« Sarah Ditches Fancy Duds | Main | Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground's Plot to Overthrow the Government »

Did US Chopper Attack Village Inside Syria?

At this point, the US hasn't confirmed but is investigating. The report that it was the US comes from witnesses and Syrian state television. From Sky News:

Syrian TV channel Al Dunia said a number of American helicopters attacked the village of Al Sukkiraya, on Syria's border point with Iraq.

Witnesses said the attack targeted a house in the area in which a man and his four sons, and two other people were killed.

"Nine people were killed and 14 wounded in the raid, which hit a group of builders while they were working," the television station said.

Alon ben-David, a security correspondent with Israel's Channel 10, believes American military action was taken against suspected al Qaeda territory on Syrian soil.

He told Sky News: "In a combined operation, four helicopters closed in on the target - a building in which there were five members of the same family.

"The gunships attacked and eight American soldiers landed on the ground to storm the building before leaving."

According to this AP report at the Washington Times, a US military official said they've been reinforcing the Syrian border in the areas where terrorists have been able move into Iraq freely.

If it was the US, I'm curious as to whom they were targeting.

Update: Well, it seems an unnamed US military official said US special forces attacked foreign insurgents who have been coming in and out of Iraq.

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 Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

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


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32524.

Comments (51)

Musta been a wedding party ... (Below threshold)
Captain America:

Musta been a wedding party again.

Your reaction is curiosi... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Your reaction is curiosity? Not... I dunno... outrage? Reports thus far claim that the people killed were construction workers. This is ridiculous. Syria is a sovereign country so I don't know how this attack could be interpreted as anything but an act of war.

HyperIf this be wa... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

If this be war let us make the most of it.

Also how many times did we have enemies run across the border during Vietnam?

Go stuff a sock in it.

It appears as if this has <... (Below threshold)
marc:

It appears as if this has been confirmed.

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

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


hyper - "Reports thus far claim that the people killed were construction workers. This is ridiculous. Syria is a sovereign country so I don't know how this attack could be interpreted as anything but an act of war."

Reports so far making that claim are Syrian. No benefit of doubt on your part is there?

Keep in mind this is the very same Syria that claimed for weeks and weeks no one, let alone Israel, bombed a nuclear facility in the desert.

We know how that turned out.

That aside, can we assume this is also an act of war? "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Sorry, but flying a bunch o... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Sorry, but flying a bunch of special forces into a sovereign nation with whom your country is not currently at war with and killing a bunch of people is a shitty thing to do. It's what terrorists would do if they could afford attack helicopters.

A better solution? Leaving the Middle East. Don't like your soldiers being murdered by fundamentalist lunatics? Bring them home. Or send them to Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden. Your Middle Eastern policy is insane and immoral, and the insanity and immorality of Middle Eastern governments and individuals does not mitigate the actions of Americans there. If it's actually impossible to be the good guys in a theatre of operations, f*cking leave already. Or make a cogent argument as to how this sort of thing is necessary. (I have yet to hear one.)

The buzz is that a father a... (Below threshold)

The buzz is that a father and son team were involved with arms trafficking to Al Qaeda forces in Iraq. This limited attack forces Syria to respond more effectively to terrorist threats operating within their own borders or else face more cross border missions.

hyper - "A better solut... (Below threshold)
marc:

hyper - "A better solution? Leaving the Middle East. Don't like your soldiers being murdered by fundamentalist lunatics? Bring them home."

Dare I say, spoken like a true obama-bot? JUST LEAVE!!!!

Question, predicated on the U.S. completely removing all vestiges of military presence in the Middle East:

Who will ensure the steady and continued supply of oil through the Straits of Hormuz?

Who would be there to counter any and all actions on Iran's part to blockade the straits in an effort to drive up oil prices (to support their failing economy) or use the lack of supply as a weapon?

It's what terrorists wou... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

It's what terrorists would do if they could afford attack helicopters.

Ah, the old 'U.S. military is the same as terrorists' meme.

Go ahead, expound upon that theme.

Correct Paul. And i... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Correct Paul. And it does force Syria's hand, which is a good thing. For whatever it is worth, BHO making noises about invading Pakistan has served the purpose of alerting those in the middle east that he may not in fact be a pushover.

I sure as hell hope he isn't. His whole anti-war stance was based on one of his supporters who would not get him started unless he pledged to the anti-war movement. Given some of the statements he has made, besides being a loose lip, he may in fact continue the Bush policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

And that would be a good thing.

