American Military Has Already Invaded Syria

Originally posted by Garden Spider
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.

I apologize about that attacking thing, my boss was talking to me while I was typing that so no apology needed. I don't even know how that got in there and I missed it, so that was my bad............................lol Damn bosses.

I know that not every soldier would know about Spec Ops missions, but in this day and age of technology it is kind of hard for anything to get past some form of media. I have even looked at Al Jazeera and there is nothing to be found about US forces going into Syria.

I would definitely like to see more sources, articles or what ever. Time will tell.

I will not be surprised if there are Spec Ops missions over the border of Syria.

As long as we can all agree that bosses are the worst things on earth.

from the article
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.

So, this guy doesn't actually know who his sources are?

Originally posted by Garden Spider
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.

Frankly, I think #1 is more likely. If the US wanted to go in and take out targets in Syria, they would do it either way. Not only that, but if Syria doesn't play ball with the US, they know they are a likely target of the US.

Again, please quit with the "illegal" crap. There is no law that has juristiction over national security, and saying it just makes you sound like you have no understanding of politics. Frankly, if there are terrorist camps in Syria, which there are, and they are attacking US soldiers in Iraq, which they are, and the Syrian government does nothing about it, which again is the case, they are taking the side of our enemy, and thus are fair game for attack.

This is exactly why they are working with us.

Originally posted by Garden Spider
"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.

Those alleged charges are ludicrous, Garden Spider.
The major frailin' problem here is that you are taking an OPINION as fact. An opinion article or piece is nothing but that, and it certainly is not a news piece. Probably why the 'joeblow' that wrote it, wrote it in generalizations, such as "US military and Bush administration civilain officials". Do you have any idea how open ended such a generalization is? Mr. 'joeblow' gives no names, no who, no nothing but plain and simple assertions and generalizations.

You are taking this 'joeblows' word and then translating into a factoid, which has not been substantiated, verified, or remotely shown as a fact, which you then proceed to mistakeningly and unfoundedly call a "charge." Then stipulating a question to everyone whether or not anyone has heard or found if the White House has made any type rebuttal to the "charges." Huh?

I have indicated, since my opening comments to this, that what you have presented is unsubstantiated, unverified, having no merit, etc. garbage, to no avail.
* The mainstream media news sources have not picked up on this because it is unsubstantiated, unverified, having no merit garbage.
* There is NO White House rebuttal or response to this because it is nothing but unsubstantiated, unverified, having no merit garbage.
* If Mr."'joeblow," ex-ambassador Dan Simpson is so in the know, and is so sure that there were actual "US military and Bush administration civilain officials" confirming such, then why is he not printing names or providing where he heard or got this from (ie: his source)? Oppps, that right, in an opinion piece, one does not have to cite sources, simply make generilizations.

Gosh dern "US military and Bush Administration civilain officials" could be anyone from a government managerial janitor to an advisor or general. Why can he not so specify who "confirmed" that US forces had invaded Syria, cause quite frankly, there is nothing, nada to be found on this via Google. Matter of fact, there are only five incidental sources even mentioning this retired ambassadors opinion article!

That should have been enough to indicate to anyone that this story and your assertion of "charges" is nothing but unsubstantiated, unverified, having no merit garbage. But hey, seemingly, there are a number of people-fish around to swallow anything and everything that is in print. Just read the next post after this...







seekerof

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Syria can't play because they won't play fair. And if they won't play fair, then we don't have to play fair. We don't need a declaration of war.

We just go start killing people in other countries with our military and let someone else declare war. But until they prove there is a war, we can't be held accountable, since we won't admit we started a war. See? (All lawyers nod here)

How much more warped can the American thought get?

Anybody ready to tackle Cuban as a future Bush target at 2 to 1 odds?

[edit on 21-10-2005 by garyo1954]

OK, First of all to American Mad Man:

You seem to object terribly to my use of the word "illegla". Well, allow me to explain why I am using it. If what this former US Ambassador is saying is true, than according to the UN Charter, which the United States is a signator if, we are in breach of international law, in particular, Article 1 of the charter, which states:

"To maintain international peace and security; and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to that peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace"

Also, see Article 2:

"2(3) All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
2(4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against any territorial integrity or political independance of any state, or any other manner inconsistant with the purposes of the United Nations."

The charter authorizes the use of force under certaincircumstances, which are included in chapter 7 of the charter. In Article 42 it states that if peaceful measures have not succeeded in obtaining adherence to the Security Council's decisions, then it:

"may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Basically translated, this means a State must get a UN Securty Counsil resolution in order to use force against another state.

