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.
1st (Score:5, Funny)
first strike
Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
...again.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
we will be damned for isolationism and disregard for human suffering if we do not act
Yes, it is too bad we were ordained by God to police the world. It would be so much better if there was some sort of organization that could represent the collective will of the nations of the world in situations like this. Maybe we could set up something like that. New York City might be a good place.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
If only the president would ask Congress first, as the Constitution requires for non-immediate threat issues. Approval, not notification.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
No 'ordainment by God' necessary. We're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just that we'll be condemned by different groups depending on our actions.
As for the 'collective will of the nations', I'd like to point out that the USA provides the lion's share of expeditionary support to forces in situations like this. We might not have more fighter planes than the rest of the world, but we have more aerial refuelers, more cargo airlift, more transport.
There's been rumors of Syria using chemical weapons for a while now, Barack Obama has reinforced the US policy of 'We'll go after anybody who uses CBRNE/NBC weapons', but has been waffling that Syrian weapon use has been unconfirmed. Well, if this is confirmation...
The idea is to save lives in the long run by putting limits on harsh regimes in that they don't want to risk the UN/USA coming down on them.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardly. We have a lot more options than just (invade | do-not-invade). We can help the refugees for one.
Right now this smacks too much of "wag the dog". A nice war against a "bad man" so that everyone can forget the NSA leaks. And a big party when we kill the "bad man".
The problem with that is that it is just as easy to kill thousands of people with regular bullets and bombs as it is with chemical weapons.
From a military standpoint, chemical weapons are used for two main reasons:
1. To deny terrain to the enemy.
2. To "soften" a "hardened" target. That's where the enemy is dug in so much that regular bullets and bombs are not effective.
That is not saying that chemical weapons cannot be used on a civilian town. Just that using them is no more effective than artillery or bombs or sending a infantry company in.
And that gets back to it being just as easy to kill people with bombs and bullets as it is with chemical weapons.
Why do we care so much that it is *CHEMICAL WEAPONS* as opposed to *BULLETS*?
Why would we not want to get involved if 10,000 people are killed by bullets? But 100 people killed by nerve agent and we're in an uproar?
I guarantee that we will kill/cripple more civilians in a war than they have killed/crippled with chemicals.
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta disagree with you.
If you achieve a quick breakthrough and everything goes perfectly, maybe. But if you bog down any at all there's only so long you can put off everything that's neccessary that NBC makes much tougher. Maintenance, supply, etc. That ammo you loaded up in your M1A1 better not have been contaminated. etc. lather, rinse, a lot because you've gotta decontam every time you turn around (or take a dump.)
And assuming you'll always have air superiority may be warranted for the US at the present
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
There is no "righteous side" in this conflict, and indeed I see the current role of the U.S. government in this whole mess as just being a catalyst to cause even more death and destruction by supplying arms and "training" to various people on both sides of the conflict. Yes, both sides are getting these arms and training. Russia is doing the same damn thing as are other military powers.
Heck, this whole mess could even be considered a clean-up operation from World War I where the French failed to be responsible for their jurisdiction over Syria when it was their colony. 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?
I certainly don't see any reason for America or anybody else for that matter to go to war over this mess. There certainly is no reason to even seek UN approval for going there either, of course why does anybody need "UN approval" for going to war in the first place?
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:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Israel is a parliamentary democratic republic, Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy with something they call confessionalism. It looks like Iraq does call itself an Islamic republic.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Qaeda are a bunch of posers. We are there to keep the Russians and Chinese out, period. It's a matter of interests. This whole idea of 'principles' or 'morality' is nothing but a bunch of fluff to sell a war. I don't think anybody really has to play that angle anymore. All that 'guiding light' bullshit went out the window in 2001.
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, Insightful)
What if the US just did nothing?
That's exactly what the US should do. Why is this the problem of a country half a world away? Where are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel when there is a war on their borders? Those 5 nations plus any other regional countries who want to see the war end, such as Saudi Arabia, are plenty powerful enough to handle the war themselves. So why are they looking to us? They don't need us or want us, and they take any opportunity to remind us of that fact also.
But anyone reading with any sense of humanity has to have some sort of emotional response to this?
Yeah, you would think that people in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel would have a moral problem with that behavior happening across their border.
However, if we don't get involved Al Quada will make up the opposition and form another Afghanistan.
That's pretty pie-in-the-sky, there's no proof that would happen. Al Qaeda seems pretty powerless lately. I don't think they are going to be taking over any countries. Maybe sharia Islamists in general, but not Al Qaeda. But the real question: why do we care what the future government of Syria looks like? Isn't that more of a concern for Syria and Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel? Why do we have some sort of right to dictate what should happen with a future Syrian government?
