US going to war in Syria???

[Melensdad]

Everything you say about Syria is true . . . What specifically have they done to us, and what is the specific threat they pose? I understand all about the training and support of terrorists; what I want to know is exactly what can we point to as harm to the United States as a direct result of Syrian involvement? In other words, what precisely will change if we take the Syrians out? What is the direct benefit to us?

Don, let me pose a situation:

Let's say you and your neighbors are friends. Let's expand it and say you have 10 friends or 20 friends. All are close friends.

Let's say a thug breaks in to friend #19's home and beats up his wife, kills his dog and rapes his daughter. Friend's 1 to 18, and friend 20 are all outraged. You all complain to the police. It is an isolated event.

Everything you say about Syria is true . . . What specifically have they done to us?

Now let's say a ne'redo'el car jacks a car from friend #11 while their baby is in the back of the car. The baby is never found. The car is found a week later, destroyed. Friends 1 to 10 and 12 to 20 mourn the loss of the child. You all complain to the police. It is an isolated event.

Everything you say about Syria is true . . . What specifically have they done to us?

Things are really quiet for a while then all of a sudden a bridge is blown up and friend #1 and his entire family die as their car falls into an abyss. Friends 2 to 20 attend the funeral services and cry. You all complain to the police. It is an isolated event.

Everything you say about Syria is true . . . What specifically have they done to us?

Every few months something, somewhere happens. Each thing appears to be an isolated event. Yet each, in some way, can be traced back to a loose point of origin. You realize that each event is not really an isolated event from the big picture scheme of things. Each is somehow related but you just don't understand the relationship. You complain to the police and show a loose set of links. They say that because of the wording of the law, they are essentially powerless. Yet you know that you & your neighbors are dealing with an octapus that has 8 arms. The police may cut off 1 arm, but there are 7 remaining. Your friends feel the best solution is to kill the brain and let the 7 arms wither.

You feel that your family has not been harmed, so you feel you have no fight with the evil that is plaguing your friends.

Everything you say about Syria is true . . . What specifically have they done to us?

My very favorite line from the "Declaration of Independence" reads: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

​

What it means is that when the people are suffering under tyranny, then those who are able to throw off that tyranny, are obligated to do so for the good of all. And while it is specifically written about our colonies and the relationship with the King of England, its meaning is applicable in many other circumstances.


JMHO but I believe my opinions are without bravado, are not armchair quarterbacking, but are in fact, a basis for some level of logic that I hope we can begin to discuss in a format that allows for some reasonable disagreement but still allows for some realization that Syria is a threat, perhaps not to my individual person, but to the world community.

Now that I have quoted one of the most significant documents of all time, let me quote a bumper sticker that is just as true: THE COST OF FREEDOM IS NOT FREE

What specifically have they done to us?

 

[Dargo]

I do business with a guy who fled Syria with his family about 20 years ago. He does still have family and some friends "back home". He is frustrated with our government because he says that they do not understand the way the middle eastern people think. He says it has been a standard trick of their people for generations to "salute whatever flag you put in front of me". Apparently we have a hard time understanding that way of life.

What I mean (and this seems to hold true in Iraq) is that a bad person will put on a heck of an act and say and do whatever they feel necessary to fool us into thinking that they are one of the "good" people. Then, as soon as we turn our back, have no compunction about shooting us squarely in the back and laughing about our stupidity for believing their charade. It is not considered cowardly at all to "give up" in order for us to stop whatever we are doing, only to return to doing whatever they were before we were there.

He claims that is why we see all of the "insurgents" wearing masks. That way, they can be our friend when face to face, and then slaughter us later that day. According to my friend from Syria, they think we are extremely stupid when we surround a city full of insurgents and they are allowed to slip right through our fingers by passing themselves off as innocent bystanders. He claims that this tactic was imported to Iraq from Syria. He says many of the terrorist tactics were developed in Syria and exported to other areas. Since he could not trust anyone, he fled here decades ago. We are only now seeing what has been standard procedure there forever. He says we will never win in Iraq because we feed and support the very same people by day who are attacking us by night. Also, the thought of "collateral damage" is simply not thought of by them as a bad thing. Apparently they feel that if they kill 5 of their own innocent people in killing one of us, those 5 people were part of the overall plan to kill us and, therefore, are just part of the battle. There is no shame or repercussions for killing innocent people in the name of killing us. They feel our sense of that guilt is foolish and they most certainly use that against us in battle.

How can we change this whole philosophy of thinking? I'm told that they are taught this way of thinking from birth and their early school years are infused with the thoughts and ideas of killing all infidels. Their work is not done in life until they kill all infidels. That is the way they are brought up. There are no innocent infidels, they are all bad and need to be exterminated. Gees, I suppose I'm thankful that I am not the person charged with correcting this situation. It's easy to sit back and lob verbal bombs at Bush, but would you really like to be in his position?! Our concept of peace, and live and let live, just doesn't register to those people I mentioned. Doing nothing on our part is not an option, but what do you do?

