Slashdot Mirror
US Forces Ready To Strike Syria If Ordered
An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press reports that 'U.S. forces are now ready to act on any order by President Barack Obama to strike Syria, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday. The U.S. Navy has four destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea positioned within range of targets inside Syria, as well as U.S. warplanes in the region, Hagel said in an interview with BBC television during his visit to the southeast Asian nation of Brunei. Hagel also predicted that U.S. intelligence agencies would soon conclude that last week's deadly attack on civilians in a Damascus suburb was a chemical attack by Bashar Assad's government.'" The New York Times has an informative map of the sites of the chemical attacks.
first strike
...again.
Bullshit. Same lies same results.
why we keep spending money interfering with civil wars 1/2 way around the world??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Again?
We just had article where USA allowed use of chemical weapon and now this?
I ain't gonna trust USA with that...
Good morning, sweetie. Could you pass the milk. Let's see who we are at war with today... Heh, where are the funnies?!
NSA what? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all this FREEDOM.
What was that pace prize for again?
I was dumb enough to vote for George W Bush the first time, but not dumb enough to vote for him a second time. Somehow, he managed to survive through four terms somehow...
In 2007, retired General, Wesley Clark spoke about a plan existing since at least 2001 to attack several countries including Syria.
And thwust them to the ground
We've always been at war with Syria oops I mean Eastasia
does anyone doubt the rebels wouldn't go to the extreme of gassing civilians then claiming it was the government? Doing it to get US and others involved.
It would be great to see someone not just saying there was a gassing but provide proof of who done it.
Just found out my buddy's son is there because I saw footage on the news of his destroyer parked right there off Syria. Wild way to find that out.
This is because white phosphorous isn't classified as a chemical weapon by the powers that decided on the "no chemical weapons" rule. Nevermind that it was invented as an essentially identical replacement for Napalm once Napalm was declared a war crime.
Why should the US have the right to strike another country? The US strikes Syria and then Syria strikes the US and we start a war, so how about sitting down and thinking about the best course of action first. Weak men / women go to war, strong men and women find ways to settle the issues with out having to strike blindly.
Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, which were never there.
taste now, you dumb Hope & [no] Change mothafuckas?
Bet you guys didn't expect to be voting for Bush's 3rd and 4th terms, despite all the evidence to the contrary back then, did you, you dumbasses?
I called this shit while reddit was predictably swooning over the media hype and sucking this guy's dick back in 08.
Are we going to be greeted as liberators this time? If so, we might want to not bother.
But in this case, the use of chemical and/or biological weapons is a no no, and outlawed by the international community for a reason. It's time to destroy any such weapons since Syria's gov does not seem to have any restrain in the use of such weapons.
But at the same time, I do not believe the US should be the only entry into this skirmish (lets face it, it won't be a traditional war, most likely air strikes, drones, and cruise missiles). I believe that the League of Arab Nations should take care of this on their own, ideally with backing from the major super powers.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Yet another war.
WP is an incendiary and is just as illegal to use against civilians as chemical weapons.
... even going to be an attempt to get authorization from congress? Or, is that something only republican presidents do?
Bombing sand nigger looking people, our boys didn't have the chance to do this with public approbation for such a long time. Man the harpoons. We'll make it up for Snowden.
Or it is just a good scapegoat to hold position with our biggest ships inside Mediterranean sea, the fucking antipodes, far from where they should stay put.
Don't forget that the USA originally took that land where the Jews are currently living by force (in 1947).
The USA now has to back the Israelis up or it might appear weak and end up as Palestine's bitch! (or something like that)
No sig today...
What are we the 'muslum country human rights enforcer'? This isn't our problem. We are $16 trillion in debt plus every action we take puts our soldiers lives at risk. We should only use our military when it is a vital national interest. Just because someone joins the military, this does not mean they are cards to be dealt whenever we want to make ourselves feel better. Did we sell chemical weapons to Syria? The Israelis would be more than capable of taking out the entire Syrian airforce and most of its armored division. Let them deal with it. It is right next door to them. Turkey is a NATO member. They have a western military with western hardware. They could deal with this too. If Saudi Arabia actually cared about muslum people, they could join in and fund it. However, they don't.
We are the only country in world history that acts like this. We waste our national resources on things that are not of vital national interest. Syria doesn't have anything we really want. Even if they did, we are probably better off supporting Assad to undermine the Russians and the Chinese.
The US are members of NATO. Turkey, who has actually been attacked, has done everything they could to stay out of it, and are also members of NATO, but are doing what they can to help Syrians fleeing the war. Turkey is definitely proving the smarter of the two NATO members here.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I think since we're dealing with international law here, you're going to have to define "illegal" and the original source of your conclusion.
US intelligence knew with Absolute certainty (and claimed there were irrefutable evidence) that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction back when Sadam was in charge there (I'd still like to see that evidence btw)
and used that as a reason to invade...
Do they still use the same kind of information sources, or has NSA picked up something interesting this time?
And again, President Obama, a recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize (for having done nothing at all), is putting people in harms way, getting involved in someone else's business, and in general being, ah, not peaceful. At least this gives him an excuse to indulge in his assassination drone fetish.
Love sees no species.
How about the USA deals with its own war criminals first, starting with the Bush administration!
I'm sure every major power around the world has plans to attack nations they consider a potential threat. Plans do not always mean implementation. They are there as a contingency in the event that an attack plan is needed, rather than attacking a nation adhoc.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
It's almost as if they were already there...
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Here we go again...