We need Iraqi oil on the world market to hold the price down. It doesn't matter if it comes to us or not, just be there. This forces the hand of places like Iran, Venezuela, Mexico and Russia to moderate their rhetoric and their political activism.

Yea, Mexico too.

BTW, if anyone wants to know about a near equal too deal in Iraq about 80 or 90 years ago, find a book called "The Backside of American History" by Ed. Wallace. The west has been in Iraq before with near identical results. The last time it was the Brits screwing with it.

The only one who had it right from the beginning was McCain. Guess he reads history.

OR, as an alternative, maybe it was a good thing to do what we did. The terrorist magnet worked. And we got to kill a bunch of them over there instead of over here.

Anyway, good call Hooson.

marcThe Iranians a... (Below threshold)
Larry:

marc

The Iranians aren't gonna screw with the Straits because that is the only way they can get their oil to market that I know of.

Hyper:

You are talking out of your hat. I will give you the argument. Respond if you want.

Our troops in Iraq have been like a magnet for the nut cases. We have force multipliers that enable us to kill tons of them while holding our own casualities to a minimum AND the collateral casualities down as well.

If we had not gone on the offensive in Iraq, we would be attempting to deal with the abundance of live terrorists slipping in via our porous borders and have to deal with them in our malls, around our water supplies, power grids and other infrastructure; probably our large churches as well.

The terrorists declared war on US; we didn't do anything except support Israel. We are the target because it suits the power mad mullahs to so label us. We are simply defending ourselves in a way and a place of our own choosing instead of where the Mullahs want us to defend. See the past paragraph for where that will be if we were to exit the middle east.

Again hyper, we didn't declare war, the mullahs did. We are defending ourselves. Why do you and the other libs act like it is our fault the terrorists attacked us and knocked down the world trade centers?

Sheesh. . .

hyper, have you ever studied "the religion of peace?" It ain't both within and without. If they were trying to kill us off, it would be each other.

If they weren't. . .... (Below threshold)
Larry:

If they weren't. . .

Paul Hooson:I want... (Below threshold)

Paul Hooson:

I wanted to make sure I took the opportunity to tell you that I agree with your earlier comment, and voted it up. Don't pass out! ;-)

Larry - "The Iranians a... (Below threshold)
marc:

Larry - "The Iranians aren't gonna screw with the Straits because that is the only way they can get their oil to market that I know of."

And you trust them to make a reasoned honest decision in my scenario? They bluster with U.S. presence, there's nothing to convince me they wouldn't go further without a U.S. Fifth Fleet stationed there.

Since this type of conduct ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Since this type of conduct is obviously an act of war, it is time to declare war on Mexico for her violent incursions across our border.

Yeah, that's sarcasm.

Is someone imperonating Paul Hooson?

marcIf the Iranian... (Below threshold)
Larry:

marc

If the Iranians could control the Straits, they would be pleased to do so. At the same time, the Mullahs are not suicidal. They leave that up to the lesser mortals who follow them. To stay in power, they have to keep their economy going at least at some level.

Losing the sale of oil would send their economy down the tubes almost immediately. And the Mullahs would quickly follow, imho.

Hey Jeff:We have b... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Hey Jeff:

We have been there before - across Mexican borders chasing bandits we used to support, namely Pancho Vila.

Why not again?

You really think the Mexicans are capable of cleaning up their own mess, when the reality is we haven't made a dent in the drug business here either. We have made some inroads in Columbia because it is treated like a war there instead of a police thing.

i figure a clear majority o... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

i figure a clear majority of liberal-leaning people would support actions like these if they could have any kind of faith that our govt leadership was engaged in good decision-making

bu$h has wiped that kind of faith completely out. yet one more reason why the US cant be rid of him and his kind soon enough...

peaAs reported by ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

pea

As reported by the news media, Bush has not made good decisions. As reported on the ground, we have done a ton of things right, about as good as could be expected considering the situation.

Now do you really think the media would accurately report, what?

The only difference between Bush and what Obama said he will do is that Bush is keeping his mouth shut about it, which is as it should be.

I think Sherman set the way... (Below threshold)
epador:

I think Sherman set the way-back machine a little funny, P3000.

More Obama spread th... (Below threshold)
John Loki:


More Obama spread the wealth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

..Check the 8 minute mark of this one.

http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372

i think i made the point al... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

i think i made the point already. im not depending on the media for anything. instead im depending on sound judgement, and i see a very wide gap between bu$hs and obamas, not exactly in bu$hs favor. i voted for bu$h in 2000, so the faith that i did have at one time has been obliterated

"Syria is a sovereign count... (Below threshold)
SpideyTerry:

"Syria is a sovereign country so I don't know how this attack could be interpreted as anything but an act of war."

