US invades Syria - briefly. Was it legal? - Page 2

Lonestar · June 24, 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I wish I were a Joint-Chiefs member. I would go on CNN and say this, "We did what we had to do. Syria can suck my balls if they don't like it."

Why can't we have leaders like that?

After I become Lord Protector of North America, being an assholio will be required for the Press Secretary.

rmsharpe · June 24, 2003, 21:18

Let's worry about the rights of Syria AFTER they get their bullying force out of Lebanon, stop repressing their people, stopping development of chemical/nuclear weapons, and supporting international terrorism.

The only illegal action here is the tolerance of the Syrian regime.

Sava · June 24, 2003, 21:29

Quote:

being an assholio will be required for the Press Secretary.

I should be qualified for that position. LONESTAR in 2004!

DinoDoc · June 24, 2003, 21:35

Quote:

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Let's worry about the rights of Syria AFTER they get their bullying force out of Lebanon,

Like you gave a rat's arse about Lebanon's fate when Israel had troops there.

rmsharpe · June 24, 2003, 23:52

Lebanon had the chance to become a first-world Arab country and an opening for democracy and tolerance in the Middle East (one where the sole tolerant democracy was not Israel) - of course I cared.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 00:48

Yeah, as soon as the Druze and the Shia and the Sunni and the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic and the Maronites got done killing each other.

Lebanon dropped into festering shithole civil war status before the Syrians and Israelis got involved, all on their own.

Ted Striker · June 25, 2003, 00:53

So what happened?

I heard it was the French Riveria of the Middle East before the civil war...

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 01:27

Better than the Riviera.

Basically, there was a big income disparity and disparity in political power between Christians and Moslems, and the dominant Christians couldn't be bothered updating an early 1930's census for a few decades, because they realized population growth among the Moslems would start shifting the balance of power politically. Things kind of slid downhill during the whole of the 60's, but on a small scale, because nobody yet had external support to really go balls to the wall fighting everyone else.

After the PLO got expelled from Jordan in 1970, they started basing in Lebanon, and launching cross-border raids into Israel, with the popular support of leftist Arabs. Then Israel and Syria got into the act, but in each case, the three main players picked a major local faction that already hated the others and was starting to fight the others actively.

Eventually, private feuds and factionalism within the major groups increased to the point where there was once something like 50 separate private fighting forces going at it.

Berzerker · June 25, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Let's worry about the rights of Syria AFTER they get their bullying force out of Lebanon, stop repressing their people, stopping development of chemical/nuclear weapons, and supporting international terrorism.

The only illegal action here is the tolerance of the Syrian regime.

Sikander · June 25, 2003, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I wish I were a Joint-Chiefs member. I would go on CNN and say this, "We did what we had to do. Syria can suck my balls if they don't like it."

Why can't we have leaders like that?

And you are the one who doesn't like Rumsfeld?

Panag · June 25, 2003, 06:30

hi ,

darn right its legal , ....

go get them boys

have a nice day

panag hopes the US will toggle the regime in damascus

Panag · June 25, 2003, 06:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what happened?

I heard it was the French Riveria of the Middle East before the civil war...

hi ,

damascus thought it needed more coast , ......

that and hez****la , .......

not to mention the plo and some other scum who move in and wanted to kill off every single christian , moderate muslim , ( some shiite where and still are today on israel's side (!) ) druze , greek , etc , ......

the city is being rebuild today at a huge speed , but there are still areas with checkpoints and daily gun battles

have a nice day

PLATO · June 25, 2003, 08:31

Dad was over there on a business trip in early 1970's. Said Beirut was the most western city in ME. Sad what happened there. Even though Mtg says that the problem started before Syria got involved, somehow I believe that they had a lot to do with the discontent among the growing Muslim population. I believe that they were trying to create a situation where another front opened in their war with Israel. It seems that they were successful at the expense of a decent country.

Panag · June 25, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Dad was over there on a business trip in early 1970's. Said Beirut was the most western city in ME. Sad what happened there. Even though Mtg says that the problem started before Syria got involved, somehow I believe that they had a lot to do with the discontent among the growing Muslim population. I believe that they were trying to create a situation where another front opened in their war with Israel. It seems that they were successful at the expense of a decent country.

hi ,

he never saw Tel-aviv then , ......

or Haifa , ......

but it was indeed an amazing city , unfortunatly even with all the rebuilding going on now it shall never again be the same , ....

have a nice day

Andrew1999 · June 25, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, Andrew, if you're being shot at, or pursuing guys who can stop anytime and shoot at you, looking at GPS and a map is probably not at the top of your priority list.

Yeah, I know. I just figured whoever was coordinating the attack would be keeping an eye on it. I doubt we'd be so cavalier about border incursions if we were chasing people near North Korea.