I have a son who is working as hard as he can to get into West Point. I know that is a very admirable and honorable thing to do. However, as a parent, with the current world situation, I can't help but worry about his choice. I have military recruiters sending mail here every day, and he will not be even 17 for a few months. I just don't want him to be irrational, nor do I want to be irrational. So, yes, this whole thing most certainly worries me. I know it's not a popular thought, but personally, I don't like the thought of going into a fight with one arm (or both) tied behind my back because of the fear of upsetting public opinion. From what I see, it's our concern of public opinion that will prevent us from "winning" this situation.

 

[nofanobush]

"Nofan.. Could You expand on that a bit ? While I'm no big fan of Bush ,or any politician for that matter ,I just don't seem to be able to make a connection betweem the White House and Saudi Arabia . TIA, John"

http://expage.com/notowar02

One of hundreds of things that have been written about the Bush family's ties to the Saudis.

 

[Melensdad]

http://expage.com/notowar02

One of hundreds of things that have been written about the Bush family's ties to the Saudis.

Everything published on the internet is 100% factual information (double true for websites that push a specific political point of view) just like Al Gore's statement that he invented the internet.

 

[Cityboy]

If they don't care about collateral damage why should we? What sense does it make to keep playing patty-cake with them? Massive destruction is the only thing they understand and the only way to get the point across.

We have been fighting the war the way the American political left wants us to and it does not work. It will never work. The left is wrong yet again. We have to stop caring what the rest of the world's socialist's and leftists think about us and truly open up a severe can of whoop-ass. If Syria is supporting terrorism, let’s get target information through reconnaissance and smoke their asses from 50,000 feet up. We do not have enough manpower to keep screwing around with these mass serial murderers.

We have tactical weapons, including nuclear, that can get the job done without fear of contaminating Europe or other countries. If you think the islamic goons would not nuke us first chance they get, then you are either naive or a complete imbecile. Think about it.

If every time they make a move against us we annihilate one of their major cities, they might just get the message and knock off their quest for their 70 virgin fantasies.

 

[bczoom]

nofanobush,

Those articles are splattered with "Conspiracy Theories" and op-ed articles by Craig Unger (who's notoriously bound to Michael Moore) and is a known leftist.

Is there any un-biased, factual information on the subject?

 

[Melensdad]

nofanobush,

Those articles are splattered with "Conspiracy Theories" and op-ed articles by Craig Unger (who's notoriously bound to Michael Moore) and is a known leftist.

Is there any un-biased, factual information on the subject?

Brian, but don't you think that the big bold print they used on that website made it more credible?

I simply can't believe any of the conspiracy theories from either side of the political spectrum. Sprinkle in a bit of truth with a lot of supposition and some sheer guesswork and it all sounds good but has no credibility.

 

[nofanobush]

"Is there any un-biased, factual information on the subject?"

Probably none that you would believe.

 

[Dargo]

If they don't care about collateral damage why should we? What sense does it make to keep playing patty-cake with them? Massive destruction is the only thing they understand and the only way to get the point across.

I don't have the answer, but I do have a real problem with them waiving a little American flag and taking MRE hand outs during the day, and then picking off the same U.S. soldier with their AK47 later with a mask on while still chewing the MRE they took from us. Something with that picture is just plain wrong.

"nofan", welcome to the site we all enjoy. I'll shock you and tell you that I welcome your opinion and even listen to both sides. However, I'll have to say that I just don't buy into the "facts" as presented in the site you posted. But, hey, not agreeing with you on that doesn't mean . It only means that what was presented there isn't something I believe.

 

[Melensdad]

Well go figure, the UN can't make up their mind. The security council is as odds. China & Russia on one side, the US, France, England on the other side. So now the dance really begins. We hobble ever closer to war, or more precisely invasion of Syria, destruction of its military, and the creation of even more myrters in a mess that perhaps must be created but one we all want to avoid.


U.N. Council Divided Over Syria Resolution

By EDITH M. LEDERER, By Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 31, 1:41 AM ET


UNITED NATIONS - The United States, France and Britain remained at odds with China and Russia. But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton predicted the resolution will be approved at a Security Council meeting Monday to be attended by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers.

Rice hosted a dinner Sunday evening at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York for the foreign ministers of the four other permanent members of the Security Council — Russia's Sergey Lavrov, China's Li Zhaoxing, Britain's Jack Straw and France's Philippe Douste-Blazy. The meeting with the four other veto-wielding Security Council powers was the last opportunity to change the text ahead of Monday morning's vote.

The draft resolution strongly backs a report by the U.N. investigating commission led by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, which implicated top Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Hariri and 20 others. The report also accused Syria of not cooperating fully with the probe.

Foreign ministers from almost all 15 council nations were expected to cast votes, a high-level presence that Washington and its allies hope will send a message to Damascus about the seriousness of international concern at its failure to cooperate in the probe of Rafik Hariri's assassination.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa also flew to New York Sunday to attend the council session and meet some of the foreign ministers and Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

All 15 Security Council members support the resolution's demand for Syria's full cooperation. But the United States, France and Britain are insisting on the threat of sanctions to put added pressure on Syria to comply.

