Breaking: US has struck two sites in Syria, said to be Iran-backed

[Stinky The Clown]

In response to attacks on US forces.

[DemocratInPa]

1. If there is conflict..

You can count on us to be involved..

The people of this country don't want war..

[ripcord]

3. So you are fine with Iran attacking our troops?

[DemocratInPa]

5. I am for peace..

This country DOES NOT WANT A WAR

[ripcord]

6. So you are fine with Iran attacking our soldiers

As long as we don't strike back?

[Silent Type]

7. Not fine with attacks on our guys, but maybe we have troops in too many places.

[mobeau69]

10. We have troops in Syria?

[Silent Type]

17. According to poster above, Iran supposedly attacked our troops in Syria.

[Captain Zero]

44. I thought Putin ran us out of Syria?

I'm confused.

[Prairie Gates]

52. You don't remember when we voted for havin military bases and deployments

to Syria?

For shame!

It was right there on the ballot!

[leftstreet]

9. The US is illegally occupying Syria

Things to think through when refusing to sign a UN ceasefire for I/P

[Hekate]

38. "Occupying" usually means seizing all the land, plus overthrowing government

Crimea is occupied by Russia, which continues to attempt to occupy Ukraine.

The US is not occupying Syria.

[Cha]

12. None of us "Want War".. but when

Attacked the US is Not going to lay down and get Attacked Again.

[highplainsdem]

22. +1,000,000,000,000,000

[Cha]

24. Mahalo hpd!

[JohnSJ]

28. Exactly. Also this is against facilities used against the U.S. forces.

[Cha]

29. TY John

[JohnSJ]

30. I suspect Iran is testing are reaction

[peggysue2]

33. Ya think???

So, Iran (who btw is enabling and supporting Hamas) is attacking US forces and we . . . do nothing?

We have truly entered the silly season.

[Cha]

46. I call it the Twilight Zone. It's ridiculous and

And I'm grateful Bidne is the President to get through all this in the Best Way Possible AND to WIN a 2nd Term in 2024.. I don't care who thinks they can do better.

Aloha, PeggySue

[peggysue2]

64. Back at you, Cha

Hope things are going well for you and family.

And yes, I'm grateful we have Biden steering the ship through very troubled waters. Onward to 2024!

[Happy Hoosier]

34. What does "for peace" mean?

Are you a pacifist? “For peace” is a meaningless slogan.

[Bev54]

42. So I take it you think Ukraine should have allowed Russia to walk all over them?

The US did not start this conflict, they are reacting to attacks. Sometimes you have to strike back, the world counts on the US standing up to bullies. I hate war but at the same time, you have to fight back to let them know they will not get away with their attacks, because some Americans believe in turning the other cheek.

[wnylib]

76. Well said.

[ancianita]

93. If Israel's ally -- us, the U.S. -- were not there as a deterrent, do you seriously think there would be peace?

Since they moved on us FIRST, when we're there as a deterrent, do you think DEFENSE is war?

The U.S. is in that region for three reasons:

-- as a DETERRENT to mobilization around, and strikes on Israel
-- to DEFEND when any neighbor(s) DO make such moves toward attacking Israel
-- to ensure Israel, as our ally, can defend itself and survive in perpetuity as a sovereign nation.


And as Hakeem Jeffries says, "to bring American hostages home."

Sure, it's nice to be for peace -- who here isn't -- but when another agent uses deadly force on you, would you die for peace?
If all the world were willing to live and let live, there would be peace.
But No One who attacks another wants peace -- whether person or nation.
To talk peace when DEFENSE is necessary to survive -- Ukraine OR Israel -- such talk of peace is moot.

Person or nation -- defense is not violence, it is saving one's life.

[womanofthehills]

84. China & Russia back Iran

Could be WW3

Our troops might have to leave Middle East as everything escalates. Many Arab countries want them gone and they will not be safe.

[ancianita]

94. Commander-in-Chief Biden: we're not leaving our sole ally in the ME. We're not leaving Israel to be destroyed.

Our DEFENDING from attacks EARLY will prevent escalation. These Muslim countries have to consider their own futures and their children's; it's not just Israel. Israel has been in the ME since before its current Muslim populations were born, and it has a right to stay there in perpetuity.

Both Israel and Ukraine are outposts of Western democracy. Biden says so. The EU knows it. Ukraine and Israel need the West's support.

Why we fight for our democratic allies is because we fight for democracy.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. Thankfully

President Biden understands that when our forces are attacked, we have to respond.