When the question is "Have we invaded another country?", I don't think "Hell if I know" is an acceptable response.

TCO · June 25, 2003, 11:01

That country is pretty far west of the Pecos. We would be more careful near NK. Agreed. fine.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew1999

Yeah, I know. I just figured whoever was coordinating the attack would be keeping an eye on it. I doubt we'd be so cavalier about border incursions if we were chasing people near North Korea.

When the question is "Have we invaded another country?", I don't think "Hell if I know" is an acceptable response.

If they don't bother to mark their border, then they can't be too worried about it. The Saudis and Yemenis don't even define most of their border, out around Al Otofsand. The NK border is a bit harder to miss.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 11:33

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Dad was over there on a business trip in early 1970's. Said Beirut was the most western city in ME. Sad what happened there. Even though Mtg says that the problem started before Syria got involved, somehow I believe that they had a lot to do with the discontent among the growing Muslim population. I believe that they were trying to create a situation where another front opened in their war with Israel. It seems that they were successful at the expense of a decent country.

Not much of a front, particularly when the Syrian sponsored militia (primarily Amal) was also fighting Hesbollah and PLO backed elements.

Why would a growing Moslem population in an ostensibly democratic country need outside influence to be discontent, when the supposedly democratic rulers played games with representation that would embarass the Jim Crow south? And used that corrupted representation system to preserve economic and political advantage in favor of the conservative Christians? The French didn't encourage us to rebel against England, we figured it out on our own. If anything, there would be more influence from Nasser and his brand of socialist Arab nationalism.

Any time you have political and economic power split along ethnic or religious lines, you've got a powder keg waiting to go off. The Syrians couldn't create that condition out of a happy Moslem underclass who whistled while they worked for their Christian masters. They could exploit it after the fact.

Syria was also later to the game than the PLO and Israeli retaliation against the PLO, so their motives were more likely aggressive containment through proxies, than direct action against Israel. Every outsider is dirty in Lebanese blood and distruction, not just Syria, and the conservative Christian Lebanese are pretty dirty in the whole mess too.

My Wife Hates CIV · June 25, 2003, 12:25

Well... I guess the US can pretty much do whatever the US wants to do in this part of the world, as these actions show. I mean, what makes something legal or not. If you can't get punished for it... ?? Still, what a mess.

PLATO · June 25, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Not much of a front, particularly when the Syrian sponsored militia (primarily Amal) was also fighting Hesbollah and PLO backed elements.

Why would a growing Moslem population in an ostensibly democratic country need outside influence to be discontent, when the supposedly democratic rulers played games with representation that would embarass the Jim Crow south? And used that corrupted representation system to preserve economic and political advantage in favor of the conservative Christians? The French didn't encourage us to rebel against England, we figured it out on our own. If anything, there would be more influence from Nasser and his brand of socialist Arab nationalism.

Any time you have political and economic power split along ethnic or religious lines, you've got a powder keg waiting to go off. The Syrians couldn't create that condition out of a happy Moslem underclass who whistled while they worked for their Christian masters. They could exploit it after the fact.

Syria was also later to the game than the PLO and Israeli retaliation against the PLO, so their motives were more likely aggressive containment through proxies, than direct action against Israel. Every outsider is dirty in Lebanese blood and distruction, not just Syria, and the conservative Christian Lebanese are pretty dirty in the whole mess too.

While I generally agree with your analysis, I doubt that the unhappy muslim underclass bought their weapons at the local wal-mart. Some country was involved in arming them and my money says it was Syria.

PLATO · June 25, 2003, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

he never saw Tel-aviv then , ......

or Haifa , ......

but it was indeed an amazing city , unfortunatly even with all the rebuilding going on now it shall never again be the same , ....

have a nice day

Indeed, please correct my statement to the Arab ME. (and except apologies for excluding Tel Aviv which he did visit and was impressed with)

DanS · June 25, 2003, 12:53

Why would a growing Moslem population in an ostensibly democratic country need outside influence to be discontent, when the supposedly democratic rulers played games with representation that would embarass the Jim Crow south? And used that corrupted representation system to preserve economic and political advantage in favor of the conservative Christians?

I have talked with some of those conservative Christians. Really hard core folks.

Panag · June 26, 2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Indeed, please correct my statement to the Arab ME. (and except apologies for excluding Tel Aviv which he did visit and was impressed with)

hi ,

well it was the pearl of the orient at one time , but so many buildings where destroyed , ...... its an outright shame , when israel put on the un's agenda together with the french to protect the buildings also the un refused , russia put up its veto , ......

they are rebuilding it , and its worth a visist now , but there is something missing , if you have seen it with your own eyes before you find the current beirut empty , ...... its like the city's sould has been destroyed , ......

have a nice day