This has been going on for decades in this part of the world. "The only winning move is not to play."
Tell me again why we should care about the use of chemical weapons in Syria? I don't see a reason to intervene.
Shouldn't the military always be ready?
Reminds me of a clip from Stargate SG-1:
Dr. Jackson: Uh, you should probably prepare to fire.
Maj. Marks: For the record, I'm always prepared to fire. I just have to press this button here.
Dr. Jackson: Right..I just—I thought that's what you're supposed to say, so...
Maj. Marks: I know.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
US troops going in to another sovereign nation without a declaration of war by the Congress.
Remind me again why we even claim to have a constitution.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
NATO and allies need to take a pass on this one and let our friends from China and Russia protect the people of Syria from chemical attacks by their own government. Oh wait - they don't care. Too bad for them.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Your history is all mixed up. Palestine was controlled by British empire at the end of WWII.
The use of incendiary weapons against civilians is banned by the Geneva Conventions and the CCCW. However, using it as a tracer is not prohibited and if those tracers should happen to hit a person, well... all's fair and all that.
I always thought that when you wage war, they are supposed to consult with Congress first.
When Israel dumps white phosphorous on Palestinians that isn't a chemical attack that justifies a "strike?"
White phosphorus is used to create smoke clouds as well as to incinerate targets. To my knowledge no Palestinian has ever been killed by an Israeli white phosphorus attack, which seems to imply the former use.
What about when they just spray Palestinian homes with foul smelling liquid in an attempt to make the homes unlivable so they can be torn down and replaced with new housing projects exclusively for Jews?
That's a pretty loose definition of chemical weaponry :)
Who knew The Onion would get it right:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/help-has-to-be-on-the-way-now-thinks-syrian-man-cu,32265/
Hagel also predicted that U.S. intelligence agencies would soon conclude that last week's deadly attack on civilians in a Damascus suburb was a chemical attack by Bashar Assad's government.'"
Yeah, just like they concluded that Iraq was involved in 9/11 attacks. and had WMD's. Sorry, but the US, NATO, Israel, and the Arab monarchies intelligence agencies have NO credibility at all.
Of course, Ban Ki Moon could invite Russia to warehouse all the Chemical Weapons - keep them out of the hands of children.
Just a guess. But, it seems to me to be the only explanation that makes any sense at all.
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
"Germans?"
"Forget it, he's rolling."
Obama was supposed to get us out of Afghanistan, instead he increased US forces there.
Many consider Obama's actions in Libya to be illegal.
Now this.
Obama is even worse than Bush.
A) The action of WP is much different than that of napalm, even though both are components of incendiary weapons. Both are designed to ignite fires, but napalm is intended to "stick" and provide a persistent fuel source over a wide area. Regardless, in modern practice WP is used primarily for smokescreening and target marking.
B) In any case, neither napalm nor WP are considered "chemical weapons" by any treaties--there are treaties that regular incendiary weapons (e.g. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Geneva Conventions), and these may or may not cover WP weapons, but WP is not used for toxic effect (like sarin or VX) and is not covered by the same restrictions (e.g. the Chemical Weapons Convention). Consequently, no state considers WP to be WMD but most would consider sarin as such. This seems reasonable given the effects and use of these weapons. All modern weapons contain "chemicals," like TNT, but that doesn't make them "chemical weapons."
They're behind schedule (Wesley said 5 years).
But whoever is behind this plan is not losing sight of it, and they are able to involve the U.S. in wars regardless of who is president. It didn't matter that Bush went and Obama got into office, war policy didn't change.
Not that this should surprise anybody -- did you really think George W Bush, who had about two brain cells left after he was done doing cocain and alcohol for years, was calling the shots in DC? Or Obama who turns into a bumbling idiot the second you take away his teleprompter?
So I wonder, who is it that runs the United States?
He would say we should intervene if there is a US national interest is involved. Intervention should not be a matter of emotion, i.e. compassion or revenge. Currently the Syrian regime has little strength to hurt the US directly. Or an ally like Israel. Even the 2003 Iraq war claimed WMDs that might hurt the US, though the evidence then was extremely exaggerated.
Hmmm I think you are confusing the USA with the UN... or is it the British?
Fuck you and anyone who claims that the situation in Syria is an excuse to "cover up" the HEAVILY COVERED NSA issues. Fuck you, seriously. Because nothing bad happens in the world except things the US causes, right? Fuck. You.
Fuck. Me?
Nah man. Fuck. You. And. Your. Half-Assed. Straw Man. And. Your. Naive. Jingoistic. View. Of. The. World.
Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. The convention also defines weapons which are not to be considered to be incendiary weapons. Examples are: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.
source: Wikipedia/UNCCCW
Because WP is used in illumination rounds and tracers, all you have to say is that the munition is primarily for illumination purposes and it doesn't matter how severe the secondary effect of being an accelerant is, it doesn't fall into the Convention definition of an incendiary, because tracers and lights are completely legal.
Hell, NATO have been getting away using that excuse in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia for years...
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I didn't state(but I guess you could interpret what I said to mean that) that Napalm is a WMD. It's not.
That came years after the fact of his Peace Prize, and in fact hasn't happened yet (Though it may happen soon).
The real factor was that this went from being an international geopolitical fiasco to being something that could have impacts on US domestic opinion because of the chemical weapons issue.