The Syrian government is only targeting liberal activitists and citizens defending themselves and ignoring the Islamic militants from foreign countries fighting in Jihad on purpose.
I don't think the government cares about the politics of the opposition, and there are Islamists on both sides. What the government cares about are that fighters are either attacking them or defending them. That's about all they care about at this point.
If we do get involved and play our cards right we stop Al Quada, and help the liberal and citizen oriented people wanting freedom, stop the killing dictator, and hopefully Lebanon and Iraq stabilize and we stop Hezbollah who is not fighting onside and we stop the 7 million refugees who left who are draining neighboring countries.
Good god man, where are you going with this? Instead of launching a few cruise missiles at some strategic targets and other launchers, now you're talking about vanquishing the evil Al Qaeda, supporting the freedom-loving and righteous liberals (let's ignore the conservative Islamists among the rebels for this narrative), taking out the brutal despotic murderous thug Assad, and while we're at it let's go ahead and stabilize the noble freedom-loving countries of Lebanon and Iraq. Oh, and we'll also take out the fascist, god-hating abomination that is Hezbollah, because why the hell not? I'm sure Iran will just hang out and watch. And then we can transport the good people that fled back to their homes on beds of rainbows and clouds. Did I leave out any adjectives that clearly and unambiguously delineate who is evil and who is righteous?
I don't think this situation is as black-and-white as you clearly think it is. This is a regional conflict, this is not some holy war between the forces of evil and righteousness. Both sides have committed terrible acts (should we talk about the rebels carving out and eating organs again?), there is not a clear path and frankly there is no reason why it should be the US, of all countries, that needs to swoop in and save the day. The neighbors of Syria and other regional countries bear the major responsibility for policing their own neighborhood.
If they set up a government or organization that decides to directly attack us, then you have my permission to launch the bombers and send in the troops. If they aren't attacking other countries, then it is a regional problem that needs to be solved with a regional solution.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. I just want my country to stay out of other people's affairs.
If they're world affairs, like WWII, I get it, but Syria's internal politics are their own responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
The moral argument is a bullshit argument and you know it. If the US actually cared, they would have been in Rwanda. Or another half dozen countries over the past few decades. The US is happy to sit by and watch full blown genocide at massive scales if there is no strategic reason for being there.
Plus, the US is not the world police, regardless of the propaganda. Honestly, I was in the States last week and was kind of amazed that the military commercials are all about how you're "protecting the world's interests". Not American interests. Not self defense. There's not even any vague shallow attempt at sounding like a defense force.
But let's be clear: it is a defense force. Defense force for American corporate interests abroad.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Interesting)
But they are world affairs. You try making an oil pipe-line from the heart of the middle east to China without going through Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. Now make one that goes to Europe through Turkey and see how important Syria and/or Iraq are. Iraq and Syria are key to blocking the oil from both Russia and China and forcing it to continue being shipped out via the maritime route, like it has been all along, or by pipeline to Europe. And if you have the biggest navy in the world (ie, the US), then you control maritime shipping and you can cut Russia and China off whenever you want. That's one hell of a bargaining chip.
Of course Russia has newly discovered vast oil reserves, massive natural gas reserves, and also a willing buyer right in the form of China right on its border. So nothing can be done about that. They can build other pipelines elsewhere. But at the rate China is growing, it's going to need far more than just Russian oil. It's going to soon need ALL the oil. And what's more, unlike the US, it can afford to pay. It has cheap labor and isn't hindered by countless anti-business or protectionist laws and unions that are the reason manufacturing fled the West in the first place. This has the US and its allies running scared and is driving their foreign policy - from the recent Georgian/Russian war, a complete failure for the US who was covertly backing Georgia, to setting the entire middle east on fire except, conveniently, Saudi Arabia and the small states near the entrance to the Persian Gulf.
Don't think for one minute that this "arab spring" is a spontaneous event. Remember that in politics absolutely nothing happens by "chance". Nothing. This is not about Saddam. Assad. Khaddafi. Mubarak. They are irrelevant. It's about controlling the direction of the flow of oil, and making it harder for "the other guy" to get at it unless he plays ball with you on your terms.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already spilled out of Syria into Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, who is our NATO ally.
And what are Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey doing about it?
Re: (Score:3)
IF w do, then we have to choose sides in Syria. Problem is, neither side winning would be a good thing for the US. In some ways, I would prefer we just keep our ore out of this cesspool. There is no upside for US.
As usual, there are NO easy answers in the middle east.
I suspect that we will bomb some "Aspirin factory" in the dead of night, kill some janitors and security guards and claim we took out some chemical weapon's factory. Think Clinton and Carter and the mess they both found themselves in becaus
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most in the US would rather not be involved...
