"People here hate America more than before"
"People here hate America more than before"
Author
Discussion

collateral

Original Poster:

7,238 posts

248 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Sources: Here and here

AP said:
A U.S. military official in Washington says special forces conducted the raid in Syria on Sunday to target the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria to help fight in the war in Iraq. Syria said troops in four helicopters attacked a building and killed eight people, including four children.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the U.S. military official in Washington told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the political sensitivity of raiding another country.
Apologies if this is a repost...search = broken

What are peoples feelings RE the US raids into Pakistan and Syria? On one hand, militants are coming over the border; on the other perhaps pissing of Pakistan and Syria isn't the wisest of moves if you're trying to stabilize the region and not look imperialist

MK4 Slowride

10,028 posts

238 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Didn't the USA breach the rules during the Vietnam War by conduction missions through Cambodia & Laos etc?

Nothing new imo.

It's a bit risky doing it but I imagine the American commanders don't want the insurgants to think they have safe houses a short distant from the Iraqi borders.

scorp

8,783 posts

259 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
collateral said:
What are peoples feelings RE the US raids into Pakistan and Syria? On one hand, militants are coming over the border; on the other perhaps pissing of Pakistan and Syria isn't the wisest of moves if you're trying to stabilize the region and not look imperialist
I doubt we would like getting bombed should a few chavs escape the UK and cause havoc in one of our neighbouring countries. So, umm, yeah, USA is bang out of order (i havent even read the article but i bet some innocent bystanders got killed).



Edited by scorp on Monday 27th October 17:29

JagLover

46,778 posts

265 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
It seems that whenever these raids take place it is always claimed to have only killed civilians. Rather dubious in my book since the US presumably had a good reason to mount the raid in the first place.

If Syria permits insurgents to use its territory as a base it can have no complaints if the US takes out those bases on its soil.

It is interesting that someone mentioned Cambodia and Laos. I suppose one lesson from Vietnam is that you cannot defeat an insurgency which is being supplied via neighbouring countries. The US actions in that war to block the Ho Chi Minh trail were insufficient.

rude-boy

22,227 posts

263 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
USA out of order, other countries out of order for allowing the insergents to use their country.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

JagLover

46,778 posts

265 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
scorp said:
collateral said:
What are peoples feelings RE the US raids into Pakistan and Syria? On one hand, militants are coming over the border; on the other perhaps pissing of Pakistan and Syria isn't the wisest of moves if you're trying to stabilize the region and not look imperialist
I doubt we would like getting bombed should a few chavs escape the UK and cause havoc in one of our neighbouring countries. So, umm, yeah, USA is bang out of order (i havent even read the article but i bet some innocent bystanders got killed).
And if those Chavs were conducting a terrorist campaign with the complicity of the UK government. rolleyes

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

228 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Bad idea IMHO. Killing civvies (which is inevitable) will simply recruit dozens more "freedon fighters", and on a larger political scale is likely to end with an anti-west government gaining power.

shadowninja

80,074 posts

312 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
rude-boy said:
USA out of order, other countries out of order for allowing the insergents to use their country.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
Pretty much.

Fittster

20,120 posts

243 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.

carerra g tea

5,964 posts

250 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Some good points made in this thread. I think the US needs to be more open with the world about who it killed, what evidence it had against the individual(s), etc. I think that would help keep world opinion on its side.

Killing 20 innocent women and children for the sake of getting one high value target is a very big deal. Cryptic issuances from the US military do nothing to soothe the anger felt about these strikes. What if the enemy gets the same technology as well? What is the US going to do then, if it continues to act in this way?

DirtyHarry88

930 posts

218 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Fittster said:
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.
That's a bit simplistic.

Skywalker

3,269 posts

244 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Whilst have have complete sympathy with wanting to pursue the baddies, regardless of the borders that they cross - If a country thinks that it has the god given right to piss in whichever pot it wants it has seriously misunderstood the concept of statehood.