And how would you interpret Syria spending years aiding in killing American soldiers in Iraq, as well as being a major sponsor of terrorism in general? Oh, I'm sorry. Facts like that are inconvenient to your 'point.'

If innocent people were harmed in this attack, that's terrible. However, if Syria or their terrorist allies are the only ones claiming that... well, 'nuff said.

"bu$h has wiped that kind of faith completely out. yet one more reason why the US cant be rid of him and his kind soon enough..."

Yeah, we don't need people that stand up to terrorists and work to ensure they can't commit horrific acts. I mean, heck, under Bush, there were no terrorist attacks on American soil for over seven years.

"Now do you really think the media would accurately report, what?"

The media accurately reporting things? What strange universe does that occur in?

Hyber fails to realize that... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyber fails to realize that if the US did everything in its power to appease the terrorists IE leaving the Middle East, abandoning Israel, etc etc that it would do nothing but encourage them to attack us. And when they are through with us then Canada will be next and Hyber will be wailing and moaning where are the people to stand up to these thugs.

Syria harbors terrorists and allow them to enter Iraq through their borders. They are just as guilty as the terrorists.

Maybe Hyper will lay down and let them walk all over him but we wont at least not yet. That may change with Obama in charge.

Peabody: "gap between bu... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Peabody: "gap between bu$hs and obamas"

That you take the time to type Bush with a $ sign makes you look like a fool who can only write leftist bumper stickers, and hence why I skip over your posts without reading them.

--

On topic, I'll have to agree with Larry and others who have made the point that we have set a battleground away from us. Bringing our men and equipment home, will bring them directly to us. It's incredibly simple logic.

so if i stop spelling bu$hs... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

so if i stop spelling bu$hs name with a $ then youll have a change of heart? tempting, but bu$h worked very hard to turn me from a supporter into someone who considers him a lowly traitor and a war criminal

simple logic? yeah its "simple" all right.... its simpleton logic designed to appeal to a gut instinct that we're actually fighting terrorism in a country that never posed a terror risk to us BEFORE the war

almost all of the 911 hijackers were saudi. how are we combating saudi terror? the taliban has regained control over a huge portion of afghanistan, and the situation is at this very moment becoming dire, in the estimation of all our political allies in the area

try getting away from the "simple" logic, big guy... oh yeah, youre skipping my post because of the $ sign....

=]

Spidey, I was being sarcast... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Spidey, I was being sarcastic. The media is the reason we lost in Vietnam. The media is the reason why the Iraq war isn't cast in the light it deserves as a protection for the US.

peabody; I treasure your right to vote for anyone you please. I do not agree that you are going to vote for the right person for many, many reasons.

I will be candid.

If it were anyone but McCain AND Palin running on the Repub ticket, I would probably vote for Obama. This isn't because I think that Obama is worthy; according to my research into who he is and what he stands for leads me to believe he will be a disaster as President. It is because the Republican Party has lost its leadership except in the War on
Terror.

And it needs a wake up call, badly. Obama is a Jimmy Carter clone except less disciplined on spending.

At one point in my life, I worked for John Tower, a Senator from Texas. He is the guy who got McCain started in politics with a run for Congressman. I know a bit more about McCain than most folks. McCain is the real deal.

Next, I researched Palin after I read an article in the Pittsburgh newspaper. I like what I saw for her potential and for her knowledge in a certain critical area.

So I gotta go with McCain/Palin.

Let me look at one point so you understand where I am coming from. Barney Frank, the Harvard Graduate from Massachusetts and purveyor of all things Liberal, wants to cut military spending 25%. Well whoop tee doo. Every single Democratic Congressman with a military constituency is gonna go totally out of their skull on that one.

Yet the money for more social programs has to come from somewhere - doesn't it? Ok, raise the taxes on the "Rich." The rich and corporations don't pay taxes. They pass it down the line to me and maybe you if you aren't rich.

More people out of work = less tax collections no matter how high the rate. So where is Obama going to get the money? Well, he can borrow more and shorten the time when the chickens really come home to roost. That may be a good thing in the long run.

See, the key to all things good is energy. This is the real deal and where the rubber meets the road for our economy and way of life.

And I have made it my full time job for several years now to understand energy. This country was built on investing in energy. Up to just a few decades ago, we led the world in the exploitation of energy resources.