Most in the US are hopelessly confused. Go read the comments on any main stream site on an article about Syria.
Obama's going to attack Syria because he's a damned liberal. Obama's going to attack Syria because he's not a liberal. Obama's going to attack Syria without a Congressional declaration of war because he's a damned liberal. Obama's going to attack Syria without a Congressional declaration of war because he's not a liberal. Obama should attack Syria. Obama shouldn't attack Syria. Obama is too wimpy to attack Syria because he's a damned liberal.
And around and around it goes. The only common thread is "damned liberal." Talk radio has been hammering on that phrase for years, and it's the only thing that has stuck. Everything else is wildly confused. Presumably because talk radio hasn't yet told their listeners what to think.
Wait a few weeks. The Powers That Be will figure out who is going to get paid besides the munitions companies, and then most of the country will be in favor of the attack that happens, because the box the little man lives inside told them to.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
I said nothing about lesser or greater people. That's all in your head. Nor did I say anything about Slashdot being calm and collected, or even correct. The only thing I know for certain is Slashdot opinion is different. It rarely if ever tracks mainstream opinion.
And no, we don't sound remotely like the comments on mainstream news site articles. Nobody on Slashdot is posting "God bless George W. Bush", not even in irony. But it's being posted in all seriousness on Syria-related articles claiming the invasion of Iraq was an excellent decision, and then trying and failing to draw some sort of parallel to Syria with that belief. And that's where the confusion shows up. It's not just "those stupid liberals" who think George Bush is still in office. Republican partisans are so heavily conditioned to respond with militant belligerence to anybody claiming the US armed forces shouldn't go somewhere that they're demanding the US invade Syria solely because Putin said they shouldn't, and referencing George W. Bush in their arguments, as if Mr. Mission Accomplished were still Commander in Chief.
Seriously, go read some other sites. My attempt to convey the utter confusion swirling around pales in comparison to the real thing.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Interesting)
The US government doesn't even want to do this, they would much rather do nothing right now.
But, a little more than a year ago Obama made a calculated bluff to discourage the Syrian government from using chemical weapons. Unfortunately they called that bluff shortly afterwards, but the US government tried to ignore it. Recently, the Syrian government made a mockery of that bluff, and now the US government has to take action to maintain credibility. This is for maintaining credibility, and since they have to blow some stuff up in the process, crippling the Assad regime's capability of using chemical weapons, conveniently eliminating the only thing that could draw them into this conflict again. Nothing more.
I predict that when this is over (which will be soon) the US government will keep very, very quiet about Syria.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no invasion and no bloodlust here.
Nevertheless, it's the same rhetorics again and again. "We have proof" without actually presenting it.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Ooh. A shiny new war. Goody.
No. This war has a great deal of mileage already.
Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Interesting)
why we keep spending money interfering with civil wars 1/2 way around the world??
War is Peace.
It's all explained in the novel "1984".
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
War is Peace.
It's all explained in the novel "1984".
This is a War on War. We are fighting to eliminate fighting!
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to human history.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
not only has the US violated human rights many many times, but the rebels aren't heroes. they have killed civilians and have lots of al queda members in their ranks
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is ever perfect. No one ever has clean hands. Yet if we use that as an excuse to never change anything, nothing will ever be improved.
The people who like to hang on to 600 year old religious, racial, or tribal arguments as an excuse to continue war are the people who fuel the conflicts. They never solve them. They're toxic.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
I said excuse, not cause. And I listed two other common excuses, and never claimed any to be a sole cause.
You are a troll, neither cute nor naive.
Re: (Score:3)
I like how TemperedAlchemist points out Russia and China and you counter with the USA having human rights violations... We're still peanuts compared to them.
Still, this is icky, I'll admit. My isolationist side wants to let Syrians do what they want, the humanitarian side perks up at 'using chemical weapons against it's own people' and wants to intercede.
Re: (Score:3)
Same holds for christians.
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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.
Rubbish! (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Vote parent up + sources? (Score:3)
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 [go.com].
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
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
>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.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know about the latter situations, but I remember reading about Rwanda. The problem there was that while we knew trouble was brewing, it happened both far more quickly and far quieter on the news/communications side than we anticipated. Roughly speaking, it was over by the time the politicians got around to authorizing military intercession, UN and elsewhere. Politicians are slow.
Other than that, the UN, including US assets, has interceded in many more occasions than those you list. First that come
Re:Tell me again (Score:4, Insightful)
Because otherwise they would be adding more bodies to the unemployment rolls. Plus weapons, unlike most other things, are still manufactured here, so they have to keep up the orders, and congress can't make up for all the slack on their own by JUST purchasing more equipment from their contracts than the military even asks for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
why we keep spending money interfering with civil wars 1/2 way around the world??
