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.
In 2007, retired General, Wesley Clark spoke about a plan existing since at least 2001 to attack several countries including Syria.
Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, which were never there.
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.
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!
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.
Technically, we already have a reason to attack, and we did the second one of their missiles hit our ally, Turkey. This is just casus belli.
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
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
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.
So seeing pictures of 100s of dead children being gassed by a chemical attack doesn't do anything for you?
did you forget to take your meds?
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
I always thought that when you wage war, they are supposed to consult with Congress first.
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
"Germans?"
"Forget it, he's rolling."
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."
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.
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.
Appeal to Emotion. Invalid. There will be more dead children, dead men, dead women, dead innocents, and dead civilians if we have a war. Is this the best course of action?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
... so you'd stop getting involved in all the crazy Middle East shit
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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.
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...
Only it's not at all clear who was responsible for that. The rebels have a vested interest in starting a conflict. I'm also skeptical as to whether chemical weapons were ever used, or if they were, that they were used by Assad. He has everything to lose and nothing to gain.
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?
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.
On this issue there have been conflicting reports on just about everything. You have to be very selective with what you choose to believe to blame one side or the other. As I said, even if chemical weapons were used, it's not at all clear by who. It wasn't too long ago Carla Del Ponte from the UN's inquiry on this issue was stating publicly that eye-witness accounts paint the rebels as the ones who used the weapons, not Assad's forces. Kerry likes to think that only Assad has access to chemical weapons but the US's record on WMD intelligence is, i'm sorry to say, lacking to say the least. It wouldn't be the first time chemical weapons were used by non-governmental forces. Aum Shinrikyo used sarin in Tokyo. Rajneeshee carried out a bioterror attack in Dallas in '84. If these things can happen under our noses in the west, you really think rebels with funding and support from nation states can't get their hands on any, or manufacture some?
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.
so the pictures of hundreds of bullet ridden and fire burned and cluster bombed (psst, made in USA) children from decades years past, of all the conflicts we DIDN'T care about nor get involved in did nothing for you?
what is so special about this case?
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
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
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.
The 20+ million imprisoned (and subsequently dead) Russians from Stalin's purges would disagree. As would the estimated 40 - 70 million Chinese starved by Mao.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
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