And we have a bunch of it, the most in the world. But, led by Democrats and idiotic environmentalists, followed by Republicans for some dumb reason, we have cut back on our ability to exploit our own energy and are busy paying for someone else to supply it.

Stupid.

I have listened to Palin very carefully. She has a better understanding of energy than any of the other three by an order of several light years. And McCain has promised to put her in charge of energy.

Properly exploited, energy will pay off the national debt and insure a brilliant future for our kids. Poorly managed as it has been for many decades mostly by Democrats and somewhat by Republicans, and our kids are doomed.

Finally, we may be entering into a little ice age, again. All signs point to it except the one Al Gore is looking at, which is the dollar $ign from what he making with his junk science. McCain has bought into the global warming garbage.

Palin has NOT. She is right and McCain is wrong. And the Dems are hostage to the environmentalist whackos, who wouldn't know a sun spot cycle from a spotted owl.

Thus our Southern States may be called on to literally feed the world, and we better get ready for it, like now. We can send relief packages to hyperbolist up in Canada.

And that is my story and I am sticking to it.

I don't nor have I ever arg... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I don't nor have I ever argued for "appeasement". All countries have the right to defend themselves. Can someone explain to me how the occupation of Iraq prevents terrorists from killing people in the United States, though? It has presented them with a lot of targets on their own soil but I fail to understand why you think it's more difficult for them to kill people over here. Also, violating international law is a stupid thing to do because it harms your country's credibility.

Larry, I have a very low regard for Islam, as I do for any belief system that seeks to impose irrationality and superstition on its adherents. For me this has nothing to do with what sort of people Syrians typically are (Muslims). It doesn't matter if they're the sort of people who would use violence to further some bizarre agenda. Killing them in Syria was a stupid thing to do.

These sort of covert action... (Below threshold)
epador:

These sort of covert actions have occurred for centuries, certainly for the history of our country. Even the wailing and whining of leftist and media types is nothing new. The rapidity of the response is new.

Whoop-de-do.

No one expects them to solve a problem, however, they provide a change in momentum that if properly exploited can make a big change. As Paul H noted, there are the political ramifications and double bind Syrians now find themselves in, but there is also the reaction that the "bad guys" will have to make in adjusting to the fact they are no longer safe across a border.

Whine and tear the hair from your chest, but this sort of Special Forces action, usually NOT publicized, has been extremely important in the prosecution of many conflicts starting in WWII.

peabody:s... (Below threshold)
Larry:

peabody:

simple logic? yeah its "simple" all right.... its simpleton logic designed to appeal to a gut instinct that we're actually fighting terrorism in a country that never posed a terror risk to us BEFORE the war

almost all of the 911 hijackers were saudi. how are we combating saudi terror? the taliban has regained control over a huge portion of afghanistan, and the situation is at this very moment becoming dire, in the estimation of all our political allies in the area

I don't care about your $ sign. I do care that you voted for Bush and feel betrayed, if that is a true story. It is that Bush 41 and Bush 43 are clones of each other. They were bullish on foreign stuff and liberal on domestic. I held my nose and voted for Bush 43 because the alternative was worse.

If Al Gore had won, we would be paying for carbon credits and all that rot instead of preparing for the real deal, which is a small ice age that is coming. Just look at the sun spot cyle for all you need to know about that. Al Gore would have cut our domestic energy, pitiful as it is these days, even more. I figured that Bush understood energy and I knew that Gore didn't.

I held my nose and voted for Bush again in 2004 because he was doing a good job with the War on Terror and the alternative was John Kerry. Kerry sold our troops out for his political gain and he gamed the system to get his Purple Hearts. John Kerry is beneath contempt.

So there you go.

Anyway, we aren't fighting terrorism in a country that was not a threat. We are fighting a war in Iraq because dumbass Saddam led us to believe he really did have WMD and was gonna get in bed with the terrorists. He was trying to blackmail us and the rest of the middle east as a power play to get out of the hole he dug for himself with his invasion of Kuwait.

Oops.....

And after we got in the war and discovered what the British already knew from their experiences 80 years or so ago, we found reasons to hang around and kill off a bunch of fruit cakes who deserved to die. If ever there was proof needed that Muslim terrorists are operating any number of cards short of a full deck, Iraq should do it. But of course that presupposes that you get your information from sources other than mainstream media.