The result is hyper bad publicity to the 'land of the free' by stomping every other countries' national boundaries.

Tell the Syrians that if they don't do something, then you will - but to rely on that trite mantra of Bushism of "with us or against us" isn't helpful.

(Probably a good shoot though - if they got the target)

King Herald

23,501 posts

246 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
carerra g tea said:
Some good points made in this thread. I think the US needs to be more open with the world about who it killed, what evidence it had against the individual(s), etc. I think that would help keep world opinion on its side.

Killing 20 innocent women and children for the sake of getting one high value target is a very big deal. Cryptic issuances from the US military do nothing to soothe the anger felt about these strikes. What if the enemy gets the same technology as well? What is the US going to do then, if it continues to act in this way?
A mere 20? It's no big deal.

How many hundreds, or thousands, of civilians got blown to bits when 'our' forces attacked Baghdad with bombs and missiles back at the start of all this?

Does anybody really think that car bombers or suicide bombers are any more guilty or heinous than a guy who drops his deadly random payload from 40,000 feet onto a crowded city??

Any anybody who believes they 'only attacked industrial sites' is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Burgmeister

2,206 posts

240 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
DirtyHarry88 said:
Fittster said:
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.
That's a bit simplistic.
Not really, that is pretty much how this whole war on terror started.

968

12,439 posts

278 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Burgmeister said:
DirtyHarry88 said:
Fittster said:
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.
That's a bit simplistic.
Not really, that is pretty much how this whole war on terror started.
I really don't think it is.

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

228 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
968 said:
Burgmeister said:
DirtyHarry88 said:
Fittster said:
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.
That's a bit simplistic.
Not really, that is pretty much how this whole war on terror started.
I really don't think it is.
Yes, wasn't there some oil involved somewhere.

968

12,439 posts

278 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
rhinochopig said:
968 said:
Burgmeister said:
DirtyHarry88 said:
Fittster said:
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.
That's a bit simplistic.
Not really, that is pretty much how this whole war on terror started.
I really don't think it is.
Yes, wasn't there some oil involved somewhere.
Oil and a lot more besides.

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

228 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
968 said:
rhinochopig said:
968 said:
Burgmeister said:
DirtyHarry88 said:
Fittster said:
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.
That's a bit simplistic.
Not really, that is pretty much how this whole war on terror started.
I really don't think it is.
Yes, wasn't there some oil involved somewhere.
Oil and a lot more besides.
...oh yeah, and the need to boost political ratings. Forgot that one, sorry. hehe

Skywalker

3,269 posts

244 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
968 said:
Burgmeister said:
DirtyHarry88 said:
Fittster said:
If country A kills civilians in country B you can hardly be surprised when country B kills civilians in country A.
That's a bit simplistic.
Not really, that is pretty much how this whole war on terror started.
I really don't think it is.
There is a respected school of thought out there the cites GWB & the Neo-Cons as falling for an obvious 'come on' with the WTC attacks because they failed to think it through and just lashed out.

Arguably one of the biggest cock-ups was running out of Afghan into Iraq before the job was fully done on AQT thereby allowing them to consolidate.

They should have sorted Afghan first and THEN lied their bks off over Saddam.

fadeaway

1,463 posts

256 months

Monday 27th October 2008
quotequote all
Skywalker said:
Whilst have have complete sympathy with wanting to pursue the baddies, regardless of the borders that they cross - If a country thinks that it has the god given right to piss in whichever pot it wants it has seriously misunderstood the concept of statehood.

The result is hyper bad publicity to the 'land of the free' by stomping every other countries' national boundaries.

Tell the Syrians that if they don't do something, then you will - but to rely on that trite mantra of Bushism of "with us or against us" isn't helpful.

(Probably a good shoot though - if they got the target)
+1

Bombing another country is an act of war. US are out of order - and they don't even have the decency to admit it. They need to work with these countries, not go off and do whatever the hell they feel like.