You can read the entire UN charter if you would like, and I suggest you do, as you seem so quick to anger when someone labels an action in the international community as "illegal".

www.un.org...

Now, did the United States follow their procedures, and get a UN Security Counsil resolution to approve the use of force in Syria? Nope. Hence, if the charges made by this Ambassador are true, we are currently engaged in an illegal war with Syria.

And before you begin balking, and ignorantly spouting off anti-UN rhetoric, I would like to point out that the entire basis of the war with Iraq, when we started it, was that Iraq was violated UN placed sanctions and limitations on their WMD programs. You can't have your cake and eat it to my friend. Either you support the war in Iraq, and as such, support the UN's decision to limit the weapons programs of Iraq, which justified our invasion, or you don't. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I would like to state that I personaly think the UN should be abolished. While I believe that some sort of international organization should exist, the UN is an archaic organization which has long outlived it's usefulness, and should pass the way of the League of Nations.

As for the laws within the united states, i would refer you to the War Powers act of 1973. You can read it here:

www.cs.indiana.edu...

I would like to quote Section 2 for you, American Mad Man:

"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. "

Was an attack on Syria ever brought before congress? No. The war with Iraq was, and therefore was not illegal, but if we have begun to attack Syra, then it is Illegal!!! ILLEGAL!!!!!

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you why this war would be illegal.


Now, as for your comments Seekerof, I sencerely hope that you are not always this intellectually myopic and stubborn, and I wish yuo would stop putting words in my mouth. It is my understanding that the purpose of Above Top Secret is to provide a forum where certain ideas, many of the considered "conspiritorial" in nature, can be discussed, so their merits can either be strengthened, or weakened in the eyes of our community.

I am not presenting this man's opinions as fact here. I have not done so. What I am trying to do is begin a discussion of the merits of his claims, of the "charges" he has made (the key word being "he" and not "I") against the administration. If this were some random bloggers site, then this wouldn't be given a second thought. But that is not the case. This man used to serve our country as an Ambassador to Somolia, and I personalyl would think that someone who had worked in international politics as long as him would understand the consequences of simply making something like this up. So I've written a post on ATS about it, and what is the response? Knee jerk reactions and accusations.

As for your point about these "facts" being unsubstantiated, and that being why the main stream media has not picked up on it, and accusing this man of making things up, you would do well to remember almost all of the evidence of Iraq's WMD programs were either falsified, or made up, or came from "an anonymous source", i.e. Ahmed Chalabi. And the mainstream media ate it up. Do you remember that?

But, I suppose I'm simply wasting my breath here. Apparently this isn't a place for calm, intellectual debate abot news items. It's a place for childish reactions and third rate logic. Only time will tell if he was telling the truth, which I hope he was not.

You do know that the President of the United States can authorize a war without the consent of Congress for 60 day, right? I suggest you read up on the Presidential War Powers.

Garden Spider you do know that the President of the United States can authorize a war without the consent of Congress for 60 day? I suggest you read up on presidential war powers.

And I quote:

Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

Source - Wikipedia

War Powers Resolution

Invaded Syria???? We probably have special ops there. But I don't think any more than that. Although the entire 101 Div did move out. But they do not have any armor, and you need that. You just can not send gravel aggataters on an invasion without the proper stuff, but now this is the army of one.

Originally posted by Garden Spider
You seem to object terribly to my use of the word "illegla"....

The charter authorizes the use of force under certaincircumstances, which are included in chapter 7 of the charter. In Article 42 it states that if peaceful measures have not succeeded in obtaining adherence to the Security Council's decisions, then it:

"may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Basically translated, this means a State must get a UN Securty Counsil resolution in order to use force against another state.

Except that Syria made the first act of war against the US when they engaged US forces in Iraq. Thus, it is Syria who is engaged in an illegal war, the US is simply responding.

Game, set, match.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by American Mad Man]

Two thoughts, American Mad Man.

First of all, your evidence that the Syrian Army attacked U.S. soldier in Iraq would be......

Oh wait, there isn't any.

There is certainly evidence that insurgence are crossing over from Syria, but that is different than official Syrian Army Soldiers, isn't it? Or should the United States be held responsible for everything it's citizenry, and even foreigners who come to visit the United States, do in other countries? And by that same logic, shouldn't we be held responsible for the actions of all of those who we trained at the US School of Americas? If so, then we are in pretty bad shape my friend.

www.soaw.org...
www.ciponline.org...
www.wmich.edu...