It is true that the Wahabis in Saudi are a problem. But we have a long standing deal with the Kings over there that would take me too long to detail here. Suffice it to say that we are doing ok in Saudi Arabia behind the scenes where it counts. How long that lasts is hard to say.

No, the Taliban hasn't regained control over anything in Afghanistan. The local tribal leaders who were allied with the Taliban are starting to raise cane because they want more of the pie.

They will probably get it.

Peabody,Your choic... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Peabody,

Your choice to support or not support is your right, your reasons are yours even if I don't agree with them, however, the little 'clever' letter and word substitutions the left has been using for eight years is plainly juvenile and a waste of effort. We used to do that stuff on the playground in first grade, and it's completely worthless and peripheral to any point or issue when talking politics. I don't take that mentality seriously on actual intelligent (or attempts at intelligent) discourse.

"simple logic? yeah its "simple" all right.... its simpleton logic designed to appeal to a gut instinct that we're actually fighting terrorism in a country that never posed a terror risk to us BEFORE the war"

The lovely thing about this logic, is even if you're digging up four year old liberal talking points from before the surge, it still sticks. Even if I were to agree with you about them not being a threat (which I'm not) that logic still sticks.

After the event in NYC in 2001, I'd think some people would have changed their minds about wanting to make America, rather than Iraq, a battleground.

"almost all of the 911 hijackers were saudi. how are we combating saudi terror? the taliban has regained control over a huge portion of afghanistan, and the situation is at this very moment becoming dire, in the estimation of all our political allies in the area"

Afghanistan, like Iraq is still a battlefield; better to leave it to the Taliban and come on home and hope we'll be safe? If that's your answer, I'm pleased you're not making any important decisions in this country. I'm also going to be deliberately avoiding talking about 2003 and the start of the war and reasons for such because I'm typed hundreds of posts on it in the time I was on this site over a year back.

hyper:epador expla... (Below threshold)
Larry:

hyper:

epador explained part of it, I will go into the rest - quickly and very short:

Can someone explain to me how the occupation of Iraq prevents terrorists from killing people in the United States, though? It has presented them with a lot of targets on their own soil but I fail to understand why you think it's more difficult for them to kill people over here.

To understand, you have to get in the head of a MUSLIM terrorist, which is not to say the head of an IRISH terrorist or a Peruvian one or whatever.

I didn't say or at least did not mean to imply that Iraq made it HARDER to do their business here. I said Iraq was the real deal for them.

Osama BL said that Iraq was the center of the war against the infidels. He meant what he said. Iraq is considered THEIR territory and it was an abomination and perversion of everything they considered important for OUR troops to be occupying THEIR land.

They put bringing the war to OUR property over here on the back burner for that reason, and also because the FBI and other assets have been fairly effective in keeping a lid on the few attempts they tried to start here as a distraction.

Very good question hyperbolist. I tried to answer it in the spirit I perceived in the asking.

a lot of neoconservative po... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

a lot of neoconservative points made here, and none compelling, im sorry to say

gore simply isnt the only one raising hell about global warming. the average temperatures are going up, and the CO2 levels are as well. nobody of any repute disputes that. the only significant point of contention is whether its man-made

we sre sitting on 3% of the worlds oil supply and comprise 25% of the demand. "drill baby drill" will make the oil companies happy and no one else. im in favor of nuclear energy. so is obama

the taliban has regained control over much of afghanistan. that is not a partisan talking point and im surprised to hear the contrary stated so confidently in opposition to what the pentagon readily acknowledges. i believe, as many of the more liberal-leaning types do, that afghanistan should have been and should be a top focal point, and that iraq was and is a wasteful drain of resources that made some politically connected entities very rich

saddam didnt work to convince us he had WMDs. clearly you forget all the hoops they were jumping through to prove they didnt. the problem is its BU$H who wanted you to believe it. hell, he convinced 70% of you that saddam was in on 9/11 (any of you STILL falling for THAT one??)

hyperAfter reflect... (Below threshold)
Larry:

hyper

After reflecting on whether or not I should post a few more points, I have concluded that it would be a bad idea, so I won't. Suffice it to say that there are other reasons why Osama and crew are leaving us alone for now and that Iraq is very important for them and Afghanistan isn't all that important now that it is no longer a base.

"im in favor of nuclear ene... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"im in favor of nuclear energy. so is obama"

So is McCain. Yes, there were WMD's and no I am not going to post sources for you, because I already have when you weren't paying attention.

"almost all of the 911 hija... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"almost all of the 911 hijackers were saudi. how are we combating saudi terror? "

BUt they were all terrorists.

