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.
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
NSA what? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all this FREEDOM.
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.
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.
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.
For not being the person named George W. Bush who was the 43rd President of the United States.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Usually you get a pace prize for being an exceptional member of the faculty at Pace university. Not sure how a Harvard teacher got one of those. As to the peace prize, basically everyone, including Obama said it was unwarranted, and it was really dumb.
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.
... even going to be an attempt to get authorization from congress? Or, is that something only republican presidents do?
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.
For having a higher amount of melanin in his skin, and for not being George Bush.
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.
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
That and attacking a country within a week or two of chemical weapons use, instead of 15 years after the fact.
Seems like an important distinction...
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I always thought that when you wage war, they are supposed to consult with Congress first.
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.
Just a guess. But, it seems to me to be the only explanation that makes any sense at all.
I really wish that was true. There were videos coming out of Syria last year of a supposed chemical weapon attack that didn't show up in the media at all, and received no response (at least not publicly). There was also a reported incident earlier this year (in March I believe) that was reported in the media, but nothing came out of it other than some pondering about the action the US would take. This time we actually are paying attention. 3rd time is the charm I guess?
"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."
What was that pace prize for again?
Seems it was awarded BEFORE peace broke out. OOPS... I'm guessing they will be reconsidering their mistake for a long time on that one.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
I do remember that alleged attack in..May, I think?, but it was apparently a tiny tiny tiny attack. I was willing to chalk that one up do some idiot loading the wrong rocket.
But this was an attack on 4 or 5 different cities all at the same time (2am). Obviously not an oops, and the pictures coming of those victims make it obvious they were hit with a nerve agent (microscopic pupils, etc).
Could it be a false flag attack? Maybe, but I doubt it. Too organized and coordianted.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
welease wodger first, though!
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.
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.
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.
Poorly worded comment, but yes, I think that the Nobel committee is kicking itself for giving him the peace prize before he even did anything.
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.
Hahaha no, they're not stupid or insane.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
MOD parent UP...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
For all that HOPE and CHANGE we were promised back in 2008. How's that working out again?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.
So Assad, who is winning the civil war, needlessly uses chemical weapons which is the exact thing that will get Syria attacked by the U.S.? A little too convenient, don't you think?
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.
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?
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.
Countries have been acting like this since the beginning of countries or even cities. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote about this in his famous book called The Prince, which explains why sometimes the actions of a government, especially that government's military, sometimes seems to be at odds with common sense or at least any sort of moral authority and ethical behavior.
There is not right or wrong, just what is in the best interest of whatever part of the world you happen to be in. Even ideology takes a back seat to geography and "national interests".
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.
Iraq had chemical weapons because they were used. As for why it took so long to respond to those chemical weapons attacks can be said was stupid, but Iraq certainly didn't hesitate to make them and deploy those weapons.
Of course the whole WMD argument against Iraq was stupid in the first place as it was just a fabrication to justify going to war there. Iraq did try to make some nukes, but that was stopped by Israeli bombers that destroyed the reactor before it could be started and happened a decade before the chemical weapons attacks.
The real point of the Iraq War was simply to clean up the mess that should have been dealt with during the Gulf War, but that the King of Saudi Arabia didn't want to see happen.
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.
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?
...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?
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.
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.
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?
Bring the pain, bitch.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
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
I'm pretty sure the sitting president cannot accept prizes or gifts of any sort, but can only accept them on behalf of the U.S., and they either get displayed in the White House, or shuttled off to be cataloged.
Don't you also want to have proof that it was Assad who used chemical weapons and not so called "rebels"?
3rd time's the charm and action is being taken based on he said she said. I vastly prefer the method of Iraq of using false evidence rather than no evidence.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
While i like with life imitates art, it should NEVER imitate The Onion. If and when it does, someone fucked up somewhere.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
If Congress didn't vote deploy troops, he can't do it. The situation in Syria is not an immediate threat to the US.
No! you must be young.
We *supported* Saddam while he made the WMD and supported his war with Iran. He was our paid man doing our dirty work with funding and resources we provided. Those were OUR weapons doing OUR work!
"It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq." -- Ted Koppel, Nightline, 1992
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?
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
It's hard to call the public dumb when they are intentionally misinformed. In the US, we used to poke fun at the poor Russians and how they were misinformed by the Pravda. Today, our corporate owned monopoly of media does the same things we used to despise the Pravda for.