Watch this [youtube.com] and tell me if you still think this?
What if we did not? Do you have any idea what Syria is doing? They are targeting just the civilian and liberal elements of the opposition and purposely ignoring the Islamic militants who are jihading and sadly they are winning.
This means by next year we have the Taliban vs the dictator left and is a lose lose situation at this point. So the argument is if we get involved and stop Asad from murdering his own people and influencing the opposition we can have a pr
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
its easy: we have military 'toys' we need to use. if we want MORE next year ('we' do; well, 'they' do) then we have to spend what we have this year.
its only about our MIL and keeping those who run it ultra wealthy.
don't confuse justice or Doing The Right Thing(tm) here. its about us using our military to keep people convinced that we need to KEEP spending on 'defense'.
follow the money. like always.
Re: (Score:3)
why we keep spending money interfering with civil wars 1/2 way around the world??
To transfer money from the poor and middle class of the country to the operators of the military-industrial complex. Ike spelled this out, what, 50 years ago?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Tell me again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yay! Wag the dog! (Score:5, Interesting)
NSA what? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all this FREEDOM.
Re: (Score:2)
The idiots who get all gung-ho over war, and increase presidential approval ratings aren't ones that would ever approve of Obama.
Well, that's a generalization, but I'm sure the actual statistics would reveal a marginal overlap.
Re:Yay! Wag the dog! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, one doesn't have to be pro-NSA to imagine that the contemporaneous events really don't have anything to do with each other. The Syrian civil war started before Snowden. The NSA didn't order Assad's goons to use chemical weapons.
And one doesn't have to be a an expert in realpolitik to realize that no political decision exists within a vacuum. The Syrian civil war has indeed been going on for some time, yes, but American interest in this little conflict has been fairly negligible until very recently. That's mighty interesting.
Also, you seem to miss the forest for the trees: the NSA is merely a tool - a dangerous and powerful one, but a tool all the same - at the bidding of a widespread political power matrix which includes, but is not limited to, the current administration. You best realize.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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:As predicted in 2007, U.S. about to attack Syri (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org]
What will happen is we'll cement the power of the hyper-Islamists. big fucking mistake. the guys who invented this plan are TOOLS.
I hear some echos from the recent past ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or the slightly less recent past when Iraq was on "our" side; Saddam's Chemical Attacks On Iran 'Aided By US' [sky.com].
So... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are we going to be greeted as liberators this time? If so, we might want to not bother.
Clearly the answer to your question is simple... NO. This is the middle east, we are not going to be well received no matter what we do.
I'm usually against military action. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm usually against military action. (Score:5, Insightful)
After Iraq can we really take anything the US says about WMD seriously? I'm afraid US intelligence now has zero credibility.
Re:I'm usually against military action. (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I do not believe Assad used chemical weapons, and this looks like a charade pulled off to start a war.
The rebels have degenerated as they were infiltrated from so many radical groups with different agendas. At this point, if they win they will be just as bad as Assad, only less predictable. Who is the US intending to install in Syria? How are they going to control the nation? Has anyone learnt anything at all from Iraq?
Re: (Score:3)
We WANT the sunnis and shia to go to war. Before they could possibly settle that, they will be out of oil. It's like the Chinese fighting the Vietnamese in the 70s. All you can do is hope both sides lose.
Historically why do you think the Mohammedans stopped their wars of conquest? They were busy fighting among themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe Syria gov't has used chemical weapons any more than that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction...
How long will it take for people to suspect on what the read/watch on mainstream media?
Isn't enough to remember that the last time the U.S. blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack, that claim was debunked [washingtonsblog.com]?
No different than Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobel Peace Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Isn't that the military's job? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
See also: road work signs which say "PREPARE TO STOP". Aye-aye, I shall deploy the braking mechanism henceforth, and should be prepared to halt the carriage presently.
again? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
It is how you kill people (Score:3)
Egypt: kills hundreds with guns US: whatever
Syria: kills hundreds with chemical weapons US: oh noes!
Assumptions assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
The Winning Solution (Score:3)
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!
Re:Bad Idea #1 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad Idea #1 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
History is what you make of it: (Score:4, Funny)
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
"Germans?"
"Forget it, he's rolling."
Re: (Score:3)
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 W
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.
Not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Team America: World Police Part 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
"Turkey is definitely proving the smarter of the two NATO members here."
Turkey has to live with the results of its actions.
The US takes near zero casualties in modern war so "it's only money" and the government can borrow or confiscate all of that it wants.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.