[Cha]

14. Rec.. TY

[David__77]

16. US troops have no business in Syria.

[ripcord]

19. We have been there since 2011

President Obama took us into Syria to protect the Syrian rebels and Kurdish forces in their attempt to battle Isis and overthrow Bashar al-Assad and his brutal government. Now there are about 900 U.S. troops there training the rebels, they are also protecting the Kurdish minority from Syrian and Turkish attacks.

[David__77]

20. It was a mistake of Obama, Trump, and Biden to have them there.

[ripcord]

21. I'm sure they will be crushed to learn of your opinion

[wnylib]

35. Why?

[hueymahl]

36. Agree. Thanks for posting

Seems the DU drumbeat for war is getting louder and lounder.

[H2O Man]

39. Interesting.

Reading some of the responses on this OP/thread remind me of Gandhi's saying that intolerance betrays a want of faith in one's cause. Expressing that one favors peace to war should not bring about insults. There can be very different opinions on issues involving war and peace, leading to meaningful discussions. Or there can be insults.

[stuck in the middle]

56. I wish people would also...

...keep in mind that there are pacifists among the hostages who are still being held by Hamas.

Pacifists are not the enemy.

[leftstreet]

65. +1

[Calculating]

32. A good amount do

They think Iran has been pushing too far, and we need to take them down a peg.

[TexasDem69]

2. Good

[rollin74]

8. these Iranian proxies have attacked US troops so many time recently

this response was inevitable and justified

[JohnSJ]

31. Absolutely. I suspect they were testing our reaction

[LexVegas]

11. Thank you for your leadership and support for Israel, Mr. President. nt

[radicalleft]

13. Well who could have seen this coming

[Cha]

15. Be Safe US Military

[disablegamer]

18. Blame Hamas this isn't

The USA fault. Are we all Blame USA first people now. We got to go get HAMAS no matter where they are cause now they attacked USA in another country with Iran. Hamas should have just released the hostages then USA wouldn't have to attack those bases.

[maxsolomon]

79. You seem confused.

Hamas is limited to the Gaza Strip. They are not in Syria. This is an attack on US troops by another, separate Iranian-backed group.

Welcome to DU.

[WarGamer]

23. Awesome, should we pump our fists in the air and sing Toby Keith?

"We'll put our boot in your ass, it's the American Way"...

[radicalleft]

25. Nah...Lee Greenwood's

Proud to be an American!

[wnylib]

41. well, you could both join hands and sing Kumbaya

after politely requesting terrorists to please not attack anyone anywhere.

[radicalleft]

45. As long as we fight them over there

so we don't have to fight them here...

[wnylib]

48. Won't have to fight anyone, anywhere if we just

defund the military. Just like defunding the police would eliminate crime.

[Prairie Gates]

53. "Would you rather fight them there, or in Pasadena?"

"Maybe we could beat them in Pasadena."

-Michael Herr, Dispatches, 1976

[Chautauquas]

70. Love that line!

and that book

[inthewind21]

66. Because

THAT worked out so well last time! Good lord, it's come to quoting GW Bush and fawning over Nichole Wallis. Let us not forget Condi, she needs some left leaning love too!

[radicalleft]

68. lol IKR

It’s Deja vu all over again

[wnylib]

78. There are differences between wars and

the circumstances that lead up to them.

WWI was considered an unnecessary war that profited munitions manufacturers and sellers, but no one else. Based on conclusions from that experience, world leaders were content to appease Nazi Germany in order to avoid another war, until appeasement itself led to war far worse than if Nazis had been stopped sooner.

For the same reason, plus indifference to events so far from home, many Americans opposed the US giving aid to Britain, even when Nazi Germany had conquered most of Europe and the UK was the last free country standing. Those aid opponents were applying the circumstances of a different war and time to events of the Nazi era.

In my youth, the American policy of fighting communism led the US to support RW dictators because at least they were not Communists. Then US policy makers applied the fear of appeasement to Vietnam, although the circumstances were different. We backed dictators in South Vietnam. Demonstrations against the war led to domestic violence (Kent State) and to demonization of returning soldiers who had already endured hell in combat and had not created US policy. We left Vietnam in disgrace after years of fighting. North and South united under Communism.

So when Reagan invaded Granada and later bombed Gadaffi in the ME, Bush Sr went after Noriega in Panama, and Bush Jr invaded Iraq, Americans supported them with slogans about supporting our troops, but no knowledge of what the fighting was about.

The circumstances and reasons for wars are not the same in all cases. War is a failure of diplomacy, policy, and politics. It should be avoided when possible. But there are times when it is necessary. There are times when a defensive response is a valid action, always depending on circumstances.

