Dan Simpson: Invade Syria? Insane

First traditional media site I've seen it stated we are fighting with Syria.

As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.

An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious. The end result was not changed in Vietnam; Cambodia itself was plunged into dangerous chaos, which climaxed in the killing fields, where an estimated 1 million Cambodians died as a result of internal conflict.

On the U.S. side, no declaration of war preceded the invasion of Syria, in spite of the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. There is no indication that the Congress was involved in the decision to go in. If members were briefed, none of them have chosen to share that important information with the American people. Presumably, the Bush administration's intention is simply to add any casualties of the Syrian conflict to those of the war in Iraq, which now stand at more than 1,970. The financial cost of expanding the war to Syria would also presumably be added to the cost of the Iraq war, now estimated at $201 billion.

Pittsburg Post-Gazette

to begin with.

would keep this quiet? I read the reports of fighting on the Syrian border...then it kind of died in the Plame/Hurricane aftermath stories.

The only thing I can think of is that Bush somehow reached an agreement with Assad to do "limited border strikes" telling Assad that it would eliminate the terrorists that were causing a problem in Iraq and it would be in Syria's interests to allow us to bomb them.

Either he threatened Assad or gave him a carrot stick. :shrug:

I think both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Intelligence Committee are being briefed by Bush behind closed doors. Just as it was before the Iraq Invasion. It may be that only the Repugs are being told but I would bet that leaders from both parties know. It's the way our Government works these days. All behind "closed doors" to the rest of Congress and the American people.

Another reason to try * as a war criminal.

Send this one to your congress critters, everyone. This is an excellent article-- if Simpson is correct, DimSon has well and truely stepped into the deep stuff.

Have to forward it to Sicky Rantorum

insurgents. It's like a self-fufilling prophecy.

Why is this administration even allowed to make foreign policy decisions right now? Who knows how their personal criminal problems are playing out in their actions...

the US resources as their pawns.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. We have got to get these incompetent neo-cons out of here. I only hope we don't have to resort to civil war.

Although from what I can gather in the press, Syria may
not view the UN as a friendly venue because of the
situation vis-a-vis Lebanon, and the Syrians do protest
regularly in the press. But still, if there are border
incursions or cross-border fighting you would think they
would bring it up. OTOH, if their intent is to do their
best to ignore these provocations (which is what I would
do) then maybe not.

"The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious."

For those interested, this was the 4th article of impeachment against Nixon, sponsored by Fr. Robert Drinan, D-MA. It was defeated in committee and never made it to the full House, as did the other three.

For those interested, do a search of the archives for Rep. Sam Johnson under my name.

The search will turn up a post of a speech he made at at an Methodist church mens' meeting where he said words to the effect "give me an F-15 and two nukes and I'll personally take out Damascas."

:silly:

On February 19, 2005, Rep. Sam Johnson said "...Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em, and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore...."

more at ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3219008

running this country all along, and that it's not entirely made up by American interests?

tinfoil, anyone?

I'd call it a corrupt government that is serving the interests of big money.

Rice refuses to rule out attack on Syria
Egypt warns against stirring new tensions in region


Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, October 20, 2005


The United States on Wednesday refused to rule out possible military action against Syria but said it had not exhausted diplomatic moves to get Damascus to change its ways over Iraq and Lebanon.

<snip>

Pressed by senators over whether the Bush administration was planning military action against Syria in particular, Rice said the United States was still on a "diplomatic course" with Damascus but the military option remained open.

"The president never takes any option off the table and he shouldn't," said Rice when asked about a military option.

Rice declined to say whether the president would present any plans to Congress before launching military action against Syria, saying she did not want to circumscribe his powers.

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan declined to answer when asked whether Bush had signed any orders enabling U.S. forces to cross the border with Syria to engage foes who may be looking to enter Iraq.

(more)
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=19467

.....At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan declined to answer when asked whether Bush had signed any orders enabling U.S. forces to cross the border with Syria to engage foes who may be looking to enter Iraq.

Congress knows exactly what's going on and supports the Unelected Chimp all the way. Signing letters and making phone calls do not work with criminals, in fact they laugh at the effort.

We used to have one ONE senator with a conscience in front of TV cameras screaming bloody murder but, Robert Byrd, what happened to you?

Rice won't rule out attack against Syria
By Michael Gawenda
Washington
October 21, 2005


SECRETARY of State Condoleezza Rice has refused to rule out military action against Syria and, under fierce questioning during her appearance before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said she could not say whether US troops would still be in Iraq in 10 years.

Asked whether military action against Syria would require congressional approval, Dr Rice said she "didn't want to try to circumscribe presidential war powers … and the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq".

"I'm not going to get into what the President's options might be," she said. "But the course on which we are now launched is a diplomatic course vis-a-vis Syria."

