Syria orders US school, cultural center closed

It is about time. God bless the US...
We need to pursue terrorists wherever they go and fulfill their dream of being a martyr.

You worthless war-monger. Sure... God bless the USA and let's start more wars. Can we be any more hated now? Have you not learned anything about the consequences of us going around attacking soveriegn nations yet?

centerbound,

You have no basis for your statement.  Our allies are still our allies, and we continue to create and be asked to create new alliances with many countries.  There is no decline is the US status only the voice of anti-war protesters and those that have a VESTED interest in seeing the US knocked off as the only world's superpower.  Where are the UN resolutions to back up your claim?  Where are the statistics that show NEW groups of people hate the US?

You and your ilk need to get over the fact there are those of us who understand freedom is not free and are willing and able to defend our way of life against those you are too blind to recoginize and keep you safe and free as a result.

LIAMD

Your argument for violating the territory of another nation is that "freedom isn't free"?

Give me a break. Iraq and therefore Syria has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with defending our freedom. Wasn't it the US that was so upset about Russia sending troops into Georgia? What's the difference here? They had a reason, so did we. It doesn't mean either one is an excuse. Americans need to realize that foriegn intervention just pisses off other people, creating "blowback". I think Iran is a decent example.

"You worthless war-monger. Sure... God bless the USA and let's start more wars.

"Actually this is not starting sany new wars. It is, rather, opening up a new theatre in an existing war. And your comment implies that the U.S. attacked Syria without provocation-- but cross-border attacks there first came from Syria to Iraq-- not the other way around.

" Have you not learned anything about the consequences of us going around attacking soveriegn nations yet?"

Of course the Syrians have been aiding and abetting forces that are attacking and/or have atatcked three soverign nations (those who have carried out attacks on  Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq). Its also possible that Syrian forces took part in some of those attacks (of course they would deny it).

polecat,

Your lack of knowledge about the middle east and terrorism is astounding.  Continue to use your outdated hippie ideals and enjoy your rose colored world. 

Nice. Thanks for addressing the issues made in my post. When you do that it makes it so much easier to take criticism.

I would wait for verified reports before reaching any judgement or reacting to the initialSyrian propaganda.

Special forces are a proud group and would be insulted by anyone claiming that they would even consider intentionally attacking civilians and children.

"I would wait for verified reports before reaching any judgement or reacting to the initialSyrian propaganda.Special forces are a proud group and would be insulted by anyone claiming that they would even consider intentionally attacking civilians and children"Good point. The Syrians have not had a very good record when it comes to telling the truth re news developments. We should wait a while for all the facts to come in before jumping to any conclusions.

"The Syrians have not had a very good record when it comes to telling the truth re news developments."

But then, neither does the US. And the BBC is extremely reputable.

I would disagree-- in part. The BBC used to be extremely reputable-- it is no longer. Like the Ne York times-- they once were, but are no longer. And-- they still try to maintain the veneer of respectibility. (Some folks now refer to it as the Biased Broadcasting Corporation-- for good reason :-)

Oh nice flip flop there Krishna et al. When Israel claimed to have bombed Syria without a shread of evidence to support it, you swore that they did and did a little dance about how great it was. Now even when the D.O.D. admit they attacked Syria, you claim it is not true, and smear the BBC. 

The easiest way to put an end to hypocritical statements from people like you would be to wipe that @!$%#ty little Apartheid state from the map. 

As for what America has done in Iraq, so far their achievment has been to create a Shia satellite state backed by Iran and to give every country in the middle east a reason to hate America and fear democracy. All they need to say is "{look at what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, thats American Democracy 

"How convenient just before the election...tell me its not true". Yeah-- but if it wasn't right before the election...then the conspiracy theorists would say "How convenient-- they waited 'till the elections were over-- they wouldn't do this right before the elections". Or: 'Interesting, isn't it, that they do it now-- so far in advance of elections.".