Now it's become important since were talking about perceptions and votes rather than just realities of human suffering. Can't afford to look weak on foreign policy compared to the Republicans.
not when you refer to the munitions as "illumination rounds" or "tracers" it isn't.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Phosphorous is a slightly vexing character because it wears quite a few hats:
It is viciously incendiary; but it's also a superb smoke-producing compound, and it's fairly toxic (not in the same class as purpose-built chemical weapons; but absorbing it through your burns is not recommended).
Some of those uses are essentially always licit (smoke production), some are sometimes licit (incendiaries are discouraged in populated areas; but not banned), and some are never licit (it's not a very good chemical weapon; but you aren't allowed to use it as one). Enough licit uses that basically everyone has a whole lot of the stuff on hand; but eminently adaptable for more gruesome purposes.
What's the expected response from China, Iran, and Russia? Is there any chance they'd take a shot at mainland US?
Syrian withdrawal time-table will definitely be a key issue in 2024.
Before we rush to conflict, I am wondering if anyone has any peaceful alternative. One thought I had was for Ban Ki-moon as Secretary General of the UN to ask the 'most peace inclined' member of the Security Council (Russia) to arrange to take over custody of all Syria's chemical weapons as a way for Assad to show that 'he isn't the bad guy'. Any other 'great' ideas??
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
That's all.
Signature intentionally left blank.
You did not watch the video.
Another reason why Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize for his 'future actions' (and not based on anything he actually had done) was one of the most laughable things ever.
Remember when congress had to declare war on another country before we attacked them? I guess lobbing missiles from the ocean into Syria doesn't constitute an act of war.
Article one, section eight of that obsolete document known as the U.S. Constitution.
You mean WP 5.1?
The difference is that this plan targets specific countries and these countries are being attacked one by one.
They are there as a contingency in the event that an attack plan is needed
Needed for what? What good reason is there for these wars of aggression?
... so you'd stop getting involved in all the crazy Middle East shit
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Is it still considered a civil war? Seems more like a covert war to me.
Didn't some rebels in Turkey get caught with some dangerous chemicals quite recenly? And since spring, there has been rumours about doing a false flag operation by using chemical weapons in Syria.
I mean sure why not? We are already in the area and love to try and bomb people back to the stone age.....
that we going to get "the evidence" that we need for the attack later this week.
"The evidence" will not, of course, say that the chemical did not come from the US.
Egypt: kills hundreds with guns US: whatever
Syria: kills hundreds with chemical weapons US: oh noes!
While does everybody here assume regime used chemical weapons ? Isn't it possible that the "rebels" used chemical weapons to motivate other countries to help them ? I mean if you're losing the "war", it kinda makes sense, unless you believe that those so called rebels over there are morally superior to whoever.
1. There is no proof regime used chemical weapons.
2. Why would regime use chemical weapons ? They're "winning" already..
3. Why would regime use chemical weapons ? The rulling party there is NOT stupid, whatever you may think of them. You think they wouldn't know it would come to this (worldwide condemnation) ?
4. The ruling party have majority of peoples votes. Why would they undermine that ?
5. Why would they allow UN to come inspect the site then shoot at them ? If they wanted to make it impossible for UN team to investigate, there certainly are better ways then using a sniper guy to shoot at them. That tactic is more likely to be used by "rebels".
The people forcing the attack on Syria to happen are the same war mongers that where advocating the attack of Syria months before this chemical bs. Now they're on fire. All over the media.
The same people that where blabbering about Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I wouldn't put any trust in them.
And I'll tell you this people. The world is starting to get sick (and I'm not talking about European puppet Governments, rather.. the people) of American war mongering, so better keep out of it and deal with your problems instead of going around bombing countries and interfering in other countries business.
Also, will the US and UK exterminate the rebels if it's proven that they used chemical weapons ?
Just my wishful thinking that there's some unbiased justice in the world.
But he was specifically chosen and elected because we were tired of warmongering. McCain was defeated by casting him as someone who would start wars all over the place. So, the election and subsequent actions of Obama have proven that the people have NO SAY in the tenor or outcomes of their government anymore.
Well isn't that just a convenient excuse. Never mind the fact that every time the US government goes to war (which they have, continuously, for every single year of the past 100 years), they get to justify billions in spending, which (surprise) makes a few select people very, very rich.
If that's not a perfect racket then I don't know what is.
The army guns down thousands of people and no threats of force from their allies in the west. I guess using snipers to kill demonstrators is not a "moral obscenity" when it's done by an ally.
MOD parent UP...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
the president is commander in chief. For hagel to insist he wasnt ready would be dereliction of duty.
for those wondering if we should ask congress if they want a war, under the War Powers Act, the president can declare war on any nation for 90 days without the approval of congress.
that which keeps america out of syria currently is the same as that which keeps us out of Iran: a modern contingency of air-defense weaponry acquired after their prior thrashing by Israel, and a level-headed president willing to ignore the usual war-hawks on both sides.
on a more sincere note, as an american I find the tragedy in syria appaling. something should be done, but if you're looking to america to start doing it then you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. our history in the middle east is colourful at best. We replace regimes, hoard oil, pay off guys like assad to keep it flowing, and crush any nation with even the slightest aspiration toward regional power. not to mention the fact that most americans are pretty war-weary after afghanistan and iraq sending a sizeable quantity of our troops home legless and insane.
Good people go to bed earlier.
If this news is reliable (there have been other polls which show more support for Assad regime than for rebels), it is woth to notice that majority of Syrians seem to support Assad regime instead of the rebels, many of which are foreign islamists:
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/
And it was Saddas regime which suggested solving the conflict by having elections, but the rebels refused this offer. I wonder why...
