Syria Superthread [merged]

[Ex-Dragoon]

: Here we go again...

 

[PAT-Platoon]

: Here we go again...

I would appreciate some commentary instead of sarcasm, if you are so inclined to disagree with me then I would very much appreciate a debate regarding this issue.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Why do you want a debate? To you everything about the West and the US is evil and wrong. You cannot have a debate with someone who has made up their minds and has shown themself inflexible in their views. Have you seen the intel the US used to plan the attack. Are you so sure that this attack was not justified? I would say no, based on your post. You want an argument not a debate.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Is no one else here worried about the horrible precedent set here by the USA?

No precedent here.  Some naval book reading should be in your future.

I would appreciate some commentary instead of sarcasm, if you are so inclined to disagree with me then I would very much appreciate a debate regarding this issue.

Bring something new to the table with some actual thought in it and you might get it....

 

[tango22a]

Cog-Dis:
May I ask you have you never heard of "the end determines the means"?
If some a$$hat is shooting up your house and when you grab your trusty C7 and pursue him only to come up against some other armed person who says " wait a minute buddy you can't chase him any farther, and no firing across the border either!" Meanwhile a$$hat is wearing a s**t-eating grin and has also dropped his drawers and is mooning you in the near distance. This goes on day after day but now a$$hat is firing RPGs and laying IEDs on your front lawn.Not only is this a danger to you and yours but also to your friends' property around your place. ....what to do?...what to do?... Finally you get pissed-off enough to sneak by a$$hat's buddy the border guard and you pursue your tormentor up to his place of residence where you proceed to level the place. Remember you are only doing this AFTER A$$hat has destroyed your home and injured or killed many of your friends and family.

Now for the $64,000 Question?.... Are you justified in what you've done?

tango22a

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well looking at this statement by Cog-Diss

And people wonder why events such as 9/11 happen

Then 9/11 was justified? Then he wonders why we react to him the way we do.... please....

If you feel the US deserved 9/11 then I think you should do all of us serving members a favour and put in your release. I would never want to serve with someone like you.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Why do you want a debate? To you everything about the West and the US is evil and wrong. You cannot have a debate with someone who has made up their minds and has shown themself inflexible in their views. Have you seen the intel the US used to plan the attack. Are you so sure that this attack was not justified? I would say no, based on your post. You want an argument not a debate.

Please do not strawman my argument. I live in the West, as such I don't think its inherently evil or wrong. I am just very critical recently because of the actions of our governments. As a matter of fact you can have a debate with someone who has "made up their minds", that is the point of a debate. Instead of waving aside and claiming moral superiority please actually touch the points I made. Attacking a town in a foreign country without any permission is an aggressive and illegal act. Say we flip this on the other hand. What if Cuba, using their own intelligence, found a "terrorist" cell in Florida and decided to unilaterally attack that? Would they be justified? No they would not be, as the USA is not here.

Attacking through other nations and violating international laws and sovereignty is not how you create the proper relations in a region that already hates us so much because of the things we continue to do, like this action here.

Then 9/11 was justified? Then he wonders why we react to him the way we do.... please....

If you feel the US deserved 9/11 then I think you should do all of us serving members a favour and put in your release. I would never want to serve with someone like you.

Please again do not strawman or put words into my mouth. I did not say 9/11 was justified, as no act of violence such as that terrorist attack is. What I am saying is its understandable why it happened. Instead of throwing it aside as an "evil" act, randomly done by people who "hate our freedoms" it is better to analyze the real root causes of 9/11. Those root causes being our involvement and continuing interventionism in the Middle East which has only incited more hatred and anger by the population there. Again, I further emphasize the point that I do not believe 9/11 was justified or right, but merely trying to understand why it happened and how we can prevent future events like it.

 

[tango22a]

Cog-Dis:

Living proof that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink

tango22a

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

He's trolling.......noticed how he conviently skipped my post about this not being precedent?

Stop feeding him.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

He's trolling.......noticed how he conviently skipped my post about this not being precedent?

Stop feeding him.

I am in no way trolling. I simply missed your post because it didn't even make a point. All you did was state there was no precedent set, how is that an argument? I would like to hear you back up your claim that it has not set a bad precedent, as I have backed up my claim that is has set a bad precedent with my post. You on the otherhand simply replied that it was not a precedent.

Instead of labeling my criticisms of the mainstream views on this forum as trolling I would very much appreciate actual debate on the issues. I have so far, in my posts, brought up my issues without any insults, harsh language or sarcasm. I have brought up my posts in a professional and mature method, and I hope I can have some discussions in the same vein.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Someone commits a heinous crime and flees the country, the crime is considered one that requires hunt down and removal from the gene pool. Mission is exectued in secrecy and is completed successfully upon foreign soil. The ONLY people who should be concerned or even remotly interested are the Taliban and Al Quieda. Sure some may speculate that relations between the US and Syria are now strained, but when haven't they been strained?

