Is Syria being set-up?

[rmnunez]

Intervention in my usage here is a euphemism for attack militarily using more than just air or naval forces. Intervention per se could be anything that is added, a speaker at an event may intervene by addressing the audience with whatever issue. In international relations intrerventions may be of 3 sorts; military, economic or diplomatic. I use "intervention" simply because it is less cumbersome than "militarily intervene" and I find "invade", "attack", "conquer" and "make war" either too abrasive or too inaccurate

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnunez (...) a speaker at an event may intervene by addressing the audience with whatever issue (...)

No, that's Spanish, i.e. you can use the verb intervenir that way. But no self-respecting gringo would ever use the English verb "to intervene" in that manner ("President Bush today intervened in a cabinet meeting...").

I find "invade", "attack", "conquer" and "make war" ... too abrasive.

.

As, presumably, do the people being invaded. So, to soften the reality of what you advocate, you prefer to use a euphemism.

[rmnunez]

Nono, you ought to know English is now spoken by 3 times as many non-native speakers (for whom it was not their "mother tongue"), don't presume someone with a non-Anglo surname, or even an admitted hispanic would not be capable of catedra on its correct usage, particularly when the term is of latin etymology. Intervention is of latin origin, from intervenio (to come between). It also refers to interfere. Intervene is a word in English that refers to "step in or settle" (in its 3rd usage). It means to come or be between, the prefix inter means "among" and venio "to come". The term applies to abstract concepts like time (as in the years that intervened), it also means "to get in the way of" (as in if nothing unexpected intervenes).

[Mia]

Quote by: RickSp Observing recent events, I can't help but wonder whether Syria is being set-up or whether the Syrian government is just as dumb as a sack of hammers. The recent assassination of Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon was hardly in Syria's interest. I find it interesting that immediately following the assassination, the Syrian ambassador went to Hariri's family to express their condolences and deny any involvement. Also immediately afterwards the US pulled its ambassador and blamed Syria even while admitting that they had no evidence for doing so. A relatively few days latter Syria turned over to the Iraqis Saddam's half brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, in an atypical good will gesture. If Syria is being set-up by the US or by the US using Isreal as a proxy, it seems to be working. If Syria did indeed assassinate Harair, then perhaps Bashir Assad should have continued in his chosen field as an ophthalmologist, because as a political strategist he is not too swift.

Assad Sr. was renowned for his cunning in politics. His son is not stupid. Yes, they are being set up. Bush has been constantly trying to pin something on them since before the war in Iraq, and it has been a steady build-up. Pretty soon it will be part of the 'axis of evil'. Assasinating Harri was not to Syria's best interest, even it not profoundly stupid in this current climate.

A more personal set up....another Patriot Act victim is an American citizen of Syrian origin. The man has lived here for 20 years, worked for DFW security for 15 of that, and is under arrest, unable to even speak to an attorney or anyone else, for items supposedly in his suitcase, and being branded as a terrorist and delusional. They say he said he was going to collect the bounty for Bin Laden.

He is a close friend of my best friend who said he was going home to visit his mother, would step out of the way not to kill a bug, and certainly is not stupid enough to carry a stun gun & 40 rounds of ammunition (no weapon)onto a plane. What good would these items do a terrorist if he were one (checked, not carry on), and why would he have a need to carry them at all?

The case is very strange. If he had the items, why did they let him go on from DFW to Detroit and then arrest him?

[Mia]

Quote by: Rob Heilbroner From my reading of the Axis of Evil, originally it was Syria, Iran and Iraq, but the authors had to tone it down for it to be acceptable for world opinion, so they substituted Syria with North Korea. War is a dirty business, Iraq is ample proof. It is much easier if gains can be made using deception. What we are seeing in Lebanon is the prefered route. Syria is saving their hide by getting out of Lebanon. By the end of this year they'll sign a pipeline agreement with Israel. Stranger things have happened.

Not without the Golan being returned. That is going to be one of the most difficult things to resolve because Syria is beyond firm on this, and Israel won't give it up.

[Mia]

Quote by: bishop i wonder if syria really did assassinate that guy.. syria's a great country to focus on now that saddam's gone.. they're neck deep in terrorism and brutalize their own people. baathists run the show similar to how saddam ran his show.. and if you've followed bush's trip to europe, he seems to have the support of at least the french and germans.. bush definitely doesn't like syria after letting thousands pour into iraq after the war began.. and the neocon's popular theory is that saddam's wmd's are in syria.. i think it's obvious that he has syria in the crosshairs, while pushing for "diplomacy" in iran - while we fly our UAV's there every day. interesting article here: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=986

I know many Syrians personally. The country is not run like Iraq. Not even close. Syria is a LOT more moderate than we are led to believe over here. It took me a long time to believe this, having been conditioned so much by our media and government, but I take first hand accounts over propaganda any day.

[Mia]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I am saying that your theory is unfounded and that you are bringing this up because you cannot accept that, GASP! maybe there is such a thing as evil that doesn't have "Made in the USA" printed on it as so many on here are led to believe. It's all America and Isreals fault in your eyes for the troubles in the middle east? IS taht the basic out look you have?

You're a fan of Occum's Razor, right? Who benifited from this? I wouldn't accuse US and/or Israel with no evidence, but I wouldn't accuse Syria either. For theorizing, one has to look at who had the chance to gain from the act, and I don't see where Syria does. They stood to lose from it, and did.