NATO! Not just for Cold Wars anymore. Never mind the legality.
It was actually the League of Nations, but who even thinks about that organization any more? Palestine/Judea/Trans-Jordan (the region has been called all of these names from time to time including what covers Tel Aviv and Jerusalem) was a part of the Ottoman Empire, and since they lost World War I in a big way, this former empire's territory was carved out by the victors giving us much of the mess we have today in the Middle East.
But I will admit that the USA never got to that part of the world. In fact, the USA was just a minor player in that whole war and pretty much stuck to just the fields of France.
...finally, Dems get to obliterate the Iraq WMD stockpiles that Saddam moved to Syria (+Lebanon?) so they can continue to say forever "Bush Lied!". How neatly things come full circle. Combine that with abandoning Iraq (no SOFA) and losing Afghanistan, and Barack's Mid-East fumble of American interests for the next 30+ years will be complete. All couched in a "Look, Recycling!" Arab Spring that sends tingles up the MSMs collective legs, and nobody is the wiser.
To me, the question was never "Were there stockpiles in Iraq?" (see: Kurds) but rather "Where did the stockpiles they go?". Of course the media's simplification of subsequent events blurred this question into non-existence.
I mean, I know there were photos on twitter and all so it must be true, but shouldn't we at least have proof that chemical weapons were used before committing ourselves to another war? No, instead the US is insisting that the UN withdraw it's inspectors: http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/26/un-spurns-us-call-to-withdraw-syria-inspectors-as-war-looms/
But daggummit we need another war to distract us from the NSA, so to hell with the proof. Someone push Miley Cyrus out on stage again so we can be distracted from the war too.
Because it serves as a perfect "distraction" for all the domestic issues we have popping up :D
Once the cruise missiles start flying, the entire NSA issue will fade quietly away from public scrutiny.
Here we go again. ("Congress shall have Power...to declare War")
At least Bush tried to build a case and sought Congressional approval to blast into his ill-advised conflicts. Obama? Nah...too much work.
Will there ever be anyone we can we vote for to end this cycle?
Fuck. You. Period. Stupid. Fucking. Punctuation!
not our problem. In March the story was that the rebels had taken over a Syrian armory and gassed people. I'm not sure who we can trust, but frankly, it's not our fight -- the Syrians must win self-determination for themselves. If we didn't learn this lesson from Cuba, from Vietnam, and from Iraq, what will it take to understand that democracy is not a gift -- it is a hostage that must be taken.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I still don't understand why we keep sticking our noses into other countries business and affairs that have absolutely nothing at all to do with us.
I am all for helping others who need it, but you also have to draw the line on what youre willing to do. We have our own problems we need to deal with before we start going to other countries and sticking our noses into their faces. We have no business or claim to go there.
Neocon's wet dream is to redraw the lines of the middle east -- "Project for the New American Century".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
What will happen is we'll cement the power of the hyper-Islamists. big fucking mistake. the guys who invented this plan are TOOLS.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Meanwhile the puppet Barry Soetoro is anxiously waiting by his telephone for the call from his puppet masters over at "Big Oil" (tm).
Yet Another False Flag operation. Has everyone seen the newly leaked emails alleging that the United States is actually responsible for the chemical weapons attack precisely to justify this invasion? See this and this and this and this and this and this and this.
-1 for posting an alternative point of view that has links to back up assertion? The neocon contingent of /. mods must be out in force today.
Not the US's problem.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Anyone who pulls out a Stripes reference in this day and age is alright in my book. I just wish I had mod points for you.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Which one of you fuckhats moderated this interesting? Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
...one of the other 193 nations who are signatories to the Geneva Convention (195 minus US and Syria) to go do something about it. I'm tired of paying for all this shit.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Fool me â" you can't get fooled again.
Its becoming apparent that Americans are dumber than G. W. Bush Jr, or at the very least powerless in a so self proclaimed beacon of democracy, liberty and freedom.
G.W.Bush misquoted a proverb, at least you couldn't fool him twice.
Please mod flaimbait, but ain't this the truth.
Fuck you and anyone who claims that the situation in Syria is an excuse to "cover up" the HEAVILY COVERED NSA issues. Fuck you, seriously. Because nothing bad happens in the world except things the US causes, right? Fuck. You.
Fuck. Me?
Nah man. Fuck. You. And. Your. Half-Assed. Straw Man. And. Your. Naive. Jingoistic. View. Of. The. World.
The. Periods. Don't. Make. Your. Paranoia. Any. More. Accurate. Or. Meaningful.
You. Are. Still. A. Paranoid. Idiot. Who. Thinks. Every. One. Is. Out. To. Get. You. And. Only. You.
Some. Things. Just. Happen. Outside. Of. Any. Other. Influence.
For. Instance. Unless. You. Have. Any. Evidence. To. The. Contrary. And. I. Mean. Actual. Evidence. Not. Your. Paranoid. Ravings. And. Echo. Chamber. Reinforced. Rants. The. NSA. Didn't. Start. The. Syrian. War. Years. Ago. In. Anticipation. Of. Edward. Snowden's. Revelations. Just. So. They. Can. Cover. Them. Up.
And. Frankly. If. They. Did. Plan. That. And. Pull. It. Off. As. Perfectly. As. You. Seem. To. Be. Implying. They. Did. Then. With. That. Level. Of. Foresight. And. Cunning. There's. Not. A. Single. God. Damned. Thing. You. Or. Anyone. Else. Could. Ever. Do. About. It.