The hard part is breaking people out of the cave and teaching them to see delusion. I think that it's becoming easier today, because the propaganda has become so obvious. In addition, the internet has given a way for independent media to work outside of the corporate owned media.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
American support for Iraq was tepid at best and acknowledged as just a temporary thing even while it lasted. Iraq was really a long time supporter and backer of the USSR, with Iran being the stalwart American allay in the Cold War. Indeed the Iran-Iraq war was mostly a battle of Soviet equipment and tactics employed by Iraq vs. American equipment and tactics (but being cut off from parts resupply) on the part of Iran. Iran also had a huge manpower advantage, and the war pretty much ended in a stalemate. Saddam Hussein was a huge admirer of Joseph Stalin and even hung portraits of the guy up around his various palaces, with the attitude that if "Uncle Joe could do it, so could I". He also didn't mind looking to Khrushchev for some leadership examples either, including how to stand up to the USA if necessary. The Shah of course was a huge fan of America, and supposedly even had a long-term goal of westernizing to become more of a British style constitutional monarch if possible. The people in Iran weren't interested in taking that much time to transform though.
American involvement in Iraq was mainly to keep that war as a stalemate instead of letting Iraq collapse and be overrun by Iran. Iran was technically winning the war, and no doubt a united Iran + Iraq would have been formidable in terms of conquering other parts of the Middle East. I doubt that such a "United Islamic Republic" would have been so easy to stop as what happened in the Gulf War. There were perhaps legitimate reasons for backing Iraq in the late 1980's and early 1990's even if it meant that the whole war north of the Persian Gulf ended up just bleeding both countries dry.
The more I look back at the American invasion of Iraq though, the more I question if it was the right thing to do. At the time it was going on, I thought it was dangerous to be essentially train the U.S. Army to become very good at becoming an occupying army as opposed to a liberating army as those same tactics and training can be used domestically. That in particular was not even a political discussion at the time in America, something I think is unfortunate. Indeed it still isn't something widely being discussed.
Meanwhile the puppet Barry Soetoro is anxiously waiting by his telephone for the call from his puppet masters over at "Big Oil" (tm).
Before the war, Syria used to export 200K barrels a day. That's not big oil, that's small potatoes.
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.
not tepid, billions of dollars and many interesting deals to benefit Bush family and cronies made
Assad's opponents are al Qaeda supporters.
Orwell had nothing on what the US does - simultaneously fighting and supporting a supposed enemy.
IMHO, the Internet (as in: independent news) is overrated. Most of the MSM are just parroting, sometimes even verbatim, what the Pravda^WReuters-AP-AFP-... are writing, and the rest, well, they don't have an audience big enough to matter. And even if... people would selectively blend out news that don't agree with their worldview. Or, said another way, you don't need an info monopoly to manipulate people; they do that instinctively themselves.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I mostly agree with you. Where I disagree is that without alternative sources lifting the curtain of propaganda is extremely difficult. Why do you think China tries so hard to control everything their people hear and read?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Nobel committee has now shame.
Compared to many past choices Obama is a saint. e.g. Arafat for the right wingers, Kissinger for the lefties.
But the Nobel committtee are hardly alone. They gave a Pulitzer prize for 'Red Star Rising': Pure propaganda, in a league with 'Triumph of the Will'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
duh, '...has no shame...'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No wonder you post anonymously, good lord you are nothing but a string of fallacy. Yeah, because the only news Americans have access to is CBS, NBC or ABC or CNN. Thats it. The majority of Americans get their news from exclusively those sources. Your sarcasm is a fallacy, because I never stated that it was the only way people "could" get News and specifically pointed to alternative sources which do not have or receive air time on TV. Recently however, RT has been popping up on some systems. For the 2 months it has been on Comcast in the SF Bay area, it shows "Lease" in the title so most people would not know to look for alternative News there.
For your middle paragraph, you lumped yourself into "We're all" and not myself. Yet another string of fallacy, thanks for playing "I have a Red Herring!"
Oh, and by the way, the american public is overwhelmingly against any military involvement in Syria. But that must no be true cause I got it from CNN.
Ahh, more fallacy and partial fact to back your offense that US Media has become anything but "Journalism" in Broadcast News (and even some print "News" is force fed by the Govt [ see whistle blowers regarding the NY Post ]). Those number change drastically if the people are convinced Assad has used chemical weapons. But hell, we probably should not let any facts get into your cowardly anonymous rant should we?
Naw, don't bother answering any questions since they were purely rhetorical.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You wait around till they stop fighting for you then you go in and teach them a lesson so they don't not listen to you again.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
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.
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.