*******For the person who said Assad and his father are dumb, as I said above, Assad Sr. was renowned for his political skill, labeled 'the fox', so on what do you base this remark?

Sorry for several posts in a row. I'm behind

[Nono]

Nono, you ought to know English is now spoken by 3 times as many non-native speakers (for whom it was not their "mother tongue"), don't presume someone with a non-Anglo surname, or even an admitted hispanic would not be capable of catedra on its correct usage (...)

If people want to abuse the language, there's no law against it. But that don't mean it's semantically correct, cause it ain't.

(...) particularly when the term is of latin etymology.

Etymology don't enter into it. We're using English here, not Latin. Who cares what it derives from in Latin, or its manifestation in Spanish?

It means to come or be between, the prefix inter means "among" and venio "to come". The term applies to abstract concepts like time (as in the years that intervened), it also means "to get in the way of" (as in if nothing unexpected intervenes).

Which is PatrickHenry's point: a US invasion of Syria wouldn't be intervention (there's no civil war there ... yet). It'd be invasion.
Let's call a spade a spade.

[rmnunez]

Territorial expansion by conquest also entails <i>invasion</i>, this is not the primary feature of US military intervention in Iraq.

[Matt W]

Err....what part of the military conflict did you miss, precisely?

[rmnunez]

Matt, the terminology is important. Some people favour invasion, but I think invasion has something to do with aim or intent. Invasions are often applied to descriptions of the formative civilizational campaigns of antiquity when territorial expansion by conquest was accepted sovereign practice -all self-respecting empires did it. In WW1 there were wars for territorial expansion and consolidation and later Hitler invaded a number of countries as he sought to expand the Third Reich, but the practice has fallen in disfavour. Nowadays sovereigns cannot seize land by force for territorial expansion, all lands are taken, we recognize the natives' right to govern themselves, they are deemed equals... Iraq is not about to become the 51st US state, just like Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Lebanon, Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Britain, Denmark, Norway, and others who hosted US military interventions -none were intervened in for territorial expansion. Intervene and invade have similar meanings in just the "come between" sense because invasion definitely means to come into. Invasions seem also to be more violent and permanent than interventions. Since one of the usages for intervention is to "meddle" or "interfere", and since people do speak of "economic (or diplomatic) intervention", it would seem "military intervention" would be more like "interfering by military force" (clearly what the US is doing in Iraq).

[Matt W]

No...an invasion is the occupation of another country by force. Pure & simple. No euphamisms need apply. Plain English - attacking and occupying another country that resists your forces, no matter what your intentions are, is an invasion. You intervene somewhere with non-occupation of territory - say, for example, the Special Forces in the Phillipines, there at the invitation of the government.

[rmnunez]

The gringoes in Germany didn't originally go in by invitation, the place was attacked and occupied -but no territorial expansion.

[RickSp]

This hair splitting is merely silly. The definition of invade is : "To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage". Your "territorial expansion" requirement is ridiculous.

[Matt W]

RMNunez - And? They originally invaded Germany - as Rick points out, to conquer it. Now, they're there with the co-operation of the populace. However, the assault on Germany was an invasion.

[Nono]

Compounding the Compulsive Gringo-Utterance Disorder from which he suffers, rummie also has the Euphemist Tick, of the same sort that caused ministries and departments of war at some point to be renamed defence.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono Compounding the Compulsive Gringo-Utterance Disorder from which he suffers, rummie also has the Euphemist Tick, of the same sort that caused ministries and departments of war at some point to be renamed defence.

The name change predated Rummie, just. It had been the War Department for most of the history of the republic. The War Department applied only to the Army however. There was a Department of the Navy. When the Air Force split off from the Army they combined everything into the "Department of Defense." I guess the "Department of Naked Agression" would be too candid.

[rmnunez]

Inappropriate too, they do favour uniforms rather than nudity.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: fushigi (check out the map, with the Golan Heights and a free Lebanon, Israel's got the buffer it needs against any Syrian interference.) But for Bush, everything is inextricably linked to the war on terror. If Syria's a state that supports terror - and doesn't support U.S. policy - they need to be invaded.

Look at the Middle-East map, again.
U.S. needs to "corner" Iran, in case Iranian government would continue to develope its nuclear program, in order to have easier access to it, and eventually destroy it or have better chances to prevent its continuation.
Additionally, it gives much greater preassure on Iranian government, espacially since Iran borders Iraq, and both countries have capabilities of influencing each other directly.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Matt W No...an invasion is the occupation of another country by force. Pure & simple. No euphamisms need apply. Plain English - attacking and occupying another country that resists your forces, no matter what your intentions are, is an invasion. You intervene somewhere with non-occupation of territory - say, for example, the Special Forces in the Phillipines, there at the invitation of the government.

Off Topic
There are 2 well-known-and-taken aspects (at least) with concern to the noun - "invasion".
One may invade a state for the following reasons :
- to annex a state's territory
- to liberate a state
Every one, provides and creates its fundaments that differ significantly (in comparison).
There are additional aspects, as well, that need to be taken under a consideration.
The resistance to invading forces has completely different bases - and it also depends of terms and conditions - then it should apply to every single case individually.
That is why, one can not provide the definitive answer as a "default", except for the general meaning as a description and/or a definition for a particular thing, act, ect. , but in terms of science, history, logic, termonology, onomastics, ethymology, language, ect.
It depends of subjects, conditions, ect. that need to be treated separately.