Do you really believe America at large didn't push for the Iraq War, at the bidding of Puppetmasters Bush, Cheney, and Rove? Check the graph on this Gallup poll report. Not to mention how little effect public opinion could have possibly had on the absolutely criminal mismanagement of the already criminal war of aggression, all the way up to the top. But oh no, let's use "don't use the Middle East for political gain!" to demonize <q>the liberal element in this country</q> as you put it. The irony in your comment is palpable. This kind of partisanship is directly related to the absolute gridlock we're dealing with in Washington right now.

Steve,

I would be happy to debate this but I get the strong impression you are not open to opposing views.  The one point we agree on is the gridlock in Washington.

If there's anyone on this Vine open to opposing views it's me. Three years ago I would have considered myself a conservative. :-)

I'll be here if you decide to change your mind on this discussion-having thing.

OK Steve,

Let's start here, I look forward to a civil debate.

Where is your evidence of a criminal war?  I don't see any UN resolutions? Nor do I see any of our Allies (nor Russia and China) demanding we leave Iraq?  How is openly calling your president a criminal not giving aide and comfort to the enemy?  How is using your type of language not showing a desire for partisanship and trying to use the Iraq conflict to gain power for the oppositions party rather than coming together to defeat an enemy that wishes to kill us all? 

Where is your evidence of a criminal war? I don't see any UN resolutions?

UN definition of aggression:

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

and

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.

This resolution goes on to add that it doesn't " prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration." But that's not the reason we took to war. We did not fight Saddam Hussein to free the Kurds from him reign of tyrrany against them. We fought for invisible WMDs and invisible terrorists and invisible ties to al-Qaeda, which were at strongest brief and anecdotal.

It's also unconstitutional to go to war without a declaration of such within, what is it, 90 days? We've broken UN laws and we've broken our own. But we have Congress to blame for that one, for telling Bush "oh yeah, you can fight in Iraq if you want" without declaring war and in a bipartisan manner.

How is openly calling your president a criminal not giving aide and comfort to the enemy?

Better question: How is it? Expressing my opinion that Bush's war is international shenanigans in no way aligns with a radical collection who believe they're fighting holy war.

How is using your type of language not showing a desire for partisanship and trying to use the Iraq conflict to gain power for the oppositions party rather than coming together to defeat an enemy that wishes to kill us all?

Perhaps I should be more explicit with my pejoratives. The Bush administration and its WHIG pushed this war. The GOP-led Congress went for it hook, line, and sinker. The Democrats went along with it to the letter, and Pelosi's Circus and a split Senate has done absolutely nothing but appease the administration, from freeing telecommunication conglomerates from civil liability for spying on us to not acting on torture, rendition, and the rest. One side is bad and the other is worse. You can pick which one is which; it really makes me no difference.

Plus, I'd add that the words I type on this forum have little to do with which party gains power.

As I said there is no UN resoultion against what the US has or is doing in Iraq you proved my point.  The definition you supplied is irrelevant to the debate

It's also unconstitutional to go to war without a declaration of such within, what is it, 90 days? We've broken UN laws and we've broken our own. But we have Congress to blame for that one, for telling Bush "oh yeah, you can fight in Iraq if you want" without declaring war and in a bipartisan manner.

No laws have been broken or the democrats would have been tripping over themselves to impeach Bush and further China and Russia would have been screaming at the UN for sanctions and resolutions.  You need to better aquaint yourself with the Korea conflict. 

Better question: How is it? Expressing my opinion that Bush's war is international shenanigans in no way aligns with a radical collection who believe they're fighting holy war.

Nice try at deflection, you don't get off that easy.  You know full well that calling Bush a criminal allows the enemy to justify their cause and use your hatered of Bush to recruit more uneducated youth to throw into the meat grinder. 

Plus, I'd add that the words I type on this forum have little to do with which party gains power.

On this point we agree.

As I said there is no UN resoultion against what the US has or is doing in Iraq you proved my point.  The definition you supplied is irrelevant to the debate

There doesn't have to be a UN resolution for something to be against past UN resolutions. It's in the hands of the Security Council, and guess who has veto power there?

No laws have been broken or the democrats would have been tripping over themselves to impeach Bush and further China and Russia would have been screaming at the UN for sanctions and resolutions.  You need to better aquaint yourself with the Korea conflict.