Nothing changed with regards to the diplomacy process, the only thing that HAS changed is there are a few less terrorists for the west to worry about.

Cheers.



edit to fix grammar and ad Al Q to the mix.

 

[Fusaki]

I'd like Cog-Dis to address tango22a's point. Here's the situation as I see it:

-The Coalition in Iraq is at war with insurgents, and some of those insurgents are using Syria as a place to plan, rest, and launch attacks from.

-If the Syrian Government is unable to manage it's own borders, then the US is justified in picking up it's slack.

-If the Syrian Government is unwilling to stop the insurgents, then their sovereignty is worth about as much as any other enemy state.

-Therefore, the US has conducted a raid into Syria to disrupt insurgent operations.

Where do you see the problem?

 

[tango22a]

Cog-Dis:

For a precedent please refer to US Troops pursuing Mexicans who had entered US territory  robbing and killing US citizens.I think in 1916-17.

tango22a

 

[PAT-Platoon]

I'd like Cog-Dis to address tango22a's point. Here's the situation as I see it:

-The Coalition in Iraq is at war with insurgents, and some of those insurgents are using Syria as a place to plan, rest, and launch attacks from.

-If the Syrian Government is unable to manage it's own borders, then the US is justified in picking up it's slack.

-If the Syrian Government is unwilling to stop the insurgents, then their sovereignty is worth about as much as any other enemy state.

-Therefore, the US has conducted a raid into Syria to disrupt insurgent operations.

Where do you see the problem?

All very good points and I will do my best to address them.

This is an interesting argument regarding sovereignty and foreign interests. However I think you are making an assertation that these insurgents are, objectively on a world scale, a threat. However I need to address this claim. They are a threat to the United States, however because Syria and other nations are not involved in this war then therefore I do not believe the United States has gained the right to trespass on a nation's sovereignty. My biggest issue is this was done with no consultation with Syria itself. Did we hear about the United States attempting dialogue and perhaps extradition with the Syrian government? As the majority of the Iraqi Insurgents are Iraqis, and not Foreign fighters, the presence of insurgents (possibly Iraqi) could be a political or security issue for the Syrian government and perhaps they would be interested in removing them. However thats the problem, is there was no attempted dialogue. There was no attempt at resolution, only unilateral and illegal actions.

By continually antagonizing nations in the Middle East all we do is set up the stage for yet another war in the Middle East, not reconciliation and open-dialogue. Some would argue that dialogue with Syria is pointless but this argument is pessimistic and militaristic.  However by proceding with dialogue at least the United States then can continue on a step by step force escalation, not unilateral actions that only antagonize the people in the region and hamper the attempts of peace and stability in the Middle East.

We have international laws, international agreements etc. so that we can foster a proper environment of cooperation in the world. Otherwise we degrade into Hobbesian foreign relations where human life and nation rights are simply trampled over for the sake of expansion of influence.

Cog-Dis:

For a precedent please refer to US Troops pursuing Mexicans who had entered US territory  robbing and killing US citizens.I think in 1916-17.

tango22a

Very much different circumstances for one, and by precedent I am referring not to the supposed fact that the USA has no precedent to do such an action, but rather that this current action is setting a poor precedent for the future. Furthermore that precedent is a very poor one in fact, and in a time when we did not hold international relations in a more rational and reconciliatory way.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

From a well respected published military historian who says he has better things to do than engage with someone who is just using rhetoric, and no facts, to base a discussion on.

Bruce
From my point of view as someone who has worked in a national operations environment, his opinion fails the smell test in a number of areas including these:

a. the Syrians did no more than issue a proforma protest. No recall of ambassador, no breaking of relations and no 'rent a crowd' protests.

b. international law allows incursions/attacks onto foreign soil in hot pursuit. It may have been difficult to justify in this case, but I can think of many, many instances when the US invoked hot pursuit going back to the Indian Wars. Certainly it is a standard practice in recent years against specific targets.

c. international law does not require a nation to await an attack from a potential enemy if there is confirmed intelligence that such an attack is being planned or certain other criteria are met. The raid probably comes close enough to fall into this category.

 

[tango22a]

Cog-Dis:

I am almost positive that if the Syrians had been warned that this would have been passed to the insurgents who would have either left the target area or set up the target area as a killing zone. In war you NEVER telegraph your punches.

tango22a

 

[PAT-Platoon]

From a well respected published military historian who says he has better things to do than engage with someone who is just using rhetoric, and no facts, to base a discussion on:

Bruce
From my point of view as someone who has worked in a national operations environment, his opinion fails the smell test in a number of areas including these:

a. the Syrians did no more than issue a proforma protest. No recall of ambassador, no breaking of relations and no 'rent a crowd' protests.

b. international law allows incursions/attacks onto foreign soil in hot pursuit. It may have been difficult to justify in this case, but I can think of many, many instances when the US invoked hot pursuit going back to the Indian Wars. Certainly it is a standard practice in recent years against specific targets.

c. international law does not require a nation to await an attack from a potential enemy if there is confirmed intelligence that such an attack is being planned or certain other criteria are met. The raid probably comes close enough to fall into this category.

