American Military Has Already Invaded Syria

Todays media seems to being going wild with anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian propaganda, but read the following newspaper article, written by former US Ambassador Dan Simpson.

www.post-gazette.com...

So it would seem that our government is dead set upon a long and bloody war in the middle east. We have illegally invaded a country, without approaching the U.N., without the approval of congress, and have violated so many international agreements and treaties one could not even begin to list them here.

Do we honestly believe the international community will simply stand by while we illegally invade nation after nation on a whim? I'm not saying that military action in Iraq, Syria, or Iran are morally wrong, but shouldn't we be going about it the legal way? These american-centric policies are going to doom us.

hes speaking as of an opinion and not based on facts. i cant believe that he would say that Bush admin officials and military officials would tell him that they are invading Syria. dat dont sound right.

has a formal declaration of war been declared by congress?? NO

Sorry but Opinion is a lot different than the truth. I can see why he believes and others around here probably do believe that we have invaded Syria, when in truth we have not.

Sure I can see that having troops stationed along the border would make it look like another Cambodia and have one jump to conclusions from an opinion piece.

I'm not so much interested in the "opinion" portion of his reporting, as I am in the very first statement made in the article:

"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."

Regardless of the rest of the information, it is the simple fact that it has been confirmed by the Bush Administration that we have borken international law that I believe merits discussion.

Show me more valid links to other news sources that would state this.

I have access to military sites that would definitely have broken this news out. My military buddies would have told me.

Unless it was Special Forces in small teams, it is very hard to hide an Invasion force in the Digital Age.

If I remember correctly, one of the last be fights in a Iraqy city. close to the border, the Us military declared it "WOULD" chase terrorists who fled Iraq to Syria through the uncontrolled dessert.
I seem to remember it was up to like 100 miles in that they go.
The reason was most terrorists were just crossing the border and were safe as we would not chase them down.
After that happened a few times, we decided, they would no longer have that free haven to run from and to.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
If I remember correctly, one of the last be fights in a Iraqy city. close to the border, the Us military declared it "WOULD" chase terrorists who fled Iraq to Syria through the uncontrolled dessert.
I seem to remember it was up to like 100 miles in that they go.
The reason was most terrorists were just crossing the border and were safe as we would not chase them down.
After that happened a few times, we decided, they would no longer have that free haven to run from and to.

Exactly, I think "Invasion" is very misleading for the topic heading

We have illegally invaded a country, without approaching the U.N., without the approval of congress, and have violated so many international agreements and treaties one could not even begin to list them here.

Actually conges authorized the war in Iraq, so I do not know what your talking about. Also, under the US constitution the president has the right to ask congress for a declaration of war on any country. I don't think we should loose our sovereignty and laws because of what some oil for food UN members think.

What I think is going on in the Syrian border is that small teams of Spec Ops or Black Ops may be crossing into the Syrian side to kill insurgents who flee over the border to remain safe.

Originally posted by nb25
has a formal declaration of war been declared by congress?? NO

They have not done that since, when, ww 2?

We have illegally invaded a country, without approaching the U.N., without the approval of congress, and have violated so many international agreements and treaties one could not even begin to list them here.

Do we honestly believe the international community will simply stand by while we illegally invade nation after nation on a whim? I'm not saying that military action in Iraq, Syria, or Iran are morally wrong, but shouldn't we be going about it the legal way? These american-centric policies are going to doom us.

What is with you people saying the war was "illegal" and "the UN didn't sanction it"?

The war was COMPLETELY LEGAL ACCORDING TO UN RESOLUTIONS!!

That is the irony of it all! It is the deals that Saddam made WITH the UN that gave US grounds to invade in the first place! The fact that Saddam bought the security council with oil (France, Russia, China) means that the UN couldn't enforce it's own rules!

The US led coolition simply enforced UN resolutions (as if it would have been any different even if the UNSC wasn't bribed; The US ALWAYS takes the lead for the UN).

Do you even bother with facts, or do you just throw around words and acronyms that sound good like "illegal war" and "UN"?

[edit on 21-10-2005 by American Mad Man]

A few thoughts:


WestPoint23;
When I said:

"We have illegally invaded a country, without approaching the U.N., without the approval of congress, and have violated so many international agreements and treaties one could not even begin to list them here. "

I was referring to SYRIA, not Iraq. I am not here to debate the merits of the war in Iraq. I am simply interested in discovering the truth of these claims, that the US has illegally begun attacking Syria. It could very well be that these claims and accusations are completely unfounded, but until all you partisan hacks who either want to blindly follow the Bush administration, or who blindly want to attack everything they do stop vomiting up what you hear other people say, and begin actually intelligently discussing the merits of the claims, we will get no where. So quit wasting everyones time.


As for BlackBeard:

I simply used the word "invasion" in the post title because according to the dictionary I own, an invasion is defined as:

"The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory."

So by definition, if we do have Black Ops running into Syria, that is still technically an invasion. Has Syria asked us to come into their country to try and help them stop the insurgency? Have they given us permission to do so? Also, if they are running black ops, obviously most of the military would not know about it. That's the very definition of black ops.