In an often tense 2½ hours of questioning by members of the committee, Dr Rice said Syria remained a major transit route for foreign fighters entering Iraq, though she stopped short of accusing Syria of facilitating the flow of foreign fighters into the country.

Dr Rice said the Bush Administration was also thinking about opening up some sort of diplomatic dialogue with Iran in an attempt to get it to co-operate in shutting down the insurgency in Iraq.


snip


http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/rice-wont-rule-out-attack-against-syria/2005/10/20/1129775901823.html

Is there a reason that I, an Army SGT, have to learn about this from the Pittsburg Post-Gazette? And they call me crazy?

"If the media don't report it, it doesn't exists"

All too correct. It's been circulating since some time, here, that the U.S army might have engaged battle with the syrian forces.

Problem is... I live 150 miles far from the U.S border. Makes you wonder what were doing your "journalists"...
(Add any pejorative adjective to qualify these cowards.)

So, after Iraq (well, not really after but they installed a puppet-govt that effectively rules a 2miles square - the Green Zone - and they showed them the ropes about how to steal an election (or a referendum, all the same for Diebold and co. :P) and they're set off for Syria now? Iran's coming soon, along with North Korea... and perhaps France :D

P.S: Just do a good ol' revolution. Hang the moran(s).

Well, a lot of us ARE trying to 'hang' him.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

You'll learn a lot here that your government won't tell you.

:smoke:

it's actual invasion, or just border skirmishes.

But if U.S. armed forces are truly invading Syria, it will be time to raise the hackles and demand the entire Bush administration to step down, and subsequently take more serious steps if they don't... but of course, this is only if they are actually invading.

Bush had better watch out, as if he invades another country without consulting Congress or the UN, the American people may have to begin an insurrection of some sort. This is the kind of governmental recklessness from which revolutions are born.

"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies."

(Actual quote: "La plus extravagante idée qui puisse naître dans la tête d'un politique est de croire qu'il suffise à un peuple d'entrer à main armée chez un peuple étranger, pour lui faire adopter ses lois et sa constitution. Personne n'aime les missionnaires armés; et le premier conseil que donnent la nature et la prudence, c'est de les repousser comme des ennemis." )

P.S: Not that I approve of Robespierre's acts, but he was right on this very issue. If only the neocons would have applied that logical statement to their strategy...
P.P.S: Thanks for the welcome, comrade.

They never learn. This is too frustrating for words.

Don't we ever learn from past mistakes? Don't any of the a--holes in the WH read history?

Some of them are really really up on the history of Pet Goats.

Then why don´t Bashar Al-Assad scream foul play at the top of his lungs at the UN? Or does he believe his silence will earn him brownie points with the administration?

I did see an interview where he claimed the border area to Iraq "practically impossible" to govern properly unless technical assistance were given and he promised to step up his efforts to chase down the "terrorist" using the border area.

Am I missing something?

get the US so deeply emeshed in foreign adventures that nobody (eg. Fitz. and Earl) dare upset the internal applecart.

Possibly also to provoke sufficient conflict, that they are "forced by circumstances" to introduce the draft.

A third possibility would be to stir up so much turmoil as possible in the region that any US pullout would result in total collapse or destabilisation of the global oil market. Which of course would mean that they could never be so "irresponsible" as to even contemplate such a move.


Do we actually have anything on the nature of the incursion?

Were the actually Syrians caught being naughty (ie transporting people or contraband into Iraq)?

Was it a pre-emptive strike based on credible intelligence. While I don't accept the legitimacy of the US presence in Iraq, I do believe that this is a legitimate response given their presence.

Or was it (as speculated) an attempt to provoke a sufficiently large response on the part of the Syrians, to justify a formal response?


Lack of noise and backpatting at the top, would seem to eliminate the first entirely, and the second also, unless they are still "putting" that credible intelligenge in place. Oops. Straight to #3 anyway.

and thank you for your post.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Yesterday afternoon, NPR had a report about the Bush Administration policy on Syria. www.npr.org. They said the Bush Administration has been seeking a person who they can install as a new Syrian President. (Some Chutzpah)

However, they said the Bush Administration found that all of the alternatives are worse. Most of the opposition leaders are fundamentalist Muslims who would turn Syria into another Iran. Most of the top people around the current President are also worse. NPR said that if the current President is removed, the replacement is most likely to be more anti-American. They also said Syria is ripe for religious and sectional violence if the President would be removed.

...another country's leader? We do NOT rule the world !!!!

These THUGS (no I did not forget the re-)have decided to rule the world by force of arms! It is no longer a question of IF we are Imperialists, we have BECOME Imperialists by definition!!!

Well Condi Rice mentioned it or actually hinted that Syria could be invaded if diplomatic channels are exhausted. I am not surprised that this is even being entertained given this administration