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.
...again.
Because we joined the UN as a permanent member of the security council. It's our job to protect the rights of foreign people from human rights violations.
I mean I suppose we could resign from our position, supposing you like the idea of China and Russia being in charge the security council.
War is Peace.
It's all explained in the novel "1984".
This is a War on War. We are fighting to eliminate fighting!
Welcome to human history.
>So why now? Why not in Rwanda in the 90s? Why not in Burma in the 80s? Hell, why not when Assad Sr bombed the shit out Hama in 1982, killing 20 thousand of his own people?
Rwanda: no geopolitical advantage, UN deployed. NATO already knee deep in Kosovo.
Burma: minimal geopolitical advantage, Soviet supported dictator, UN deployed. Cold War active theatre.
Syria 1982: Iran/Iraq war, US already propping up Iraq. Act of war crushed Muslim brotherhood which was congruent to US geopolitical strategy in the region (secular Iraq) at the time.
Some of these moral dilemmas have good answers, but political white knights like to throw these reasons away as if "Well we shouldn't have been doing that". So what is it? Is the US limited or unlimited in it's power? Make up your damn minds!
You don't have to be okay with it, but please accept that the world is morally complex and going to war is rarely black and white. Also accept there are things in the present you cannot know.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Because we joined the UN as a permanent member of the security council. It's our job to protect the rights of foreign people from human rights violations.
I mean I suppose we could resign from our position, supposing you like the idea of China and Russia being in charge the security council.
The thing is, Russia will probably veto any action the UNSC attempts to make, because Syria under al-Assad is one of their biggest allies in the Middle East as well as a big purchaser of arms(essentially Syria is to Russia what Egypt is[was?] to the US). This would have 2 effects: it would help protect their ally/client, and it would force the US towards taking more unilateral action, which would further erode the US's image internationally, especially in the Middle East. The best course of action, as I see it, is that any reaction must include Middle Eastern forces. The most capable that I can think of would be Jordan or Saudi Arabia, maybe even Turkey. Give one of these states a critical role in any long-term operations, or use them to put boots on the ground. This is the only way(probably even with a UNSC resolution) to preserve the legitimacy of any kinetic/peacekeeping operations in Syria in the eyes of the Middle East.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
After Iraq can we really take anything the US says about WMD seriously? I'm afraid US intelligence now has zero credibility.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Syria is a majority Sunni country with a Shia dictatorship. Saudia Arabia (which is arguably a dictatorship of an extremely conservative Sunni-derived sect, Wahhabi) and Qatar (also a Wahhabi state) are providing the Syrian rebels with money and arms; Iran and Iraq (Shia countries) are supporting the Syrian government.
Russia has a naval base in Syria and has been protective of Iran. The US & UK have major military and economic assets in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
This has all the ingredients of a "Sarajevo" incident (and I mean 1914 and not 1992).
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.
why all of a sudden are we hating on the people we know we would all love to be?
Because they've won the game. Because there's no more room at the table. Because instead of encouraging us to join them, they're rigging the system to eliminate competition, crush innovation, and starve us out. Because those who have made it are exhibiting every sign of wishing to treat us as serfs, because they're better than us (obviously, because they have more money). Because class warfare has been ongoing for two generations, and as Warren Buffet has pointed out, rich people are conducting that war, and they are winning. Because they're buying legislation, buying favors, and buying the most effective propaganda machine ever created. Because for the first time since the founding of the nation, we are worse off than our parents. Because we owe more money and make less money, inflation-adjusted. And because the youngest working generation is the least working generation, because there are more people and fewer jobs.
Capitalism has failed. Its purpose is to allow the accumulation of capital in order to use it. It's not being used. It's being hidden in overseas banks, dodging taxes, as if taxes are some horrifying thing. It's being pumped into an enormously inflated stock market, desperately chasing fewer and fewer shares in companies that actually do anything. There are more millionaires and billionaires than ever before in history, and they are more risk averse than ever before in history. People who could afford to lose 99.99% of their money and would still never have to work a day in the rest of their lives are terrified of losing money.
That's why they're rich parasites, and that's why we hate them.