely used “I can’t comment on it at all,” “I’m not going to comment in any way,” “I don’t know, I don’t know,” “all I can tell you is that I am not able to comment on reports about this reported incident” to answer reporters’ questions on the attack.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/engl.....262913.htm
reply
Bush was just stirring up some middle-east trouble, get some muslims rioting in the streets protesting our attack in order to drum up some
fearsupport for McCain at home.In other words, I assumed it was a campaign event.
I also think it could be a burnt earth policy in preparation for a probable Obama administration. I don't support the policies of Pakistan and Syria; however they are sovereign nations. Let's hope they realize this extremely sick administration is on the way out and they won't do anything rash in response.
to shut down the government in protest at this illegal act of war.
Imagine the Canadians or Mexicans pulling that stunt on us?
Face it, even if congress found its spine at this late date, they be so unfamiliar with its use, it'd be pointless.
Mon, 10/27/2008 - 18:01 — Truth B Told
the Bush's are just middle management.
they just enact or issue the edicts that their handlers give them.
and it isn't the US people.
Got any proof? Bush is responsible for this outrage, he is not taking orders from the "illuminati". This criminal president should have been impeached years ago and none of this would of happened. I blame weak Dems in congress for letting this country slip into chaos.
Proof?
what kind of evidence will satisfy you? what standard of evidence?
I've got former Presidents talking about it.
I've got other high-level government officials talking/writing about it.
Ive got academics talking about it.
There's open admissions, and also strong circumstantial evidence.
I heart Obama, but I want to point out that this is exactly what Obama was advocating...hot pursuit of AQ into Pakistan. It is a violation of a bazillion different international treaties of which the US is a party to, as well as strongly established customary international law... whether conducted under a Bush or Obama administration it is still illegal. So when Obama becomes president *YAY!* we should remember our positions on this particular invasion.
Obama would apply the characteristic most missing from all of the Bush admin's plans: competence.
No.
the Bush/Neocon gang have been extremely successful.
You are thinking in the wrong paradigm of how these guys operate.
Their goal was a permanent republican majority and vastly increasing the U.S.'s power and ability to act unilaterally on the world stage. I agree they'll get away with all they've done but everything they've done, they've failed at.
Seems to me the Syrian Government played with fire by allowing the Jihadis to camp just over the Syrian Border. While I am certain we did not put any actual DIPLOMATIC pressure on them (Syria) to shut down the cross border infiltration, I am sure they will get this message, remember the Terrorists respect no borders, and the Syrians were allowing them to shelter and plan there. War sucks, illegal wars suck more, but our troops have to defend themselves, and we have to kill those terrorists. (no I'm not a nut, I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, nor do I think we should make a habit of invading other countries)....
McCain Again Failing Commander-in-Chief Test: This Time Syria
"McCain is once again demonstrating the recklessness and impulsiveness that makes one question whether he can in fact be commander in chief. There is only one proper response to this. The same response that the Obama campaign gave, which is that you just simply don't discuss a military operation if the White House and the military are refusing to comment. The issue is a sensitive one and a question of national security. You take your lead from them and wait until you have all the facts, instead of trying to score cheap political points"
So the US has attacked other countries thus far, but not Iran.
During World War II, the US attacked all major Japanese cities except one: Hiroshima. Remember what happened when they did finally attack?
yes. a war crime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9lwvImJqT0
All right - "simply construction workers"....that phrase is beyond reprehensible. How about "simply sons" or "simply brothers"....maybe "simply fathers".
Has the worth of a human life become just another commodity to be traded on the international market? We're not talking about "simply" anything - we're talking about a human being who had friends, family, and dependents who loved them. To dismiss them as "simply" anything makes me "simply" ill.
jimbag,
remember, we don't do body counts... Unless it's our own. Then that counts... YES?
Bush Foreign Policy sees no problem with attacking Syria and killing innocent men/woman/children but all heck broke out with the attack of any US citizens. We have lost our way in America because we didn't stop the terrorist within our Govenment. This attack was used to have Syria attack the US so McCain could get votes. Nothing less then the US/Saudi planned attack on the WTC on Sept. 11th. This Administration has used the American citizens since 1999 and we feel for the tricks hook line and sinker. Iran isn't an enemy nor is North Korea but with the Bush propaganda department we are made to think they are. While the White House was using terror as the headlines and keeping Americans in fear, Bush/Cheney have been robbing the US Treasury blind.
Let me just say when Obama assumes the presidency, he will have an overwhelming job to do. From a practical point, just cleaning up the 8 years of mess left by the Bush/Cheney fiasco, and god only knows what terror is ahead of us in the last three months, so things won't right themselves for at least a year for some things. In Australia, Prime Minister Rudd has been in power for a year and he has been working his butt off day and night to get rid of the offenses of 11 years of neo fascists/Bush loving Howard government. Many of the same conservative politicians are still in office in opposition and along with the media they are still giving Rudd a hard time. They even criticise him when he goes overseas. Fortunately, some enquiries have been able to compensate for some terrible behaviour in the fear -ridden Howard government like closing down desert refugee detention camps, and wrongful terrorist accusations, and wrongful detention and deportation, all things executed in a reign of terror. In a nutshell, don't expect a velvet revolution and flowers raining down from heaven once Obama gets in. It's going to be hard work and the neocons as wounded elephants, will still be on the charge, probably worse than ever.Bloggers, be prepared for the good fight!
.
And the Bush Administration and their Congressional lackeys continue to rant that America is NOT a terrorist State. When American forces do this, it truly undermines our supposed war ON terrorism and makes it into a WAR OF TERRORISM!!! Just because American forces have bigger, badder weapons does not make for a bigger better cause, especially when used to commit acts of terrorism.
I will continue to state the obvious...
... This is a WAR OF TERRORISM the USA has engaged in and we are hell bent on proving to the world at large that America is the biggest, baddest and fiercest TERRORIST ORGANIZATION to dominate the planet... so don't screw with the USA or we'll ruin your country... FOREVER!!!
ARREST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES!!!
.
Right on the shoulders of Nancy Pelosi. If she had not taken impeachment off the table for her "good friend" Bush and his sidekick, he could not have done this. She never should have been Speaker of the House. Because of her, the rest of us have to wonder what outrage he will commit next. And he's got a whole lot of choices.
Pelosi had no backbone for impeaching Bush or Cheney. And now would be too late. I am not sure, but I believe the U.N. could bring about war crimes against Bush after he is out of office. Obama would be clear as well as Pelosi and Reid avoiding political hay before the Nov. 4th election.
But that also shows the rest of the world that America lets its leaders be criminals. I can guess that after the election all this will come to the surface.
This whole war is disgusting and deplorable. However, those helicopters were so blurry, I don't think they could positively be identified as U.S. ships. I'm skeptical of the objectivity of the claim. Although, having said that, I think we can be certain that under-the-table operations have been going on in both Syria and Iraq for several years now...so I guess it doesn't really matter whether or not they are actually U.S. aircraft.
Why not sneak one more war in before you spend the rest of your natural life in jail? Pay no attention to the war going on behind the curtain...
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.
~George W. Bush
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
~George W. Bush
...the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
~George W. Bush
We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.
~George W. Bush
Nuff said........
Anyone?
Think of it this way.
The only product the US can produce and make a profit on is armaments. "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" keeps the armament manufacturers in business in hard economic times.
Halliburton is in the armament business.
Get the picture?
Login or Register to post comments.