So. Shut. Your. Fucking. Face. You. Tinfoil. Hat. Trolling. Fuckwit.
Nobody. Cares. About. What. You. Have. To. Say.
Nobody.
While we members of the UN, the UN has given no authority to bomb anyone. Not that we need the precedent with a misinformed public mind you, the UN never approved us bombing Iraq either (Gulf 2).
Let's look at a few facts regarding Syria.
1. Last September Obama claimed there was a line in the sand of chemical weapons use.
2. December, FSA rebels posted Youtube videos of home made chemical agents killing rabbits.
3. December, German hacker broke into a UK military contractors email and found messages stating roughly the US and UK are paying enormous funds for us to sneak CWs into Syria, use a CW shell from Libya of Russian make similar to what Assad would have, and blow it up. Experts have determined that the emails look to be legit.
4. February chemical weapons were claimed to be used. The UN determined in March that it was the FSA using these weapons. Interestingly, the US claims contrary to the UN without evidence. Of course the war drum banging was minimized by media, perhaps too close to the emails suggesting false flag?
5. March, Military.com reported that FSA rebels were caught attempting to transport chemical weapons through the Turkish border into Syria.
6. March, FSA rebels kidnap 21 UN peace keepers. (more recently 5 more were kidnapped)
Now lets jump to last week.
8/20 videos start being uploaded to Youtube showing victims of CWs. Date stamps put many of these videos ahead of the reported attack by at least 12 hours.
Propaganda, er... US Media immediately bangs the war drum again and claims it must have been Assad (Who invited the UN inspectors in.).
You should be questioning why we are going in a circle. It's not like you were told the truth about Iraq's WMDs and look how well that war worked out. No, I'm not pro dictatorships. I'm anti-imperialism and anti-propaganda, especially when it harms a majority while a select few gain incredible wealth off of wars.
Patriotism is fine when it's not blind. Blind patriotism leads to Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Adolf, etc...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
White phosphorous as a weapon and red phosphorous tracer rounds are two separate things intended for two separate tasks.
Source: military experience.
What happened to all those closed embassy's btw? That one seemed all too obvious. No one seemed to question that or care to follow up on it.
I'm sure every major power around the world has plans to attack nations they consider a potential threat
No, just as I do not have plans to murder people I consider a potential threat. Of course, the serial murderer may think otherwise, but that is delusion thinking.
Don't quote me on this.
just in general
actually no wait.. please start another war public opinion of you is so high worldwide i may finally get my wish and get to enlist and fight the USA in a sanctioned war.
I will be as respectful with your property and families as you were with mine
If the Syrian leadership knows that there's basically a 100% chance of a huge volley of missiles hitting them within a week, hasn't everyone already left and gone for cover?
Couldn't they fill the presidential palace or wherever their senior leadership is with rebel prisoners, just to knock out 2 birds with one stone?
That's true... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1
Turkey the 'smarter' of the two? Perhaps, but the rest of your post doesn't prove it:
1. The USA has yet to declare that they're going to intervene. That will only be done by explicit order of the POTUS, Barack Obama. Thus far we've kept out of the conflict.
2. The military is 'standing by', because it monitors the situation and keeps the POTUS's stated intentions/orders in mind - which in this case is 'definitive proof of chemical weapon use will result in intervention'.
3. Turkey is a heck of a lot closer than the USA when it comes to helping refugees; it's logical that they'd be involved more.
I don't read AC A human right
Don't worry. The wheels will eventually come off, as sustaining Pax Americana will utterly and completely drain the coffers down to where the whole thing just collapses, just as they did with every other two-bit empire in the past.
A good read on the subject is Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.
To the bunkers!
Yeah, right.
Will there really be more dead innocents if we don't intercede here, thus signaling to other brutal regimes that there are no limits on the slaughter they can impose within their own country? I won't say 'against their own people', because those that commit these slaughters don't see those they target as fellow people.
I don't read AC A human right
If Congress didn't vote deploy troops, he can't do it. The situation in Syria is not an immediate threat to the US.
There is no invasion and no bloodlust here.
How do you know there will be no invasion... they could well be building up to that.
As for bloodlust - there was no bloodlust in Iraq either, a nearly identical situation. Syrian rebels being attacked with chemical weapons? Gee, that's almost as bad as hundreds of thousands of Kurds being gassed in Iraq...
The funny thing is, Iraq in the end worked out because we did send in troops. If all we do is an aerial assault on Syria we will have done nothing at all to actually help, just killed a lot of people and shown off our military hardware. I'd say it's far more probable "bloodlust" is involved in that scenario, rather than the much harder task of sending in troops to help people.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here's an idea - take over Syria, then hand over Syria to the Palestinians.
That way Palestine is totally free of any Israeli involvement, and there are no issues over who owns what.
Peace in the middle east at last!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Associated Press writing about a story announced by the Secretary of Defense lists partial troop strength and effective location and announces to the world that we are ready to strike a foreign country. And yet we're in an uproar over memos that did not even come close to doing the same thing?
The US forces are ready to strike anywhere and anytime and have been since then end of World War 2.
Perhaps there was an exception when Jimmy Carter was in the Oval Office, but that was it.
And if you don't believe me, there are plenty of Marines out there who would be more than happy to discuss things with you. Just find one, any one.
I assume by several you mean about 200.
Seriously it wouldn't surprise me to find out we had secrete plans for invading every country in the world since that is the kind of things military planners do. It also wouldn't surprise me to find out that other major world powers or other countries that think they are have similar plans. These plans probably all exist in some giant file cabinets and are probably re-planned every 10 years based off of current military capabilities.
