U.S. pulling Ambassador out of Syria
 

CNN is reporting that the US has requested the Ambassador to Syria return to Washington immediately for consultations. The first thing I thought when I read this, was "Fuck! Now were going to start bombing Syria". Anytime this administration starts pulling out it's diplomats you know trouble is brewing. If this is stage 1 of aggression towards Syria, how in the world is President Bush going to sell this to the American People?

Well considering Syria has a very active anti-American policy this doesn't equate to onsetting aggression. Plus you couple this with the fact that a huge bomb blew up in Lebanon yesterday killing their former maronite PM, some Lebanese seem to think they (Syria) was involved, also Syria currently is illegally occupying Lebanon. Plus with Saddam diposed the Baathists who are in power in Syria are now the primary facilitators of terror in the region by supporting groups such as Hezbollah and various Palestinian terror groups.

Time to kick some Syrian ass! Alright, since we don't have enough troops to properly attack (due the quagm...er..."intelligence failure" in Iraq), we're going to need some new recruits. Everybody with a neoconservative bumpersticker on your SUV, please step forward...

This is a direct response to the bombing in Lebanon... We've done business with the former PMs TV Channel (Future TV) and his people spoke very highly of him...

I'm still trying to figure out, is Iran or Syria next?

+1 point for Syria.

Red Staters Unite!!
Uh-huh...y'know...it's getting a little chilly in here. Someone wanna check the door. I think I feel a draft.

This is shocking for most iraqi war supporters, i would imagine, because syria recently completely abandoned any links to anything anti-american in direct response to our invasion of iraq. I remember this because it was part of the "invading iraq == world is safer from terrorism" argument.

I myself would be just shocked if i found out syria was just paying the u.s. lipservice. Shocked! But, wait, does that mean that we might not be as "ensafened" by the iraqi invasion as one would have previously rationalized?

Just listened to BBC World Service where they interviewed some former british ambassador in the region who didn't really believe that Syria was behind that bomb attack. He thought that it was improbable that Syria wanted to aggravate USA more than necessary. Might be truth behind that argument.

besides this being a response to the recent bombing, might it be that we're expecting Syria to take even more steps to deter terrorists crossing the border?

Hmmm.,,, a new group with a new name suddenly wreaks major havoc and no one picks up on it. What was it? I heard it once but was foreign to me, never heard of them.

Since no names role off the collective tongues of those who are 'in the paint,' so to speak regarding their research expertise involving terrorist groups, I say it was an effort to create more tension in the area to further the American Way of doing business.

Let's see. Iraq was a nightmare. North Korea is a crap shoot. Iran might kick some serious butt. Now let's see again. Syria. Yeah you are the winner to be invaded next. Morale will be restored. Israel will further entrench herself as America's greatest ally and life will be as it were in Jimmy Stewart's time.

I love Americans and the American way of life, but for the life of my cynical self, to me this wreaks foul. CIA, Special Forces whatever. This was meant to not fail, which drives my suspicion.

Again, I'm not anti-U.S or an expert in these matters like some of you are but to think it couldn't be possible that the U.S was involved is blind faith. I'm offering 3:2 odds the U.S was up on this deal.

Stupid analysis? Maybe. Possible analysis? Maybe.

moved to Politics.

I'm not shocked. Who didn't see this coming? They didn't completely abandon any links to anything anti-american, where the hell do you come up with stuff like this? Syria pretends to have a nice face on when looking at the US, but they have been and continue to be involved in terrorism and terrorist activities.

I think that the Syrian backed bombing the other day proves that there can be no peace in the region without a change of leadership in Syria. Everyone else believed that Iran held the key, but since the spring of 2003, Syria has worked aggressively to create turmoil in the region. They accepted Saddam govt officials into their country (and possibly, WMDs too). They have armed and paid for insurgents in Iraq. They have now killed the only positive force Lebanon has seen in 30 years.

It's time.

i saw on the news today that syria and iran have formed some sort of pact that basically says if the U.S. fucks with either of them they got each others backs.also both countries border iraq.

How can you prove that Syria backed up the bombing?

You mean aside from the fact that Hariri was a Syrian enemy, who helped get a UN resolution through to have Syria withdraw from Lebanon (A UN resloution that didn't solve anything?? Blasphemy!!) and demanded to Syria directly that they remove all their troops?

I'm very sceptical that they would take the risk to piss off USA just to get rid of some silly opposition figure, considering the latest record of interventions US has... then again they of course might be counting on that USA has no army to make any interventions in a while. I'm not saying that they didn't do it, but considering that the region is full of different islamist extremist groups that feel no love for Hariri, I think that directly blaming (without any proof) Syria is jumping into conclusions. Or maybe this is one of those "Iraq has Al-Qaeda-ties"-thing?

Knowing what you know about the who Syria/Lebanon thing, who would be your top suspect?

I don't know, maybe some of those islamist extremist groups. Now it is a tricky question whether Syria funded/supported that particular group. I think that this particular region has a long history of non-nation state political/militant actors. But whatever, you are free to hold an opinion that Syria did it. I personally try to avoid jumping into conclusions, even when they seem very convenient to fuel my own world view.