The Road To Damascus

Click above for a report from The American Spectator on the evolving situation in Lebanon and Syria. Let's cut to the chase...


Who's up for a pre-emptive strike against Syria?

Turkey? Syria supports the Kurdish rebels.
Israel? Enough said!
Jordan? Don't want to upset Uncle Sam do you?
Iraq? Syria is the safe haven of the insurgents!
Lebanon? There is already rioting in the streets of Beirut!
France? Don't want to miss out on those post-war contracts!


I assume Australia would be with us, they always are!


So maybe the question should be, is anybody against the idea?

Update 2/17/05 4:02 PM - First let's descibe an appropriate scenario for asking the question. Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia's entry for the Korean War

"On June 25, 1950 North Korean forces moved south in force. Using Soviet equipment and with huge reserves of manpower, their surprise attack was a crushing success. Within days South Korean forces were in full retreat. Seoul was captured by the North Koreans in early July. Eventually the South Korean forces, and the small number of Americans in Korea, were driven into a small area in the far South around the city of Pusan. With the aid of American supplies and air support the ROK forces managed to stabilize this frontier. This became a desperate holding action called the Pusan Perimeter. Although more UN support arrived, the situation was perilous, and it looked as though the North could gain control of the entire peninsula."…
"The western powers gained a United Nations mandate for action because the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council over the admission of Mongolia to the UN while the (Nationalist controlled) Republic of China held the Chinese seat — the Republic of China refused to acknowledge the independence of Mongolia, and thus blocked its entry into the UN. Without the Soviet veto and with only Yugoslavia abstaining, the UN voted to aid South Korea. U.S. forces were eventually joined during the conflict by troops from fifteen other UN members: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Truman would later take harsh criticism for not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress before sending troops to Korea. Thus, "Truman's War" was said by some to have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the United States Constitution."…

So the delegate from Lebanon puts a motion onto the floor of the UN asking for it to invade Syria. The iraqi delegate seconds the motion. Now we ask, All in Favor?

Re: Anon's comments, the saying was from the Vietnam era "Kill Them All and Let God Sort It Out!" This is precisely why the Army had a hard time winning the "hearts and minds" of the South Vietnamese. Of course, the Army then was almost totally dominated by what I would characterize as "Attrition Warriors". The kind of generals who led a draftee army. If you pay a soldier less than minimum wage, you can afford to waste his life, so he learns to discount the value of other human lives and says such stupid things! Fortunately, most Army units have moved away from attrition warfare, though not as far as the Marines!

In answer to the question about treason. First, we find the basis in law, specifically Article 3 of the United States Constitution which defines the crime of Treason. From there we decide if any one individuals actions meet the definition (presumably "Aid and comfort in the realm" - e.g. Does he do this act within the United States?). From there, the biggest challenge, and the one most frequently not met, is to find the one individual who will say "I'll go first!". That individual files a complaint with the appropriate authorities (e.g the FBI). The FBI investigates and if it finds the charge has merit initiates a prosecution. If at trail, the charge is found to have merit before a jury, the accused is convicted and the designated punishment is meted out. So Anon, will you go first?

Update 1:24 AM 2/18/05 I did not know what it is that Anon was so incensed about with Scott Ritter. I think I see the reason in a post by BlackFive. It seems he has joined Al-Jazeera TV! Now, at first blush that might seem as if he intends to trade with the enemy. But what if he intends to convert the sinners? Put another way, what if he intends to bring The Word Of God to those who have not heard it, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Yes, I know Ritter has been a fellow traveler with Hans Blix, but give him a chance for redempton, “By their works ye shall know them”.

Reading his piece for Al-Jazeera gives us insight into how confused he is. He thinks Iraq is Vietnam! Well, he is wrong! But then, I assume he has not been to Fallujah of late to see the ground truth. Once more we see an Army veteran relying on “body counts”. Someone should take him there. Then, if he still retains his opinion, Ritter will not do well on Judgment Day.