I also find it interesting that many of the same people who will disregard this information as false are the same people who will continue to label the media "liberal". If the media is liberal, why is no one covering this story? You would think that, if the media were truly liberal, this would be pasted on the cover of every newspaper and magazine in the U.S. So far, the only places I've found it mentioned are on the link I provided, and several blogs, which are by no means a legitimate source of information.

But my point is this, let's either figure out if this is true, or if this is another case of an overzelous reporter a la Dan Rather, who should be publicy shamed for making up information.

Oh well Syria will have to face the music now! Go USA!

So by definition, if we do have Black Ops running into Syria, that is still technically an invasion. Has Syria asked us to come into their country to try and help them stop the insurgency? Have they given us permission to do so? Also, if they are running black ops, obviously most of the military would not know about it. That's the very definition of black ops.

Have you ever considered that it is not politically viable for a country such as Syria to admit to allowing US special forces to operate on their soil?

Ruling parties in the ME can not afford to openly ally with the US at them moment because of radical Islamic reaction.

Thus, it is better for them to give permission privately while openly acting against the US.

as posted by Garden Spider
If the media is liberal, why is no one covering this story? You would think that, if the media were truly liberal, this would be pasted on the cover of every newspaper and magazine in the U.S. So far, the only places I've found it mentioned are on the link I provided, and several blogs, which are by no means a legitimate source of information.

So by definition, if we do have Black Ops running into Syria, that is still technically an invasion. Has Syria asked us to come into their country to try and help them stop the insurgency? Have they given us permission to do so? Also, if they are running black ops, obviously most of the military would not know about it. That's the very definition of black ops.

One possible reason would be because such speculation is merely that: unconfirmed, unsubstantiated speculation, thus far having or holding no validity or merit worth being reported or plastered over every newspaper and/or media outlet source.





seekerof

Interesting point American Mad Man, but given the historical context of the U.S.'s activities in foreign countries, which scenario seems more plausable.

1 - The the U.S. secretly contacted the Syrian government, and said "Hey, these insurgents suck, so we'd like to run some special balck ops missions into your country. But don't tell anyone, it will be our little secret, and even though we are doing some serious saber rattling, and threatening to invade your country and dispose your leaders, and demanding they be held accountable for the assasination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri, we promise that we will only run black ops into your country to fight the insurgents, and that's all." and the Syrian government decides this is a good idea and goes along with it.

2 - The U.S. has invaded Iraq, which has turned out somewhat worse than what they initially anticipated (I don't think even the most vehement Bush supporter will disagree that things are worse than what we anticipated), and like in Vietnam, they found that the resistance was receiving equipment, money, and support from a neighboring country (in the case of Vietnam, Cambodia) and so decided to run some illegal black ops into their country to try and disrupt said support.


And by the way BlackBeard, you say you have friends in the military who would tell you about this if it were happening, I'm afraid I also have several friends in the military, one is a specialist currently learning Arabic in southern California, the other is a former Army Ranger from their Anti-Tank division, and they have both told me that if something was classified, they most certainly would not tell me about it, because it could get them thrown in prison. So let's not pretend that anecdotal evidence is a sign of absence. it simply doesn't work that way.

Does anyone know if the White House has denied or confirmed these charges, or are planning to?

as posted by Garden Spider
Does anyone know if the White House has denied or confirmed these charges, or are planning to?

What "charges" are there that need to be confirmed or denied by the White House, exactly? Seems like nothing but speculative assertions.





seekerof

Originally posted by Garden Spider
And by the way BlackBeard, you say you have friends in the military who would tell you about this if it were happening, I'm afraid I also have several friends in the military, one is a specialist currently learning Arabic in southern California, the other is a former Army Ranger from their Anti-Tank division, and they have both told me that if something was classified, they most certainly would not tell me about it, because it could get them thrown in prison. So let's not pretend that anecdotal evidence is a sign of absence. it simply doesn't work that way.

Does anyone know if the White House has denied or confirmed these charges, or are planning to?

Never assume anything about me or what I might be able to find out. many reporters have ruined their careers over reports that have turned out to be false. So please do not go about and try to attack me.

Plus I am in the Military and I know what I am privy too and so do my friends and I would never ask them to tell me something that I do not need to know.

So far the white house has not said anything about this and I doubt they will since it is just an opinion piece.

Plus I am in the Military and I know what I am privy too and so do my friends and I would never ask them to tell me something that I do not need to know.

Again, I'll repeat what I've been saying all along.

The "charges" that I would like to have someone confirm or deny ar ein the first paragraph of the article:

"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."

That would be a "charge", that the military has begun fighting Syrians on Syrian land, not in Iraq, which would be illegal according to both International Law, and the War Powers Act of 1973.

BalckBeard,

In no way was I trying to attack you personally, and I do not believe I did. But if you took offense, I apologize. I was simply trying to make the point that if the Army is running Black Ops into Syria, not every soldier is going to know about it, and that could very well include you and your friends. So rather than disregard this article because you have not heard of attacks in Syria, I would rather find out more from Senior officials within the government, who would be privy to that information.