The Congressional action limiting "police action" without a declaration of war came after Vietnam, making Korea a little bit of an anachronism to this argument.

You clearly misread my post; I gave the Democrats only slightly less credit than the Republicans. Clearly your faith in the two-party system needs some fact-checking, since they've been tripping over themselves to do the same thing as the other party while saying they're doing the opposite. Oh, no, impeaching Bush is a "distraction" from the "issues" (like reproductive rights and whether I have the right to marry an elm tree).

China and Russia have their own problems, internal and external, and again, guess who has veto power in the council that determines whether an act is of aggression? It would be futile and a waste of time. And even if I'm wrong, and this isn't a war of aggression as defined by the UN and therefore illegal, I know torture and rendition are, and that a longer-than-90-days war without a declaration is illegal in the United States. But Congress would have to accept some blame there, so don't expect them to touch it (outside Rep. Kucinich, God love the crazy codger).

Nice try at deflection, you don't get off that easy.  You know full well that calling Bush a criminal allows the enemy to justify their cause and use your hatered of Bush to recruit more uneducated youth to throw into the meat grinder.

Oh yeah. I forgot Osama bin Laden was tracking the Newsvine user SteveHouse and using his words as fodder for the propaganda machinery. Should Germans who were worried about being carpet bombed by the Allies not have called Hitler a criminal (which they didn't, partially out of fear of retribution anyway)? Should the Iraqis whom we so gloriously liberated the @!$%# out of not have called Saddam Hussein a criminal, in order to prevent the civil war that followed our involvement there?

You have confirmed my inital statement of you not be open to opposing ideas.  Your desire to label the war on terorism a criminal act and blame everyone is typical anti-war rhetoric with no basis in fact.  The fact you use Kucinich as a rally cry shows how desperate you are to justify your views. 

We will have to agree to disagree and move on to other seeds.

Hm. So what "opposing ideas" did you offer that I was closed-minded toward? Do I have to agree with you to be open to opposing ideas?

Your desire to label the war on terorism a criminal act and blame everyone is typical anti-war rhetoric with no basis in fact.

How do you justify our continued presence in Iraq as legal?

Really, cite your sources for the US being hated.  With all the people I deal with from around the world I have not seen this.

This report from Pew Research on that topic is pretty interesting.

Don't worry about what the world feels toward the USA , they don't pay my taxes or sign my paycheck. Europe owes us big time just for saving them in WW2 and keeping the Soviets from gobbling them up during the cold war. If anyone should be hated it is any country in the world that is not our friend. Be an American for a change not an apologist.

Europe owe's us nothing. I am sick of that whole "we saved your butt in WWII, you owe us, wah-wah" It is no wonder America is the butt of all jokes around the world.

Steve,

Interesting statistics, hardly proof.  Anyone who understands polls and statistics knows they can be written to justify any desired outcome.  I'll take my conversations with those I meet from around the world where they get to say what they think not answer a defined question designed to elicit a desired response. 

Who said it was proof? I just said it was interesting. Those stats don't even really mesh with the idea that the US is hated worldwide anyway. It's interesting along the lines of several countries like the spread of American exports and American businesses and stuff, but Americana itself they don't want.

 I have to suspend judgement until I get US word.

How about this counter terrorism blog?  The first multi-expert blog dedicated solely to counterterrorism issues, serving as a gateway to the community for policymakers and serious researchers. Designed to provide realtime information about terrorism cases and policy developments.  They apparently have support from the editors at Yahoo who have run the story too, interestingly by the same AP writer we have here.

DAMASCUS, Syria – U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascuscondemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area struck because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

Thats great Pamela! You are amazing! Great blog you showed me! Yeah, I heard on tv confirmation as well. I once again appreciate you taking an interest, going out of your way, and helping me! Shucks...gosh... (hug?)

What do you mean?  McCain is the one that doesn't support going into Pakistan after Bin Laden and other high level al Qaeda members unless Pakistan agrees to it.  Obama is the one that is willing to go after al Qaeda.

Hahahaha, "defeat" the terrorists.

Ideas are bulletproof.

^This.