So, although I prefer peace, as most human beings do, I am not an across the board pacifist.

[Irish_Dem]

26. And so it begins.

[maxsolomon]

80. And so it continues.

This is not going to lead to a ground conflict or an air war between the US & Iran. Iran wants no part of that.

It is a cycle of provocation, harassment and retaliation. Very low-level conflict, which is Iran's preferred tactic.

[Irish_Dem]

81. I remember when Kennedy sent in "advisors" to Viet Nam.

My father, career US Air Force, was one of those "advisors."

So I have healthy skepticism based on facts.

[maxsolomon]

82. Based on 60-year old facts.

Do you realistically think that Biden would do that? Or even, God forbid, President Asshole, should he return?

If we were going to escalate in Syria, it would have happened in the last 12 years. There is no appetite for it. Containment is the goal.

[Irish_Dem]

86. Just because I am old, doesn't mean I am stupid.

The global politics are shifting rapidly.
Many have noticed it.

There is zero that is certain right now.
Zero.

[maxsolomon]

87. There is zero that is certain anywhere, anytime, on any topic.

Nothing is ever black and white. Everything is shades of gray.

I think it extremely UNLIKELY that we would escalate to a full-on ground conflict in Syria, not impossible. Very little is impossible.

Certainly, Biden has no ambition to escalate. He's been clear about that, multiple times. The US Govt is openly cautioning Israel to NOT repeat our mistakes in Iraq - meaning they are aware of the dangers and have learned lessons from our (Republican-instigate) misadventures.

[walkingman]

27. I knew it was coming. We have been beating the drums of war since we left Afghanistan.

Be careful what you wish for.....

[Chainfire]

77. Wars benefit certain big and politically powerful businesses. There is big money in waging war.

[maxsolomon]

85. Who is "we"? Biden? The RW Media? Twitter? DU?

If anything, I've observed the opposite. An increase in Isolationist sentiment, on full display in this thread.

[walkingman]

89. Since when did it matter what the American people or political party wanted when it comes to war??

[maxsolomon]

90. You didn't answer.

WHO is beating the drums of war since we left Afghanistan?

Is supporting Ukraine in their struggle to escape Russian domination beating the drums of war?

[walkingman]

91. Before the lastest never-ending Middle East conflict all I heard for months was talk about

evil China. Oh wait, maybe it was Russia? US leaders for generations have locked the United States in self-perpetuating system of permanent war by constructing the world’s largest collection of foreign military bases. My point is that the US is a warmonger nation. If you look at history there are very few periods in American history when we were not engaged in conflict. It seems to me we look around the globe and find grievance. We have decided to become the world's police supposedly to defend democracy. Hell, we have very little democracy left in our on nation these days. To me it resembles an oligarchy.

I know this is a rant but I have listened to this same shit since I finished HS in 1968 and the political party makes little difference.

[hueymahl]

37. When did DU become 'merica first?

What happened to a love of peace and diplomacy? It is bizzaro DU.

[wnylib]

43. Shocking, isn't it? Before long they will be praising

Lincoln for responding to Fort Sumter, FDR for responding to Pearl Harbor, and Obama for pursuing OBL.

If Lincoln, FDR, and Obama had all refused to respond, there would have been no Civil War, no WWII, and no more terrorist attacks, right?

[radicalleft]

47. LOL...you actually wrote

"No more terrorist attacks" OMG...priceless

See the problem is two of those wars were fought against standing army's with nation backing. You know uniformed soldiers more or less adhering to the "rules of war" and both of those were fought against tyrants (Nazis & slave owners) that subjugated a weaker populace.

"Terrorism" is an idea...one that can't be beaten with more "beatings". It is the absolute result of perceived oppression by a weaker adversary.

[wnylib]

49. LOL. You actually conflated

all 3 references with terrorism and then made an serious attempt to "inform" me of the differences.

What all 3 have in common is not terrorism, as you so earnestly said, but violent attacks that were responded to with violence.

[wnylib]

51. And what is the appropriate response - if any - to the "idea"

of terrorism when it manifests in real action and is not just an "idea"?

If, for example, you personally were on the receiving end of a terrorist attack, watching your family tortured and killed while you were being bound up as a hostage, and a group of armed soldiers from a stronger power arrived on the scene, what would you do? Would you send the soldiers away and tell them that they need to understand that the terrorists are only acting from a disadvantaged position? Tell the soldiers that terrorism is only an idea and if they just leave, you can persuade the terrorists not to harm you and your family? Or, since the "idea" of terrorism is due to feeling oppressed by a stronger power, would you sympathize with them and offer to help them fight the oppressors?