Time to offend someone
So they may have approved of this action, in silence
As fas as I know, that's what the English-speaking world is for. The problem is that they intend to take the latin world with them. And the whole world. I think they called WWI "The war to end all wars". Maybe the next one, or the next one, or the next one, or the next one, etc. I am a simple Computer Science engineer, not a historian, but what's funny (in the sense of better laughing than crying) is that they could have had it all, as it probably happened in the past. That is what their democracy without foundations really means, the right to get suicided. Their solution? Trying to steal all foundations, i.e. trying to make believe everyone that 2+2=5, before telling them that 2+2=3.
Let's see: on one side, there's a government in Syria that is involved in a life-and-death struggle with militant Islamists affiliated with Al Qaeda, that the West calls "the rebels" -- militants who won't hesitate to commit genocide on Syria's minorities (Alewites, Christians, and moderate Sunnis as well!) On the other side, there are governments in the West that harbor numerous old grudges against Syria and would do everything in their power to destroy that country. Now, chemical weapons have been used, and before the UN even completes its inspection tour, Syria's enemies (who call themselves "Friends of Syria" in the best of Orwell's Newspeak tradition) have already made up their minds about who used those weapons. This is disgusting politics at its worst, folks. Iraq v 2.0 is looming on the horizon.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Not every body/country is as paranoid, aggresive, and delusional as you.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Are people on Slashdot really this ignorant of US Law?
The President is Commander In Chief. He has broad powers including the ability to deploy troops where he pleases.
There are some limits laid out in the War Powers Resolution. Which no President accepts as Constitutional. These limits do not require a vote in Congress before deployment.
In 2013, MachineShedFred spoke about the US Military having plans to attack any country on the globe, because that's what any half-assed or better military organization does if they want to be prepared for probable (and possible) scenarios that might transpire.
Do you seriously think that something like this mess in Syria happens, and they call together the think tank to figure out how to go in for an all-night planning session with a big table map and little models of cannons? No, they pull down a binder from a shelf with the country's name on it, which gets updated on a regular basis by the tens of thousands of people inside an incredibly large building in Arlington, Virginia that is named after a nice clean geometric shape.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Remember this since this is just more proof that your government is owned and operated by a foreign government.
As a EU citizen with family in that region,
As somebody who's niece is currently with us instead of her parents & family,
As somebody who hopes his cousin, at the age suitable of being conscripted, shall be able to get away in time before the strikes,
As a man, husband and father who would rather never have to face what the ordinary people is facing there.
I am sad.
I don't think intervening shall resolve a lot, but something must happen to stop this.
I wished some people just realised how silly it all is.
A soverign nation called Greater Syria was the promise to the arabs that they would not be made into a colony of the ever so righteous and purely superior white Europeans if they helped in the WW1 efforts on the side of the Europeans. The war ended, but France and England then said that the arabs are clearly a backward and primitive people who must be governed by the Europeans. The whites decided to divide up the arab people and lands into a bunch of "mandates" that would be governed and exploited. The people over there had a system ready to go, but were double crossed. The arabs of palestine terrorized the brits into leaving, but had taken in a huge population of Jews between WW1 and 1948, so when the Brits just packed up and left, the Jews took over. And yes, the zionist Jews stole Israel. There is no question of that Fact. Zionists had been trying to steal it decades before WW1. Look up "balfour declaration"
The region's civil wars may have happened 100 years ago and would be settled by now, but Europeans keep mucking it up. It doesn't help that we gave some among them WMD's to help fight each other.
Should America take it all over? As an American, I would say no. Unless we are ready erase all the borders, kill every one of the leaders, and I mean every one of them. And make one big Arabia and maybe one smaller Jewbia since they can't get along and never will. The US needed a civil war and 200 plus years of nonsense to get where we are. The arabs are doing it much faster if they are following our model. Get out of their way and let them have a few decades of nonsense and they will be all right after they realize it is stupid to fight like this.
Hey look, not the economy! Quick, draw attention to it.
Assad's opponents are al Qaeda supporters.
Orwell had nothing on what the US does - simultaneously fighting and supporting a supposed enemy.
How the hell is this a troll?
Pull your head out, mod. This is an informative post.
as well as myself... none of us wants this to happen. The possibility of such a strike is deeply unpopular - or so it would seem.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
That's the stupidest argument I've heard today.
"If it's a false flag, then somebody needs to go in and take over!"
"If it's NOT a false flag, then somebody needs to go in and take over!"
You ass. Having spies used against you, fighting terrorists funded and supplied with weapons via Israel and Saudi Arabia isn't the same as "losing control of your own supply lines." It's called, "Being At War".
You're nothing but a godamned imperialist.
And of course it's a false flag. You knew that already.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
Monday, May 6, 2013
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were âoestrong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,â that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed.
Damascus has recently facing growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which President Obama has described as crossing a red line. But Ms. del Ponteâ(TM)s remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern. [...]
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
And throw in a Miley Cyrus or two while you're at it, just to make sure nobody's paying attention when the Syrian President gets his 15 minutes of media air to explain how stupid the whole accusation is.