"I don't nor have I ever argued for "appeasement". "

Leaving Iraq = appeasement.

"Can someone explain to me how the occupation of Iraq prevents terrorists from killing people in the United States, though?"

Terrorist attacks since 911 = 0. My point is proved.

Also try reading the Dueffler report as far as Saddam reconstituting weapons. Or are you saying he wouldnt have used them against us? Are you that big a fool?

"Also, violating international law is a stupid thing to do because it harms your country's credibility."

Last I checked just about every other country in the world does what they want and complains about our credibility. Sorry but that crap isnt worth the bits and bytes it took to right. Are we supposed to be worried about countries that cut off hostages heads think of us? Maybe you but then again about the only reason Canada isnt attacked is because of the US. Nice to live in the blanket of liberty we provide while you throw your hogwash at us.

"Killing them in Syria was a stupid thing to do."

Actually it sent them a message. No matter where you run and hide we will find you and kill you.

Last time I checked terrorists didnt have compunction killing Americans on American soil. I guess that is okay as long as it isnt Canadians on Canadian soil.

Of course for someone who can try to justify killing newborns I guess those points go right over you head.


peabodyI didn't ex... (Below threshold)
Larry:

peabody

I didn't expect you to buy into global cooling. You don't have the background to understand it. So be it. Go study sun spot cycles and the Maunder Minimum, then look at the current one and we can talk again.

I didn't say oil. I said energy. We have as much energy here as nearly the rest of the world's proven reserves put together. Think shale oil. Think coal. The numbers are real.

I dunno who you are reading, but you are not getting accurate information on our natural resources.

And baloney on WMD in Iraq. Saddam was playing at a shell game to try and convince us he HAD the dang things. And we believed it because he had used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. Duh!

You gotta look under the rock that is under the rock like our analysts do to figure it out. Saddam did have the precursor material to make WMD - that got proven.

And I don't know who got rich in Iraq. I do know that we have killed a ton of terrorists over there who needed killing.

peabody, I read the Oil and Gas Journal, study the work of the James Baker Institute at Rice, look at various Government reports, and try to follow the few sources that are available to the general public on what is real and what is memorex. I know more than the average guy on energy and global cooling/warming.

I listen to the experts, none of whom have I seen running for office (except Palin to a certain extent). And I hardly ever see one on MSM or testifying in Congress on CSPAN.

I have tried to politely pass on what I have learned to you and others here if they want to know what I know. Am I right about everyting? Well of course not. I am not that smart. But frankly, it is obvious to me that you need to go do your own homework instead of relying on whoever you are relying on to provide you with information. I do not say that to put you down, just as an observation based on what you have said that do not match the facts I have dug out on my own.

"we sre sitting on 3% of th... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"we sre sitting on 3% of the worlds oil supply and comprise 25% of the demand. "drill baby drill" will make the oil companies happy and no one else." "

Gee it will make us happy when we arent sending trillions of dollars overseas. ever heard of the trade deficit?

" im in favor of nuclear energy. so is obama"
Yeah right. If he gets elected I bet NOT ONE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT will get STARTED while he is President. NOT ONE.

"i believe, as many of the more liberal-leaning types do, that afghanistan should have been and should be a top focal point, and that iraq was and is a wasteful drain of resources that made some politically connected entities very rich
"

That is because you are LIberal and you only care about LOOKING like you are trying to do something instead of solving a problem. Iraq is the geographical center of the Middle East. It controls a much larger field of battle. If you play chess than you have some idea of what I am talking about. Of course your liberal thinking will get you confused and you will totally miss the point.

As far as Saddam and 911 that is false liberal talking point and a tired meme as well. Go back to the DNC for new ones please.


*sigh*<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Larry:


*sigh*

"im in favor of nuclear energy. so is obama"

He actually said in effect that it was worth studying. That is political speak for "Dead in the water but I don't want to say that."

Sheesh. . .

Syria neutral? Not at war ... (Below threshold)
Thomas Jackson:

Syria neutral? Not at war with the USA?

Hmmm lets sum it up. Syria hosts, trains, finances and helps recruits terrorists who attack American froces from their sanctuary in Syria.

Who gives a rat's ass what the Syrian's think and what their supporters think.

Larry~Your thought... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Larry~

Your thoughts?

'The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south,' says Mr Gaubatz. 'They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them that if they

didn't excavate these sites, others would.'

That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam's nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state -- and one with close links to Iran.