So, there's no such thing as a bad terrorist, only an oppressed and misunderstood one?

[radicalleft]

54. It's late...I'm tired and I'll end with this

Why would someone choose to become a “terrorist” when knowing full well that they will probably die? What drives someone to that? If you and I can find some common understanding there, then maybe we can continue with this conversation, otherwise it’s pointless.

[wnylib]

55. The motives of terroristic actions are usually stated in

political, cultural, and religious or other ideological terms. There is sometimes a kernel of truth in the stated purposes. But often, the motives of the leaders of the movements are personal power and control of others. They present recruits with lists of grievances that will appeal to them. But the leaders themselves have no real solution and do not seek one. They want the glory of the fight, of leading it, of expressing their own power and rage. They have the absolutist mindset of a dictator or war lord who will not accept even win-win compromises. The leaders must be defeated before real solutions to problems can be achieved. Otherwise, they will sabotage all efforts to resolve the problems because resolutions would rob them of their power.

But, they would not have recruits if there were no grievances to use as recruitment material. So addressing grievances is necessary, too.

So, here's a long version, using one region's example, of how to deal with terrorism. The specifics for other regions and other cases of terrorism vary, but a rough outline applies to most situations. 1) Defeat terrorist leaders. They are obstacles to resolutions. 2) Open discussions of grievances on both sides, with moderators. 3) Identify common interests. 4) Negotiate realistic commitments from both sides that both can and will live with.

In order to address the grievances, all parties involved in seeking a solution must be acting in good faith for a good outcome that all parties can live with. Not a perfect one, but a good one. They all must be willing to negotiate and to compromise for the greater good for themselves and each other. A starting point is finding what they have in common regarding needs.

Mediators in negotiations are necessary to act like moderators in a debate. They must have a good understanding of the issues on all sides. They must have integrity, skill, and experience of working with negotiators.

The I/P issues are very complex, with a long history spanning centuries. The history has to be taken into account in understanding the present entanglements in order to disentangle them. For example, Palestinians in Gaza resented, understandably, the limitations placed on their movements prior to the October 7 terrorist attack. Those limitations have been wrongfully called an occupation of Gaza. But Israel has not occupiedd Gaza for many years. Israel had closed its borders to Gaza. Why? Because, when Israel pulled out of the Gaza occupation, numerous, continuous terror attacks were carried out inside Israel by terrorists from Gaza who crossed the border to plant bombs in Israeli public places.

But why the hostility from Palestinians toward Israel in the first place? That goes back to the establishment of Israel as a nation in 1948. Palestinians had been part of the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI. When the empire collapsed, Britain, another outsider, ruled Palestine. The people of Palestine wanted their own nation and self-government. International leaders considered putting Palestine with various different nations freed from the former Ottoman Empire as one nation. One consideration was making Palestine part of Syria. Palestinians had their own cultural identity and rejected the idea. Britain agreed that they should choose whether to be independent or to align with Syria or another nation. Muslim Arabs in Palestine took that as a promise of their own state.

But Britain had also agreed that Jews should have their own nation in Palestine. Contrary to popular views today, Jews in Palestine were not complete foreigners there. Throughout the centuries of rule by various powers, back to Roman times, Jews had always lived in Palestine, as descendants of Roman Judea, and before that, as descendants of the kingdom of Israel. Their numbers increased and decreased at various times due to persecutions, incompetent rulers, and invitations by Muslim rulers for expelled Jews from Spain to join the Jews who were still in Palestine. Both had Christianity as a common enemy.

The Jews of Spain and other European countries were descendants of Jews who had lived in European port cities as merchants and craftsmen during the time of ancient Israel and later, Roman Judea.

Zionism grew out of European persecution of Jews. It was not supported by many Jews until the Holocaust. Then survivors went to Palestine to join other Jews living there.

So, both Jews and Muslims Arabs regarded Palestine as their homeland at the same time that nationalism was growing in both groups and Britain had promised both of them independence.

Palestinians rejected a separate nation when it was suggested after WWII. They demanded all of Palestine and denied that Jews had a right to a state there. Jews had nowhere else to go after the Holocaust and would not give up a homeland for themselves. From the beginning of Israel, Palestinians used terrorism and wars against Israel in alliance with surrounding Arab nations to force Israel out of existence. Israelis doubled down on self-defense.