It is none of our business to interfere in Syria or anywhere else in the world. That is a policy statement and now let's see the practical side of it a) We don't have money to fight another war. b) The gas attack might be cunning move to get US in to the conflict. c) the economy is in shambles d) Obama does not have to worry about a re-election, which means, he does not have a pull out strategy. e) We are going to send our young people to get killed for no reason. There will be looting, un-necessary killing and so on and so forth. Just think of the young ones who lost their lives in the needless Afghanistan and Iraq war for nothing but oil. Granted Afghanistan does not have oil, but none the less. those people who died they could have become someone else in their lifetime, but in turn they are forgotten, only to be remembered on select few days. g) The amount of money we will be spending on the war, we could easily spend on something else, like schools, infrastructure, Research and Development.
It will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted. Sheep will graze in the streets and lie down unafraid. There will be no one to chase them away. The fortified cities of Israel will also be destroyed, and the power of Damascus will end. The few left in Aram will share the fate of Israel
The armies rush forward like waves thundering toward the shore. But though they roar like breakers on a beach, God will silence them. They will flee like chaff scattered by the wind or like dust whirling before a storm. In the evening Israel waits in terror, but by dawn its enemies are dead. This is the just reward of those who plunder and destroy the people of God
Isaiah 17:12-14 (NLT)
On the other hand we've all seen the US (and allies) are often too eager to jump in and take care of business, at least as they see it. Of all the US wars since WWII, how many have turned out to *not* have been sold based on fabrications?
I think we need to worry less about whether or not this is a fabrication and more on how well previous interventions have gone. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly successes and I feel these should be warnings on how well the USA could fair here. Wars of territory are won more easily and permanently than wars of ideology. Add to the mix that both Russia and Iran are coming out in Syria's defense, then the USA and the UK are both risking a lot on something with shaky evidence. Even with conclusive evidence, entering into Syria without Russia's blessing could get messy. The bear might in reality just be growling to show its might without really caring, but is this something we want to test?
Once the war has been 'won' and Assad is out, who is going to step in to manage the power void? If lessons of the past show us anything, it is likely to be a shaky new power or dictatorship that will only lead to another civil war.
Given the current economic situation in both the USA and the UK, its probably best to stay out.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Call me skeptical, but...
I know it's been said there's no doubt that Assad is responsible for this. But is there actually any evidence of this? And if there is, why aren't we seeing that evidence plastered over the media?
Commense!
And my bitch aint one
What the hell. You'd think we'd have learned the first few times we went around playing world police.
There is no compelling national security interest in Syria. None at all. There is no legal justification for Obama to strike Assad without proof they were his chemical weapons, nor proof he was the one who used them, and without the approval of Congress.
Fuck Obama. He's proved to be just another goddamn failure.
That was a very interesting comment. I have not been following this case other than what has seeped in by osmosis, but what you are saying sounds both plausible and very different from the picture the media are painting. I'm trying to track down some of your sources, so I can read more about it (it would have been helpful if you had included URLs in your post).
1. Obama's red line.
2. I can't find the cat video in question on youtube, it seems to drown in videos of the more recent gassing episodes.
3. I think I found a source for the leaked emails, though the paste referred to in that article had been deleted.
4. I found this source for the Feburary home-made Sarin usage by the FSA
5. I this this is the FSA Sarin transport episode. I also did found other similar news from the same source: FSA chemical weapon factory discovered.
6. I found plenty of sources for the kidnapping indicent, including this
Carla del Ponte (a Swiss lady known for "nailing" the Sicillian mafia in the 80's and 90's, as well as being a head of the Hague tribunal for 90's Balkan wars trials) is now a member of the UN inspectorate in charge for chemical weapon use allegations. And she says, although there's no definite proof, that the attack was most likely committed by the rebel side.
Yet western powers don't care, while eager to overthrow Assad (he's a threat to Israel after all).
It's the Iraq deja-vu, UN is pushed out and the war's ready to go by a false flag pretext. Russian and Chinese are upset, but not ready to act beyond talk.
Apparently the USA is still powerful enough to do whatever they want, although this is about to change in next 50 years - not there yet.
That the NSA training is producing such witty posts.
Kudo, Astroturfer!
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
USA forces ready to strike anywhere in the world?
USA forces ready to pick on Syria to control Oil production?
I've spent some time on this matter. Here are my conclusions:
1). The Assad regime is bad;
2). The opposition is bad. At least, it's sufficiently bad that we don't want to be involved with them;
3). Syria is allied with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. Gee, what great friends!
4). Syria has resolutely rejected western ideas and involvement for decades;
5). There has been decades worth of anti-American and anti-western propaganda. This will have an effect and many (most?) Syrian citizens will be hostile to western involvement and ideals;
6). The Syrian opposition would take any aid offered to it. Then they would use it for whatever purposes they wanted and kick the west in the proverbial nuts;
7). Syrian opposition forces are using IED's and suicide bombs. Are these suddenly moral actions, acceptable to us simply because they are, or might be, on our side? Even nominally? I think not.
8). There are hints that the Syrian opposition might be using captured chemical weapons. I'm aware of the Assad government's motives in alleging this. Problem is, that doesn't mean the Syrian government is wrong. This is plausible. If so then very likely both sides are engaged in this behaviour. Even if the government does more of it... do we really want to ally ourselves with an opposition movement that would resort to this? I think not.
The Syrian people have my sympathy. Unfortunately that's all that they have. Actions have consequences and Syria's past actions (and likely future ones too) make me uninterested in any signficant involvement.
Here's what I would be willing to do:
1). Provide humanitarian aid;
2). Limit this aid to the bordering countries. Simply being present in Syria makes aid agencies a target.
The rest is for Syria and Syrians to sort out. It's a bad deal for them but we'd be mad to get involved. Especially with the still-fresh experience of Iraq and Afganistan.
