US Forces Ready To Strike Syria If Ordered 918
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.
As predicted in 2007, U.S. about to attack Syria (Score:4, Informative)
In 2007, retired General, Wesley Clark spoke about a plan existing since at least 2001 to attack several countries including Syria. [youtube.com]
Re:Bad Idea #1 (Score:5, Informative)
I'm still waiting for Congress (Score:5, Informative)
I always thought that when you wage war, they are supposed to consult with Congress first.
Re:hipocrites (Score:2, Informative)
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...
Re:hipocrites (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a question: What the hell is going on in Syria? So far as I can see it is one group of idiots who are being destructive and killing innocent people attacking another group of stupid idiots who are also being destructive and killing innocent people, with a whole bunch of people who have no voice at all caught in the middle not knowing what the hell is going on and just trying to get out of the way.
If this was correct, it wouldn't actually be that bad. You could atleast start bombing and force the two sides into talking to eachother Balkan style..
What you do have is Assad on one side, Al Nusra (batshit crazy muslim fundamentalist officialy al-qaeda affiliated) with some strongholds in south, you have various fundementalist groups roaming the less populated (north) east and the so called Free Syrian Army which try really hard to present itself as being "the opposition", while in reality the FSA are made up of many groups who barely talk to eachother. As seen from the number of fighters who have recently changed from FSA to Al Nusra it is also clear the FSA has strong fundamentalist ties.. although they are playing to "get in a position of power when the west goes in and wins the war"-game rather expertly. Syria was fragmented before this war, with several major groups with different religious and ethnic/political ties. Damascus and the south was always closer to Libanon and the it was the rest of Syria, and Aleppo was always close to Turkey and the Kurds.
In short, the entire situation is a fucking nightmare. I can't see any solution to this conflict, and getting involved in it will fuck us over too. I honestly see Assad winning as the least horrible solution to this conflict now... and that's one pretty horrible alternative.
Re:Tell me again (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Then it would be up to UN Forces, *not* US Forces to enforce any UN actions.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe the Chinese... but the Syrians were already firmly in the Russian sphere for years going back to the Soviet Union. I'm pretty sure we aren't there about that.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Informative)
The Arab spring was kicked off in Tunisia by the Manning wikileaks.
Is that a joke? The revolution in Tunisia ultimately happened because a food seller self-immolated after the government took away his goods, and it ignited a powder keg in the rest of the people who had had enough with the shaky economy, unemployment, lack of freedom, and government corruption and decided that it was time for a new government. Chelsea Manning did not incite revolution in Tunisia.