A two state solution is only possible if both sides agree to the right of the other to be in the former British Palestine. Both sides have to accept land divisions between them. Israel cannot have all of the land that comprised ancient Israel. Palestinian Arabs cannot have all of the land that was British Palestine. What would they each gain from such an agreement? Peace, prosperity, the ability to visit - safely - their sacred sites that might exist in the other's territory, and a stable, self-governing democracy for both. After all the violence, that should be a lot of motivation to work out a solution that both can live with.

[inthewind21]

69. What would YOU do

If, for example, you personally were on the receiving end of a terrorist attack, watching your family tortured and killed while you were being bound up as a hostage, and a group of armed soldiers from a stronger power arrived on the scene, and in their effort to 'wipe out" the terrorists they also blew up your entire block and killed all your neighbors as well as your sister and her family who lives down the street only to find there were 30 more terrorist across town what would you do, shrug and think, well, my family and I are safe, sorry dead sister and neighbors, sucks to be you but it was the only way to save ME?

As to your question, Terrorists are mentally ill! Oh wait, that's just the go to excuse when Americans commit atrocities.

[hueymahl]

72. This is the same argument used to defend the death penalty

Gun ownership, abrogation of constitutional rights, and basically anything else that goes against liberal orthodoxy. In other words, a classic straw man argument.

[inthewind21]

73. No

it's not. Thanks for playing

[hueymahl]

74. Yes

See, both can play that game

[hueymahl]

58. You know what is really interesting about that response

You pointed to three instances where we were attacked on our own territory. Not out sending war ships and people into conflicts that predate the founding of our country.

Minor little difference.

[wnylib]

63. We (the US) have been known to defend allies

as well as ourselves.

[Elessar Zappa]

61. I've never been a pure pacifist.

Some things are worth fighting for.

[wnylib]

75. Agree. I have opposed wars and demonstrated against some.

But, there are times when fighting is necessary.

[Raine]

96. That's the way I feel too

I've never been a pacifist and never will be.

[inthewind21]

67. Exactly

[roamer65]

40. I am sincerely hoping for $200/barrel oil.

That would be very good for the planet as a whole.

If this is what it takes to destroy petroleum demand, so be it.

[hueymahl]

62. Which would come with a new Great Depression

I get the sentiment though.

[roamer65]

95. I'll take an economic depression over an unlivable planet any day of the week.

U understand.

👍

[Kennah]

50. I suspect the US is trying to avoid nuclear war

Yes, Pooty Bear could do something because Russia is in Syria. But, he hasn't done anything over our involvement in Ukraine. So.

More likely are Israel using nukes if they get back on their heels. Unlikely today, but possible.

Most likely would be Iran and Saudis getting into a fight, and the Saudis using nukes. They don't have any today, but I've read things indicating they have a deal to buy nukes from Pakistan, if needed. And Saudis have lots and lots of money.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

57. The Saudi's help bankroll Pakistan's nuclear program

They have a delivery systems already and a couple missile bases, both of which are in range of Iran. They have partnered with China on ballistic missile development and its believed that their agreement with Pakistan is they can either directly take delivery of warheads or Pakistan would be allowed to deploy their weapons on Saudi territory, if requested. Primarily it is/was thought that the Saudi's would only take these steps if Iran is proven to have developed a nuclear weapon.

As far as the Israeli's go, Israel has a rumored nuclear strategy nicknamed the "Samson option", Based on the biblical story of Samson sacrificing himself by bringing down the roof of a temple to kill a bunch of Philistine's. Basically, if Israel is ever facing complete destruction, either an attack with a WMD or being invaded and overrun by invaders, as a last act of defiance, Israel would launch an all out nuclear strike against its enemies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. No nation has the right to attack our military assets with impunity.

[Elessar Zappa]

60. Iran's gonna fuck around too much and find out.

[ripcord]

71. The U.S. would be incredibilty remiss by choosing to send troops into danger and not defending them

[Raine]

83. Good! nt

[wiggs]

88. ZERO on FuaxNews' front website page...it's an important news item and says something about

US strength, protection of troops, and even readiness to defend allies (though that's not expressed publicly). It is also important in the effort to avoid an expanded regional war, which is likely our top priority at the moment.

It doesn't feed a Fox propaganda narrative so it doesn't exist for Fox viewers. But plenty of Enquirer-type headlines are on there.

[Windicator]

92. Fox is busy supporting Tommy Tubbyville's GOP attack on our US Defense Forces

the GOP is out to weaken America's troops, calling them "suckers and losers" and blocking the promotion of leaders.

GOP is all about pleasing putin