I thank your friend for his points and I will address them.

a. Syrian response is not that important in this sort of situation. In fact I would say that the Syrian lack of real response to this is a smart move, as in letting the facts speak for themselves and keeping them out of the spotlight. Remember, the Syrian government has a poor reputation in the world and would gain little from putting the spotlight on themselves. However that case may be, the act itself is what I am dealing with, not the response of the government.

b. I very much doubt this was a hot pursuit. If you look on a map, the city was 8km from the border. The way the operation was carried out was clearly a planned one in advance, by Special Operations assets and with helicopter support. Such an operation does not in any way look like one of hot pursuit. As such, the "hot pursuit" argument falls flat as this was obviously an intended raid with long time period of planning.

c. This is true in the case of actual nations in the context of an internationally known event. I don't believe you can extrapolate that onto a raid of enemy combatants and insurgents. Furthermore, the wanton disregard for collateral damage and civilian life in this operation (leading to 9 civilians killed I believe) shows again the United States disregard for international relations in its dealings with other countries. Instead of attempting this through the proper venues, the USA has once again shown it is quite willing to simply disregard the environment of dialogue and cooperation and instead go for war, death and destruction.

I am almost positive that if the Syrians had been wrned that this wouuld have been passed to the insurgents who would have either left the target area or set up the target area as a killing zone. In war you NEVER telegraph your punches

This is a very good point, Tango. With that in mind however, its not that black and white. This isn't such an easy question as "Bad guys were there, lets go get them, hooah". There are many things that need to be questioned. I think in this case, with the USA's history and current relations and reputations in the world regarding its unilateral and aggressive actions, it would have been a far better and reconciliatory move to withhold any such operation. Instead the USA continues to use the same actions, the same strategies it has used in the past, and therefore setting us up for even worse relations with the Middle East in the future. The United States really should have erred on the side of caution, as their illegal and unilateral action into Iraq has already strained their relations with the world, let alone the Middle East where it is seen as proof of the United State's "infidel aggression".

 

[tango22a]

Cog-Dis:

I Quit!! It's pointless to continue this. I certainly hope somebody with more brains than I will take up the cudgels. It's just like firing spit-balls at a battleship!

tango22a

 

[Fusaki]

My biggest issue is this was done with no consultation with Syria itself. Did we hear about the United States attempting dialogue and perhaps extradition with the Syrian government? As the majority of the Iraqi Insurgents are Iraqis, and not Foreign fighters, the presence of insurgents (possibly Iraqi) could be a political or security issue for the Syrian government and perhaps they would be interested in removing them. However thats the problem, is there was no attempted dialogue. There was no attempt at resolution, only unilateral and illegal actions.

Earlier Hoda Abdel Hamid, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, said the purported US raid seemed to be in contradiction to comments by US officials that Syria had improved its border security. The Americans had actually praised the role of Syria over the past year, which made the alleged raid puzzling, our correspondent said. Muallem, who had been in London for talks with his British counterpart, said US officials knew "full well that we stand against al-Qaeda".

"They know full well we are trying to tighten our border with Iraq," he said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/2008102815052252838.html

This is what I take from that blurb:

-The US is in diplomatic talks with Syria about the border

-Syria is saying they stand against Al Queda, and they are attempting to tighten the border

-The US appreciates these attempts

-But the border didn't get tight enough, fast enough, and the US took action to ensure that an HVT did not escape a known location

Even if Syria is telling the truth, and they really do stand against AQ, the US was still justified on the grounds that they needed to pick up Syria's slack.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/2008102815052252838.html

This is what I take from that blurb:

-The US is in diplomatic talks with Syria about the border

-Syria is saying they stand against Al Queda, and they are attempting to tighten the border

-The US appreciates these attempts

-But the border didn't get tight enough, fast enough, and the US took action to ensure that an HVT did not escape a known location

Even if Syria is telling the truth, and they really do stand against AQ, the US was still justified on the grounds that they needed to pick up Syria's slack.

Before I answer your queries, please refrain from dragging this debate down into meaningless banter by bringing in silly internet memes. Not only a silly one, but a tired, old and overused one at that.

If the USA was in talks, I think its very very disgusting to jeopardize their attempts at real dialogue and security issues by impinging on Syria's sovereignty. I still assert that the US actions were illegal (as they are), and are a bad lane to start going down in future Middle East relations. Does anyone here agree with me that this is a poor action to be considering and to be undertaking when our relations in the Middle East are already as poor as it is?