Russia, China and Algeria, a non-permanent council member and its only Arab representative, oppose the threat of sanctions, saying that would be premature given that the U.N. investigation into Hariri's assassination has been extended until Dec. 15 and no final results have been produced.

Russia's Lavrov and China's Li, who met for about 45 minutes before Rice's dinner, refused to say how they will vote. "Just wait and see," said Li.

Bolton said Friday the resolution has the nine "yes" votes required for adoption, and will likely have more by the time of the vote. "I don't foresee a veto," he said, a view echoed by his French and British co-sponsors.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said that adoption of the resolution by foreign ministers "is to show the intensity of the concern, and to make it very clear at the highest level what we expect."

If the co-sponsors want unanimous support from all 15 council nations, they will have to drop the sanctions threat, diplomats said privately.

The resolution would require Syria to detain anyone the U.N. investigators consider a suspect and to let investigators determine the location and conditions under which the individual would be questioned. It would freeze assets and impose a travel ban on anyone identified as a suspect by the commission.

If Syria does not fully cooperate with the investigation, the draft says the council intends to consider "further measures," including sanctions, "to ensure compliance by Syria."

As al-Sharaa headed to New York, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Moallem toured Gulf countries in what appeared to be an effort to rally Arab support ahead of Monday's council meeting.

Syria's official news agency, SANA, quoted Moallem as saying he was bearing a message from President Bashar Assad to the leaders of Gulf countries concerning "the dangers Syria faces" as a result of the U.N. action.

Moallem visited Saudi Arabia Saturday, where he delivered a message from Assad to King Abdullah "on the current situation in the region ... and the debate under way in the Security Council concerning the (Hariri) investigation," SANA said.

Moallem traveled to Qatar on Sunday where he told reporters the resolution was prepared in Washington, Paris and London prior to the release of the U.N. investigation.

SANA quoted him as saying the resolution was "dangerous" and aimed at hurting Syria, not uncovering the truth in the Hariri assassination. But Moallem said Syria will "continue to cooperate" with the U.N. investigation despite "legal and political gaps in its report."

Assad on Saturday ordered a judicial committee be formed to investigate Hariri's assassination.

The announcement, which could be aimed at deflecting heat over accusations that Syria has not been fully cooperating with U.N. efforts to find Hariri's killers, follows Mehlis' call for Syria to conduct its own investigation into the assassination to help "fill in the gaps" about who orchestrated the killing.

A presidential decree said the new committee will cooperate with Mehlis' investigation commission and Lebanese judicial authorities.

While Syria has rejected accusations of its involvement in Hariri's killing, it did buckle under international pressure and withdrew its soldiers from Lebanon in April, ending a 29-year presence in its smaller neighbor.

____

Associated Press Writer Samar Kassabli contributed to this report from Damascus, Syria.

 

[OkeeDon]

Funny how two people can read the same thing and come out with such a differing perspective. But then, I look for the good, and others perhaps look for the bad.

What I saw was the entire Security Council, all 15 permanent and temporary members, unanimously supporting the resolution regarding Syria. What I read was a tough resolution that really has teeth in discovering what went on. I also saw a resolution that includes the promise of further action, including sanctions, if the Syrians don't cooperate.

Then, I saw 3 nations, USA, France and Britain, who want the sanctions now. And, I saw a response that perhaps the sanctions are premature, and an explanation for that opinion.

And, I ask myself, why should we insist on the sanctions now? We have the unanimous support of the Security Council (how can that be considered indecisive?) for the resolution. The resolution sets out the process for sanctions. If this resolution is passed and the Syrians do not cooperate, then, obviously, we will have the unanimous support of the entire Security Council for sanctions at that time.

Unless we are using the resolution and the sanctions that we want as an excuse to go to war against Syria almost immediately, why is the timing of the sanctions so important? Is it possible that the other members of the Security Council suspect that we are planning to go to war regardless, and are looking for ways to give the diplomatic process a chance? Are we afraid that the diplomatic process will work and deprive us of our war?

 

[bczoom]

Then, I saw 3 nations, USA, France and Britain, who want the sanctions now. And, I saw a response that perhaps the sanctions are premature, and an explanation for that opinion.

"All 15 Security Council members support the resolution's demand for Syria's full cooperation. But the United States, France and Britain are insisting on the threat of sanctions to put added pressure on Syria to comply."

I didn't read it as immediate sanctions. I read it as they want to include the "thread" of sanctions if Syria doesn't comply.

 

[OkeeDon]

You're right. However, further down, the AP report said, "If Syria does not fully cooperate with the investigation, the draft says the council intends to consider "further measures," including sanctions, "to ensure compliance by Syria."" So, the threat of sanctions is already there. Sounds to me like either the reporter is confused (nothing new, there) or that the US is trying to push for something that is already in there? Whatever, it sounds like a tempest in a teapot. There's no use speculating until it comes to a vote.