Fuck yeah!
zosxavius photography
Well played, sir!
Looks like Mr President needs to stir the international pot - make a crisis - to take the eyes off of his accumulating presidential failures....
Come mid-October, the U.S. government will no longer be legally allowed to issue more debt, according to a letter written by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to Congressional leaders earlier today. That’s when the Treasury will exhaust the so-called “extraordinary measures” it has undertaken to avoid going over the Congressionally imposed limit on total federal debt of $16.7 trillion set in a budget deal in May.
Yeah...go ahead...and fall deeper into debt!!!!
Youve got defense contractors working for arms dealers launching these chemical weapons. US media brain washing. The military industrial complex keeping business booming. And everyone roots them on.
Obama gonna bomma em?!!
Of course if the American government wasn't such a bunch of transparent liars... Here is the proof of Biden's lies about who has access to chemical weapons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22425058 by Aum Shinrikyo
You can make Sarin yourself, as was the case in the Tokyo underground attack in 1995 by Aum Shinrikyo, now Aleph, All you need is some basic chemistry.
https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0320.html
So Biden's a liar and so is the UK and UK goverments.... well who'd have thought it?
argue that with a lawyer. Oh, wait.
I've already cited the Law in another thread. The UN Convention on Chemical Weapons.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
About fucking time. If the US wasn't busy being peace-nicks they could have ended this civil war by now and saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of misery.
The widespread use of WP against personnel would end war as we know it. No one would ever agree to risk that. Anyone who's ever even read about what WP does to people while it kills them would sooner take a hundred bullets than to die that way. For that reason, and only that reason, its use against personnel is banned by international laws and treaties which only Israel is known to have routinely violated (though there is some evidence of U.S. use as well, and all armies do use WP for legal purposes such as tracer bullets). No government wants to risk its citizens turning against it, rather than the purported enemy.
Nonaggression works!
Look at it like this. If war planners only ever planned a war when they had to go to war, they would be terrible planners. You have to practice your craft or you will be terrible at it.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Destroy both sides of the Sirian war and take over the country with a team lead by UN people who will make everything tidy and nice.
It will be a new country like SyUn
No one can have weapons in this new country in about 100 years of media controlling, gov controlling they won't remember who they were or what was the fitght all about.
Saadam kills 10,000 Kurds with poison gas. Bush plans for war. Obama condemns. Demos scream for Bush impeachment. Assad kills 1,000 Syrians with poison gas, Obama plans for war. Demos strangely silent. Proof point. DNC is as hypocritical as it claims GOP is. And, the nothing gets done in Washington.
Ah yes the Nazification of the USA continues with more WMD lies. How many times can they tell the same line of BS and get away with it? Not that I have any love for the Asad bunch as they are a bunch of murderous a-holes just like Bush/Obama and any other flunky in the whitehouse.
So instead of the star spangled banner or god bless america let's all start singing "Seig Heil Amerika" home of the incredibly stupid who can be lied to repeatedly and still go along with the lies.
Enjoy the hell you are allowing your "leaders" to take you into suckers.
In your military experience did you ever see a WP weapon? I doubt it. You probably have seen smoke grenades/shells that contain WP. To create smoke.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
the syrian navy?
Let Exxon-mobile and Halliburton foot the bill for the war, because they will be the only winners in this war.
Proudly Butchering code for 20 years
Obama and his Regime's slaughter of innocents at hospitals and schools in Syria, Iran and Moscow will bring swift condemnation from world governments and calls for Obama's death along with his subordinates.
Congress, having been shut out of the USA decision making process that led to the slaughter will react with hatred and venom for Obama and his 4th Reich Regime.
Obama steps into the Viet Cong bungie trap of his impeachment, felony trial, imprisonment and death-by-hanging for all to witness.
Broken promises, instigating in foreign countries, spying on our own people, decide what methods tyrants can use to murder their own people. Whether the shoot 'em, run over them with a tank, or gas them, they are still dead. Now we choose the "acceptable method". The tyrants are cruel, the practitioners of Shari are cruel, as are true Islamist s.. Why are we intervening?
chemical weapons was last week.
this morning, a fighter dropped either napalm or thermite on a fucking school.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594
" At least if you want to get into historic roles, nearly every former French colony is quite screwed up, so why should Syria be any different?"
Yes as opposed to former British colonies like Sri Lanka, Rhodesia, Uganda; not to mention the former British Indian Empire, now wonderfully split in two separate countries who hate each other.
All former colonial power have had screw ups. Grab some facts.
This is a massive big risk for the big O.
Russia has sided with Syria, we asked and they said no.
So an arrogant man might launch an attack in the next couple days.
What if that arrogant man then flew to Russia Sept 5th for G20 Summit
and a bunch of vehicles circled around the aircraft holding the
aircraft at the gate. Then pressed charges against a man they consider
a war criminal and want to escort this individual to the Hague for adjudication?
Bad stuff, Bad stuff, Bad stuff....
Could he seek asylum in Kenya?
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
America was the root of all evil, conflict, war and chaos all over county. Its all written in our history.
Its an ambush. The Russians have a very capable anti-tomahawk capability which they will be happy to used in defence of their friend Assad. Everything to gain and nothing to lose. On a good day its ECM can divert the missiles into innocent targets If Obama falls into this trap he will be sending a very clear message indeed.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
They require him to get a vote in Congress IF THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE US. Hence why all the hot water in Libya and why Obama claimed he did not deploy troops there, since no troops were actually on the ground.