When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports, they were told that all 60 of them -- which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US airbase in Saudi Arabia -- had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/cartoons/29092/part_3/i-found-saddams-wmd-bunkers.thtml

LaMedusa:There hav... (Below threshold)
Larry:

LaMedusa:

There have been numerous reports of WMD spirited away to Syria and other locations floating around for some time. There are even reports on exactly where the WMD is stored in Syria. There were reports on freighters, personnel sent here and there, etc.

I dunno what to believe.

I do know that reliable reports from the ISG that were NOT lost detail remnants of WMD at various locations. This was clear evidence that at one point in time, WMD existed.

The old chemicals have probably expired their half life by now. It would be dangerous to store. In any event, Syria is probably well aware that if they have them, the Western Intelligence Services probably know all about them. And if they were used, Syria has probably been told that their country would cease to exist except as a desert.

Saddam was the only nutcase of many in the Middle East at the time, who had the track record for actually doing something. Now of course, we have Osama BL. Syria talks a talk, but has no record of challenging anybody big enough to beat them up. So if they have them, I doubt anybody is worried they will use them.

Oh, and one other thing on the Iraq invasion. I really hate to say this one, cause it will drive the Libs bonkers. It is that Saddam, the idiot, started trading oil in Euros instead of US dollars. If that had caught on, it would have trashed our economy worse than it is now.

That might have been another motivation for taking out Saddam and his sadistic sons.

"It is that Saddam, the idi... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"It is that Saddam, the idiot, started trading oil in Euros instead of US dollars. If that had caught on, it would have trashed our economy worse than it is now."

Yeah, I knew about that, but according to the article, someone else is in possession of these weapons now. Could be Iran or Syria. Last year, Israel was giving the O.K. to bomb a weapons manufacturing plant in the Syrian desert. N. Korea was involved in supplying materials. I'm going to have to dig around a little more info on that. The "missing" documents part doesn't surprise me at all at this point.

*Israel was given the O.K. ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

*Israel was given the O.K. by the U.S.

pea3000 - "we sre sitti... (Below threshold)
marc:

pea3000 - "we sre sitting on 3% of the worlds oil supply and comprise 25% of the demand. "drill baby drill" will make the oil companies happy and no one else. im in favor of nuclear energy. so is obama"

Your grasp of oil production and what happens when new sources come online are non-existent. To say the least.

Question: (that you will avoid answering) If all the oil bought from venezuala, saudia arabia and other mid-east locations could be replaced via off-shore drilling, alaskan drilling and clean coal production in the U.S. how is that a bad thing?

Larry - "It is that Sad... (Below threshold)
marc:

Larry - "It is that Saddam, the idiot, started trading oil in Euros instead of US dollars."

If memory serves correctly Iran was attempting to set up an oil exchange utilizing Euros vice dollars.

marc says: "Your grasp of o... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

marc says: "Your grasp of oil production and what happens when new sources come online are non-existent. To say the least."

and then goes on to explain how thats the case by... not actually explaining anything

as usual

as to your question, i really doubt anyones goal is to boycott OPEC, as you are tacitly suggesting. that wouldnt benefit any of the oil people who incidentally have so much power over our govt policy, and it would create an undesired schism as china, russia, et al would align themselves on the other side of that line in the sand, all without creating a stable sustainable oil supply. in the long run our non-OPEC supplies may not keep up with demand and your fantasy scenario, even if a reality today, could turn into a monsterous global calamity within a decade or two

plus you apparently have no clue that the world oil economy is traded in US dollars, and that those huge sums of so-called petro-dollars are so critical to the US that a move to other currency would spell our economic collapse. so much so that its been theorized that a big reason for the iraq war was that saddam was preparing to sell iraqi oil in euros

so much for boycotting OPEC.........

Liberal view: An incursion ... (Below threshold)

Liberal view: An incursion into Syrian territory under a democrat president is good.

Conservative view: take the fight to them no matter who is president.

Larry: You're right. Saddam began to insist that oil be traded with Euros in late 2000. While he made this claim (before he actually started trading with the Euro openly a couple months later) he was already doing much trading with the Euro under-the-table through the OFF scam. His under the table dealing helped facilitate the rise of the Euro along with his above board trades. Europe, we now know, kindly turned a blind eye to it and some actually got in on it. Just look at two of the first countries to adopt the Euro; France and Germany. Two of the countries most implicated in the OFF scam. France, in particular. Chirac's decades long infatuation with Saddam was not incidental to this.

peaMarc can defend... (Below threshold)
Larry:

pea

Marc can defend himself from an obvious strawman. Why don't you answer the question instead of changing the subject?