It may have been billions of dollars, and certainly the Bush family benefited, but the relationship wasn't really all that strong, nor did Saddam Hussein really think much of America either. It was more "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of stuff and certainly was not the foundation to build a long term relationship.
Besides, a billion here and a billion there, and eventually you might be talking real money. American support for Iraq was not to help them win, only to force the war into a draw. That doesn't sound like something very helpful at all.
It wasn't much earlier that there was the Iran-Contra scandal, which tried to smuggle arms into Iran as well.
On the whole America has been playing one country off of the other for some time, usually to screw over both those countries and America at the same time as a result.
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?
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
That the NSA training is producing such witty posts.
Kudo, Astroturfer!
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
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....
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.
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
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.
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
It is none of our business to interfere in Syria or anywhere else in the world.
This is laughable. You don't think it's the US's business when we've got a situation verging on regional war which could (amongst other things) cause an oil crisis that could take the entire world economy down the toilet, and/or pull in Israel and their nukes? The US should wait until that happens before acting?
What is laughable is getting us in to another war. You do realize that if US attack Syria, we will be AQ's air wing!
and to add to this: Do you really think the Israel and the nukes are coming in to the picture. No body wants a nuke war. Not even Syria's allies, Russia and China. Look what happened to North Korea. Too much ratteling and then chinese stepped-in and that guy is quiet since then. What is needed in Syria is a strong diplomatic solution, Get China and Russia on the ally list and then show Syria that we got a bigger stick than you can ever imagine. Till then, keep our hands to ourselves. It is not a really hard thing to do you know!
Regardless of why US supported Iraq back then, that support involved knowing and approving of the use of poison gas by Iraqis, to the point of designating targets for them (thankfully, only military - the Kurdish villages that Saddam gassed were his own pickings).
Regardless of why US supported Iraq back then, that support involved knowing and approving of the use of poison gas by Iraqis, to the point of designating targets for them (thankfully, only military - the Kurdish villages that Saddam gassed were his own pickings).
Are you suggesting that the Bush I administration deliberately planned and approved the deliberate use of poison gas by Iraq upon its own citizens, in particular the Kurds?
No doubt Iraq and Saddam Hussein planned and used those weapons. That is also the reason why a decade later it was presumed that Iraq still had those weapons, since they had previously been used. Perhaps that was some grand conspiracy on the part of the "globalists" who wanted to set up Saddam Hussein as the fall guy for using weapons and then being accused of using them as rationale for going to war to remove him from power.
That sounds like one hell of an elaborate plan to me. Care to tell me other conspiracy theories?
Are you suggesting that the Bush I administration deliberately planned and approved the deliberate use of poison gas by Iraq upon its own citizens, in particular the Kurds
No. What I'm saying is that the Bush I administration tacitly approved the deliberate use of poison gas by Iraq on Iranian soldiers, and in some instances went even further and provided intel for targeting purposes, knowing full well that it would be used for poison gas attacks - and at no point did it cease aiding Saddam even after the full extent of his willingness to use gas was obvious to everyone. Kurds were collateral damage that Saddam claimed on his own.
Not necessarily. Dont' forget Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to brilliant malice that which is adequately explained by abject stupidity and greed.
I have found that observing that rule has been a steadfast guide when dealing with my fellow human beings and Slashdotters alike. Rarely is it wrong, and used with precision it helps separate the basic nutters from the conspiracy kooks, the idiots from the clueless, and the noisy dolts from the truly insane.
In this case, I read in a more detailed press report (one of those things you rarely see anymore in this new age of journalism) that it was likely Assad's crazy and ruthless brother who launched this attack. Applying Hanlon's Razor, I imagine the conversations went something like this:
In Damascus:
Assad: 'WTF did you just do, moron?'
Assad's Brother: 'Used some of those weapons Dad gave us on those d**m m*f'rs.'
Assad: 'Idiot. Now we're going to lose a few pharmaceutical factories.'
In D.C.:
Analyst: 'The Syrians just gassed a bunch of their people.'
Obama: 'Idiots. Why are they goading me into a response?'
Analyst: 'No idea sir. As you know, our intelligence network is unreliable outside U.S. borders.'
U.S. Defense Contractor:
PHB 1: 'Hey, looks like the Brass will be placing an order for replacement military gear soon.'
PHB 2: 'Awesome.'
Russian Defense Contractor:
PHB 1: 'Hey, looks like the Syrians will be placing an order for replacement military gear soon.'
PHB 2: 'Awesome.'
Where in the above conversations is evil genius required?
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
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.
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.