Nobody is talking about boycotting OPEC.

Oyster

The problem with using the Euro is that the economy behind the Euro wasn't stable enough or really big enough to support it. The real damage would have come from trying to use it instead of just using it if that make sense. This is one reason why most everyone is still willing to lend the US massive sums. It is in their self interest to do so.

France is a whole nuther subject for another day. The French are a real piece of work, who think that hard work is a social disease and their language should be used by all properly educated persons.

pea3000 - "and then goe... (Below threshold)
marc:

pea3000 - "and then goes on to explain how thats the case by... not actually explaining anything. As usual"

What, I'm to explain your lack of knowledge?

However, it's pretty simple, or should be, even for you. If more of any product is produced and put into the supply pipeline the price in almost every case goes down.

pea3000, why do you suppose OPEC cut production this weekend? Maybe, just maybe because world oil consumption has fallen recently and they cut supply to stop the fall in oil prices.

pea3000 - "plus you apparently have no clue that the world oil economy is traded in US dollars, and that those huge sums of so-called petro-dollars are so critical to the US that a move to other currency would spell our economic collapse."

You apparently spend too much time writing ans little reading this thread.

A couple comments before this one are two by Larry and myself noting Saddam and Iran were attempting to do exactly what you suggest, trade oil using Euros vice dollars.

And BTW you didn't answer the question I posed:

Question: (that you will avoid answering) If all the oil bought from venezuala, saudia arabia and other mid-east locations could be replaced via off-shore drilling, alaskan drilling and clean coal production in the U.S. how is that a bad thing?
You have no response?

To quote you... "as usual."

Why is it that so many Amer... (Below threshold)
Andrew Hanlon:

Why is it that so many Americans assume that people from the middle east are insane and bent on terrorism for no good reason? We in the west have been f**king these people over for hundreds of years. They didn't attack on 9/11 because they're mad, they did it because of the stuff we've done to them. How many foreign military bases are there in the states? How much does Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan meddle with our politics? How many Western countries have been invaded by Middle Eastern countries in the last few centuries? Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. were countries CREATED by the British. We fund the Saudi royal family who ruthlessly control their people. IF WE KEEP F**KING THESE PEOPLE OVER THEY WILL CONTINUE WITH TERRORISM. Personally I fully understand why they do it. If there was a massive Iraqi presence in your country, if they came to your door and searched your house at gun point how would you react?
We owe these well educated, intelligent, civilised people a massive apology. Think about it, they have the largest oil fields in the world and yet many of them still live in poverty. Why? is it a) because they're all savages or b) because the US spends more on its military than the next 20 biggest spenders of the world combined (10X more than Russia, France or Britain) and we keep them down.
Americans watch Fox news and think they know what's going on in the World. I'm half American and I used to be proud of it, now I'm ashamed - truly. Your media lies to you. I'll say that again. Your media lies to you.

I'm sorry for that last com... (Below threshold)
jugglia:

I'm sorry for that last comment. I'm angry.

The US is a great country (I used to live there, I now live in England). The rest of the world thinks America is a bully, poking its nose into other country's business.

What annoys me is how people in the US think that they are blameless, righteous and good. The rest of the world is great too and we're fed up. Fed up of hearing about 'the land of the free' - I've been fined twice in America and I only lived there for two years, once for walking through a park carrying my shopping which contained beer and once for sleeping rough for one night when I had nowhere to stay (despite the fact that I was on public land several miles outside of Boulder). I almost got fined for crossing the road too. I believe in Europe we have much more freedom
than you do in America.

We're fed up of hearing about your 'free' media, which until recently largely denied climate change (Don't even go there Larry, I study climate change. If you want to get into an argument about it I'm not sure I can even be bothered - you're just wrong OK).

We're fed up of how you didn't ratify the Kyoto protocol, and stalled the Bali talks.

Don't get me wrong, I love America. Its people, its land. But over the last decade it has turned into something sinister and many of the people of the US, even the educated ones like yourselves, are incredibly naive.

On Youtube you can find a clip of a New Zealand reporter mocking the Americans by asking them about the war on terror. The lack of knowledge about the rest of the world is hilarious - pointing at New Zealand on a map and believing that it's Iraq. Here in Europe it would be very difficult to find a person on the streets who couldn't tell you roughly where Iraq is on a map.

And it is this naivety that is fueling the war on terror. You think that its OK to go into another country and bomb one of its villages? Where's your respect?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy