US Strikes Syrian Base With Over 50 Tomahawk Missiles (nbcnews.com) 755
mi writes: Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target -- Shayrat Airfield in Homs province in western Syria, the Defense Department said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired chemical weapons on Tuesday. There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site, including the runway, were hit. Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago." The report also notes that the strike "dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition."
More US warmongering (Score:3, Insightful)
It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Funny)
Initial reports are a kindergarten and two hospitals were hit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You forgot to mention that also two wedding parties were hit, all dead.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI, it actually was [cia.gov] a milk factory. Although Iraq did put up a big sign reading "Baby Milk Factory" after the bombing and other such things for PR purposes. Iraq actually was using milk byproducts for BW research, but at al-Hakam, not Abu Ghuraib.
CIA's own assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
What very few people are talking about though is that shayrat airbase was being used by the russian's for their attacks On ISIS and had russian military personel and equipment on site. Now Russia was warned so those troops (and probably most of the syrians) got out of the way, but Trump just attacked Russian troops.
That is not how you make america great again.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the Cold War, Russia has always tested the will and reactions of he U.S., especially when there's a new sheriff in town. Putin knew Obama wouldn't do anything when he put troops in Syria...he didn't do a thing when Assad crossed his "red line". Assad isn't acting w/o permission from his puppet master, and the gas attacks were getting top cover from the Kremlin, with claims they were caused by rebel production being hit...what utter bullshit. So, Trump is now calling the bluff, and I doubt we'll see a repeat of the gas attacks, but who knows for sure what the next move will be.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since the Cold War, Russia has always tested the will and reactions of he U.S., especially when there's a new sheriff in town
Absolutely! I find it "fascinating" that they do that...but you forgot to mention that this is standard procedure exercised by ALL serious military powers. For instance, air space is regularly and deliberately violated by all sides to test readiness and the capabilities of their respective detection systems.
Re: (Score:3)
My take is a little different. Russia was told, they got out and we destroyed some concrete. Russia will rebuild it in a month. Everyone is a winner. Donald looks good, look I took action on bad bad chemical weapons, and Russia did not lose much if anything and Assad lost 6 soldiers. All for what was a war crime. If Russia really wanted to stop it, they could have told Donny not to, and he would not have. Further they could have intercepted the cruise missiles, they can. But none of this happened. Who knows
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that Russia is reporting 6 jets destroyed, a radar system, a supply warehouse, hangars, and other facilities - and other sources reporting even more (including 3 additional jets) - getting hit wasn't exactly cheap either.
As for your false flag conspiracy stuff, why are you spending time over here when you could be actively contributing at forums.911wasaninsidejob.net?
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Now reading from RT https://www.rt.com/news/383807... [rt.com]. The US managed to kill 2 civilians, three soldiers and injure seven others (so obviously the Syrians were fully aware of the attack and it looks like one of the missiles went a little astray), with a claim of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles fired, with an approximate cost of $1.59 million each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], excluding firing costs, for a total cost of $93.81 million, excluding firing costs, operation of vessels and crew, which could really blow that figure out, likely double. So who was punishing whom for what is looking like a false flag gas attack (did the US government just roundly punish US taxpayers), although people really did die but it is looking like they were kidnap victims from pro-Syrian government villages who were murdered. So all in all, just what the fuck is going on, this is looking all sorts of crazy. A profitable day for Raytheon McDonald Douglas but it makes the US look like a pack of idiots. So panic of the Obama spying on Trump disclosures, the Clintons are feeling prosecutorial heat, Trump has been set up for impeachment with an attack upon another country without Congressional or US approval or Raytheon McDonald Douglas, were bitching because profits for this quarter are a little low and demanded expenditure. Make no mistake, the attack was clearly rushed because the false flag story was falling apart and now the evidence will expose Uncle Toms Obama's Syrian rape brigades as the actual culprits and Trump will be blamed for acting with congressional approval, what a stupid debacle. It seems very much like the US spent more money than the damage they caused, especially when the US government values foreign people with brown skins at $2,500 per https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com].
The goal wasn't to kill people, it was to make it harder for Syria to undertake attacks like this in the future. So you take out hangars, fuel depots, aircraft, and runways. And when you are hitting an airfield, you don't just hit it once and call it a day. You have to put multiple craters on every runway as well as damage ramp areas and support facilities. One crater on a runway can be prepared pretty quickly. You put holes all along every runway and you knock that base out for weeks at least.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Appropriate and measured response to the nerve gassing of innocent civilians two days ago. A clear message from the West to psycho Assad and trouble maker Putin.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Informative)
Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but the target was a military airfield. The one that they launched the sarin attack from.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not about money, it's about sending a message. Because I wouldn't be surprised if using those weapons set back the US more than it did the side owning the targets.
In the short run, maybe so. In the long run, what's the value of deterring use of chemical weapons? How the value of US credibility when we make threats? That's surely worth something, particularly if the US wants to continue being the international police man. (Maybe the US isn't the best international police man, but we've done better than any other country that's held the post. Certainly better than Russia or China would do, if you value any type of freedom.)
Re: (Score:3)
WW2 was the penultimate time US meddling in foreign affairs turned into something that was eventually better for the locals. The last time was Korea, by the way.
Everything since has been one train wreck after another, culminating in the total destabilization of the Middle East. I still don't understand why you had to remove your former lapdog Saddam. I just don't get you. He always did what you wanted him to do, you could order him around and he'd be a good little boy, even served well as a whipping boy whe
Re: More US warmongering (Score:4, Informative)
Lest you disagree with me: Here's a nice summary: It dismissed the possibility that evidence supporting the US government's conclusion could have been manufactured by the opposition, stating it "does not have the capability" to fabricate videos, eyewitness accounts, and other information. The report also said that the US believed Syrian officials directed the attacks, based on "intercepted communications."[12] A major element, as reported by news media, was an intercepted telephone call between a Syrian Ministry of Defense official and a Syrian 155th Brigade chemical weapons unit commander in which the former demanded answers for the attacks.
Here's the actual US government report: https://obamawhitehouse.archiv... [archives.gov]
Re: More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
The first gas attack in Ghouta in 2013 was confirmed by the UN to be initiated by the (US backed) rebels.
Incorrect. The UN report only confirms that chemical weapons had been used, but said nothing about responsibility. This is the conclusion from the UN report on Ghouta: [undocs.org]
108. The United Nations Mission concludes that chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic.
Ghouta, 21 August 2013
109. The United Nations Mission collected clear and convincing evidence that chemical weapons were used also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013.
110. This conclusion was based on the following:
(a) Impacted and exploded surface-to-surface rockets, capable to carry a chemical payload, were found to contain Sarin;
(b) Close to the rocket impact sites, in the area where patients were affected, the environment was found to be contaminated by Sarin;
(c) The epidemiology of over 50 interviews given by survivors and health-care workers provided ample corroboration of the medical and scientific results;
(d) A number of patients/survivors were clearly diagnosed as intoxicated by an organophosphorous compound;
(e) Blood and urine samples from the same patients were found positive for Sarin and Sarin signatures.
The US, UK, France and Human Rights Watch blame Assad based on the trajectory of the rockets and type of rocket used (see Appendix 5 of the report). The Russians claim the Syrian government handed them material proof that the rebels carried out the attacks [independent.co.uk], but to my knowledge neither Russia or Syria ever made that evidence publicly available.
You're free to believe what you like, but don't misrepresent what's in the actual report. We're Slashdot and we're better than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Syrian military jets attacked the site, according to every report - even the Russians agree with that. There's documented evidence [hrw.org] that Syria has been carrying out chemical attacks repeatedly for years. And attempts to place blame on the rebels are implausible at best [news.com.au], described as "laughable" by experts from the US, Britain, Israel, Turkey, and others.
Re: (Score:2)
It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.
America's been at war there since 2014 [wikipedia.org].
What is the point? If you're going to get involved in a military conflict, you should have a clear objective, and get it done quickly. What we've done is allow the war to drag on with no clear objective. What a waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Interesting)
Wasn't he supposed to be a Russian sleeper agent, or something? Slashdot has been telling me so for months, now.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. when the US does it in its own interests, it's 'warmongering.'
US is #1 arms dealer to the planet, if war is happening, US is profiting.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Insightful)
You know arms dealing is a type of control, right? We really don't want our frenemies to buy arms somewhere else.
Re: More US warmongering (Score:4, Interesting)
The US delivered top notch war material (F14s, Phoenix missiles, etc) to Iran in the 1970s back when the Shah was "our man in Iran". That was bleeding edge military hardware at that time. The Iran had the fourth largest army on the plant at that time (behind US, USSR and China).
And then in 1979, over night our man in Iran was kicked out and that Khomeini took over. And he was anything BUT our man. And we couldn't even simply roll over them for not playing nice because that Ayatollah now had top level military hardware, that would decidedly NOT have been a war like desert storm which was pretty much like a boxing match between Mohammad Ali and some 3-year old. That would have been a war that deserves that name.
Lucky for us we managed to convince a local warlord to do the dirty work for us and destroy that Ayatollah's top of the line equipment. We remember that as the first Gulf War [wikipedia.org].
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Informative)
US is #1 arms dealer to the planet, if war is happening, US is profiting.
It is kind of ridiculous to think the US profits from war just because it is the #1 arms dealer. It is certainly expected that the country with the #1 GDP would also be #1 in arms dealing. And if you look at the size of US arms exports, this industry makes up 0.05% of US GDP. International instability is a far greater risk to the US economy than any gains it could have from arms exports.
If you include the potential strategic benefits of winning a war then you have at least a rational argument, but as it stands your entire comment is just trolling.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: More US warmongering (Score:3)
Doesn't matter if it was a false flag or not. I think the policy of "Every time someone uses chemical w alone in Syria, Assad loses another Air Base" is pretty sound. If its a false flag, that's a pretty big incentive for Assad and Putin to regain control of any chemical munitions controlled by rebels.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody else sells nearly as much. But interestingly the top 5 arms dealers in teh world are ALSO the top-5 members of the UN security council and the only countries with veto rights.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Informative)
Well, if the US had not destabilized the entire region by failing at nation-building it's unlikely that any of the current events in Syria/Iraq would have occurred.
This doesn't mean the US bears responsibility for actions that other countries perform, but it's just a matter of fact that US warmongering has created a massive power-vacuum in the middle-east which has lead to the rise of the current clusterfuck of issues.
Using overseas wars as a distraction from domestic politics comes with a price.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I heard this story on the radio this morning, the most surprising bit was that Syria is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
I'm sure last week it was the destabilization of Iraq that was the cause of ISIS.
Can someone send me the memo from the Ministry of Truth as I missed that one.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
When I heard this story on the radio this morning, the most surprising bit was that Syria is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
I'm sure last week it was the destabilization of Iraq that was the cause of ISIS.
Can someone send me the memo from the Ministry of Truth as I missed that one.
Oceania has always been at war with Syria.
Please report to the first room on the first floor for further information.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not what I said or meant and I'm pretty sure you know that.
Yes, this is what happened but the thing is once a state the size of Iraq collapses into quasi-anarchy the conflict does not stay confined to the borders of said ex-state. Without the collapse of Iraq there'd be no isis, and without isis the situation in Syria wouldn't be as messy as it is now. There might and probably still would be a civil war in Syria, but right now that war is made a lot more complicated and bloody by isis, which is opposed by both Assad, Russia and the US but the defeat of which is made more complicated because said 3 factions are also opposed to each other. The US is trying to get rid of isis and Assad, Assad/Russia is trying to get rid of Isis and the rebels, and the rebels are trying to get rid of Assad and isis. There is no easy solution to this mess, because if the US removes Assad from power it's likely that Syria will be in even worse shape than it is now, as it is unclear which faction outside Assad's regime has the skills and the resources to maintain control of Syria.
Backing Assad means backing the sole Russian ally in the region which the US cannot do, but this also means that realistically speaking getting the conflict in Syria contained is extremely difficult, much more so than it would be if this was a war with only 2 sides.
Can't tell the players without a scorecard! (Score:3, Informative)
You didn't get any "insight" mods, but I think yours was one of the better comments so far. However, you did leave out some of the key players in the mess.
In particular Iran was the big winner of Dubya's war against Saddam, and they seem to be playing a similar game in Syria now. Basically just laying low and moving into the power vacuums that appear. They would gladly consolidate a Shia caliphate if they could. Turkey is quite nearby and extremely concerned, though it is hard to tell if they are more conce
Re: (Score:3)
Hard to see how things could get worse (especially in Syria and North Korea)
I think the US starting wars simultaneously with Russia and China might count as things getting worse, unless you're a big fan of WW3.
Re: More US warmongering (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike the British and the French, who carved up the Middle East and Africa into colonial empires with no regard for the local population. They did just fine and bear no responsibility for anything.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Was the job in Germany and Japan not finished properly? You have to commit to it over decades, and you can't do it alone.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Interesting)
News is already coming in that the terrorists have launched a big offensive towards the town of Al-Furqalas (known to Google Maps as Al-Furqlus). Surprise, surprise! Turns out Al-Furqalas is just 20 miles - half an hour by the local roads - from the Shayrat Military Airport.
What a lucky coincidence that the terrorists just happened to have all the men, vehicles, weapons, ammunition and supplies to launch a major offensive just when the USA took out the airbase.
And just 20 miles away too!
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
While the second Iraq war provided the opportunity for ISIS/ISIL to form, they didn't become big players until two main events. The Arab Spring in 2011 caused unrest in the region; notably in Syria, which devolved into civil war giving them a window of opportunity to spread their influence (both by persuasion and by force). And the capture of massive amounts of U.S. military weapons that had been given to Iraqi troops. The Iraqis fled from ISIL's advance leaving the weapons, rather than stood to fight because U.S. troops had been withdrawn from Iraq to keep Obama's campaign promise. I think most would agree now that that withdrawal was premature, and the Iraqis could've used several more years of training and support before being left to fend for themselves.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Yeah Bush dropped the cake on the floor. But Obama tried to shove it under the carpet to meet a self-imposed deadline, instead of truly cleaning up the mess. Of course the ants were going to find it. And the situation with Syria being caught in a tug-of-war between the U.S. and Russia dates back to the Cold War, and arguably all the way back to the end of WWII and the formation of Israel.
If you really dig down into the root cause of instability in this portion of the Middle East, I'd blame the Europeans for carving up the region after they defeated the Ottoman Empire [staticflickr.com] in the first World War. They drew those borders with little to no consideration for the indigenous cultural, lingual, and political boundaries. As a result, you have disparate peoples forced together into the same "country" trying to form a unified government. And (in the most extreme case) the Kurds [wikipedia.org] - 28 million people spread across as minorities in four countries without a country to call their own.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't that the Iraqi troops were afraid of the small group of ISIS fighters comping from Syria, but they knew that the minute they showed up the Suni population was going to rise up against them and they would find themselves sourrounded, outnumbered and cut off from their supply lines
Re: (Score:3)
U.S. contractors and soldiers massacring Iraqi civilians and being immune from prosecution was a big reason for Iraq not wanting to sign a new Status of Forces agreement in 2011.
From what I remember, the Kandahar massacre [wikipedia.org] was the last straw.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if the US had not destabilized the entire region by failing at nation-building it's unlikely that any of the current events in Syria/Iraq would have occurred.
The claim that the U.S. caused the Arab spring, even when its used derogatorily like you are doing, is pure bullshit American hubris. Your claim that Saddam was the guy that held the entire middle east together is a fucking joke, right?
What we did was influence the Arab spring. We certainly crippled the government of Libya. We certainly funded the rebels is Syria. Leaving Iraq when we did was a bigger mistake than it had been to invade in the first place. Our mistakes in Iraq began with Bush Sr and continued under Clinton. If right from the beginning in 1991 we had been bombing with prejudice all the places the U.N. inspections had been interfered with, one way or another Iraq would not have been the thorn it became a decade later. We didnt enforce the 1991 capitulation.
All these rebel movements, the Arab spring, is a result of something older than any significant American interference in the region. The spring provides the manpower that enables our interference.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Saddam held iraq together. With despotism and an iron fist for sure, but he did keep it together. The removal of him and failure to provide Iraq with a functional government lead to the formation if Isis, which together, combined with factors you listed has made the current geopolitical situation as complicated and as bloody as it is.
No-one is saying that without Saddam's removal there'd be total peace in Syria/middle-east, but it should be pretty obvious that the way Iraq was handled has contributed to the situation in a major, major way.
The US did not singlehandedly cause Arab spring obviously, but their geopolitics and interference in the region amplified the effects and not for the better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saddam held iraq together. With despotism and an iron fist for sure, but he did keep it together.
Before calling for the return of a dictator that killed over a million of his own people, blame the man who created the power vacuum the Daesh grew into. Obama's cutting & running out of Iraq ASAP (and clearly before the government of Iraq was ready) fulfilled a his isolationist campaign promise but was the much greater and more proximate cause of the rise of Daesh. The American military presence in Iraq was a moderating force on their Sunni/Shiite strife and continued U.S. support of the Sunni Friendsh
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Informative)
The "creation of the power vacuum" was actually the result of Donald Rumsfeld PERSONALLY and UNILATERALLY deciding to disband the Republican Guard, rather than turn them into local peacekeepers. THAT SINGLE ACTION was what created the Iraqi insurgency and ISIS.
Sorry to disturb your narrative with facts.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only created a power vacuum, it left tens of thousands of trained Iraqi soldiers without jobs or means of income... many with families to feed.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Funny)
There's no proof he used any Sarin gas. He relinquished his chemical weapons in 2013 and John Kerry even praised him for it.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
He relinquished his chemical weapons in 2013
Apparently he and Putin lied about it. I'm as shocked as you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Putin resupplied Assad. Just finished searching for "insightful" comments, and yours (no insult intended) was as lacking in insight as any of the others. Also checked for "funny", but not surprised by the lack there, since it's not a funny topic.
I'll review again later, but the real question is why Putin let Assad do it, if it was actually Assad's people. Still quite possible to me that other actors are involved, though I'd pick Putin's people over the rebels. Actually I think ISIL would be the most like
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Informative)
Yes there absolutely is. Apart from many people suffering with sarin symptoms, and the fact that Assad has done exactly this before, there have been autopsies on three victims:
http://www.npr.org/sections/th... [npr.org]
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/05/... [metro.co.uk]
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real question is whether Assad did it, or the rebels (in order to provoke a reaction from the US).
No sorry, that's not a real question just an attempt to sow doubt that you have been sucked into.
It's a "when will you stop beating your wife" question designed to imply that someone is beating their wife whether they are or not.
Putin and the people working for him are very good at asking that sort of "question" and that is where this one comes from. See what has been said about Crimea for the last few years for many examples. The "questions" about Ukraine shooting down MH-17 (instead of Russian troops who provided anti-aircraft support for rebels doing it, which appears to be that actual case) are some of the more obvious ones.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't pretend to know who did it, but I think a very relevant question is who gains from the release of chemical weapons? Right now I can see ways in which the rebels gain, Trump gains, the US military-industrial-complex gains, and even perhaps Russia gains some perverse way. Assad, on the other hand, what does he gain? Perhaps he thought he could simply get away with it and took a huge gamble that the international community wouldn't respond. That would demonstrate extremely poor judgment for a dictator who has held onto power for 16 years. In any case, I really hope politicians in the US can put a lid on things. This has the potential to spiral out of control fast.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is you're thinking about it from your point of view - i.e. that of a rational actor.
You could apply the same logic to saying who gains from bombing their own civilian population including women, kids, and hospitals with barrel bombs, he's only creating generations more hate towards himself, it's an irrational act.
And therein lies the problem. Dictators are not irrational actors, they believe themselves to be untouchable, they've built a personality cult and are surrounded by yes men. They believe themselves to be infallible, indefeatable. That view will only have grown when Obama warned of red lines for chemical weapons use, but then did not act on them. It'll have only grown even more when Russia rocked up and turned the tide of the war for him.
Do not for one second believe that Assad would think rationally, even that's assuming it was Assad's decision at all. For all we know it could've just been a local commander being fed up as fuck of seeing his men dying left and right and said to hell with it, I want you to bring in the gas.
Trying to argue that it doesn't make sense because an irrational actor acted irrationally in itself doesn't make much sense.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Interesting)
Putin and the people working for him are very good at asking that sort of "question" and that is where this one comes from.
After Saddam's weapons of mass destruction [wikipedia.org], after Nayirah's testimony [wikipedia.org], after Afghanistan involvement in 9/11, after a lot of other "facts" that I'm not listing here (including alleged atrocities committed by Gaddafi), I'd say that sort of "question" is quite legitimate.
Re: (Score:3)
Do I have to drag Zombie Reagan up out of his grave to give you turncoats a talking to?
It's truly strange that "conservatives" decided that Ghaddafi was no longer an evil prick exporting terrorism just so they could find something bad to say about Hillary. Well Hillary is never really going to be relevant now so there's no longer any reason to dishonor the 189 Americans who died on Pan Am Flight 103 and the many other things Ghaddafi was involved with.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Insightful)
So complicated false flag stuff is OK without evidence but a suggestion that someone in politics is lying is not?
I think you have it backwards.
A lie is a lot simpler than a massive conspiracy theory that involves a group with very little in the way of resources killing their own members instead of using the very effective weapons involved against their enemies.
Maybe instead of a complicated Tom Clancy plot it's a lot more simple to suggest that this is just Putin's obvious lie number 2000 or so.
Besides, it's an opinion. Why do I need evidence for my opinion when you do not need it for yours?
Re: (Score:3)
I will add (Score:3)
Also there was very little US reaction to the earlier chemical weapon attacks in Syria so that reason sounds incredibly unlikely. Elvis alive today riding on a unicorn unlikely.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Informative)
With Assad's own jets? Evidence says no [news.com.au].
Re: (Score:3)
But there is a reason that military action normally requires international agreement. Say, a UN resolution, or something.
Yeah, sure. Now if we could just convince Russia (permanent member of UN security council with veto rights) to allow military action against its allay.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Interesting)
Right. But since when was "we could not get approval to do it our way" a valid reason to do away with international law?
The law itself looks more or less fine, but it is difficult to take it seriously, since the arbiter is not independent.
Mind you, this is not to say that under certain circumstances, it isn't permissible to say "fuck it", and just do what you have to do. But to me, it would not seem that all possible options had been exhausted before the use of deadly force.
I understand that neither of us is international policy expert, but given the situation as it is, what other options are there?
Re:More US warmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how the rebels keep bombing themselves with chemical weapons while never hitting Assad-controlled areas with them. And how they keep simultaneously destroying their hospitals at the same time. Silly rebels!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amazing how the rebels keep bombing themselves with chemical weapons while never hitting Assad-controlled areas with them.
They did. The first reports of usage of chemical weapons in Syria were about the rebels using them against Assad. [bbc.com]
Moreover the manufacturing of dangerous chemical components is quite easy. The difficult part is to use them effectively against an enemy. It is far easier to use them in false flag operations, than directly hit your foes.
And how they keep simultaneously destroying their hospitals at the same time. Silly rebels!
The rebels sold all the medical equipment they found to hoard money for their war. Those hospitals were already destroyed.
Re:More US warmongering (Score:4, Informative)
From the (referenced) Wikipedia article on Carla:
Since September 2012, Del Ponte has been a member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic,[9] under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
In May 2013 she accused the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons, a view diametrically opposed by the majority of Western government officials. She stated, "We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas."[10] The following day, in an apparent reaction to Del Ponte’ comments, the Commission issued a press release clarifying that it “has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties in the conflict”.[11]
In March 2014, the Commission published a report that stated that the chemical agents used in the Khan-al-Assal chemical attack bore "the same unique hallmarks as those used in Al-Ghouta" in the August 2013 chemical attack. The report also indicated, based on "evidence available concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used" that the perpetrators of the Al-Ghouta attack "likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military". In none of the incidents, however, was the commission’s "evidentiary threshold" met in regards to identifying the perpetrators of the chemical attacks.[12]
But I know that nothing that you say to a "false flag conspiracy" theorist will ever be listened to.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, nice try, but that's not what the United Nations, which investigated the issue had to say. What the UN determined about the incident is that it was most likely a Syrian friendly fire incident. And specifically that the claim that rebels had captured or weaponized these materials is highly implausible given the data. Khan al-Assal (an incident, it should be noted, from four years ago - the government has been attacking rebel-held areas several times a month with chemical weapons since then, with only
Re: (Score:3)
"I think the real question is whether Assad did it, or the rebels (in order to provoke a reaction from the US)."
Occam's razor applies.
What is more likely:
1. A regime that has manufactured Sarin gas and used it in one or more previous attacks on it's own people.
2. Rebels manufactured Sarin (not an easy process) or captured chemical precursors, mixed them appropriately (Sarin has a short half-life and is not stored pre-mixed) and engaged a highly risky strategy of attacking their own supporters in the hope the US would attack Assad, despite the US not having done so on a previous much worse attack.
Making sarin is actually quite simple, what isn't simple is making it pure enough that it can be stored. Now binary munitions (mixing before or during use) are a good thing for chemical weapons, the source materials are less poisonous that the result (otherwise why not use the unreacted chemicals) and thus reduces risks for the attackers.
There are more than two parties in the Syrian war BTW.
3. As a Syrian paper claimed: Asad's bombers hit a rebel chemical weapons storage that happened to mix the Sarin precursors within useful limits (despite one precursor being highly flammable) and "accidentally" gassed civilians. And then by a total coincidence shelled a hospital treating the victims.
That's just noise. Why should we accept that:
. You know what the Syrian paper wrote.
. That the Syrian paper knew what
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like in 2017 he found a few leftovers and decided it would be a shame if they went to waste.
$93.8M of my tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Neat, more than $93M ($1.59M unit cost according to wikipedia) gone in a single (non war related) strike. /s
Thanks goodness he saved money by cutting the budget of EPA and NSF!
Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
This was the least expensive course.
War is expensive. avoiding it can be almost as expensive.
Re: $93.8M of my tax dollars (Score:5, Interesting)
The US dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. 12,192 of them on Syria. - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-president-barack-obama-bomb-map-drone-wars-strikes-20000-pakistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html
Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars (Score:4, Funny)
If a real war breaks out, I don't want the US military sitting on old missiles. They replace them anyways even if they don't shoot them. Surely it is more fun to use them.
Re: (Score:3)
lol did you really not know the reason, or is it hip to be ignorant again?
Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
The reaction on Twitter is interesting.
Many Trump supporters upset that he is using military force, because one of the major reasons for voting against Clinton was the allegation that she was a warmonger.
Many other people worried that Trump has found a new way to get the media talking about him again. His tweets were becoming less effective (boy who cried wolf) and we really don't want missiles to become his new cry for attention.
Re: (Score:3)
The reaction on Facebook is also interesting, in a "what the fuck is going on?" kind of way.
I saw "Hillary Clinton" was a trending topic and was wondering why so clicked on it (something I rarely do). I was amazed to see it was basically wall-to-wall coverage of some comments Hillary made about bombing Syria, followed by gems like this person [facebook.com] basically blaming Hillary for the bombing.
From a quick glance there appear to be many people citing this story and abusing Hillary for this action. I am not American s
Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars (Score:5, Informative)
This is how it works now. Lies are not as effective as false narratives, so you mostly see false narratives trending. They are harder to refute, and more convincing.
Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
Historically such interventions have not been cheap or ended well. I suppose Trump thinks he is a genius who will win where others have failed.
Why are they so expensive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why are they so expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why are they so expensive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.
For this strike, they used the newer type "E" flavor, which have two-way satellite communication features, rather than being strictly program, fire, forget.
That allows them to be re-targeted while in flight (and some of those flights can be lengthy) in reaction to revised intel about, say, the presence of someone or something in a spot they don't want to hit.
Interestingly, it took the two destroyers a good half an hour to get all of these in the air, so the early units actually loitered above the target, doing laps until the rest of them could catch up, and then all were used on their targets within just a couple of minutes.
Re:Why are they so expensive? (Score:5, Funny)
Why are Tomahawk missiles so expensive?
What price are you charging for yours?
Another promise out the window! (Score:4, Insightful)
These actions seem to be yet another thing that run contrary to his rhetoric. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, I'm just saying, he sure doesn't seem to be a man of his word.
Re:Another promise out the window! (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine the political pressure on Trump to do something to show he's not Putin's puppet has been pretty high. That's not a statement for or against this attack... but the strike may have served multiple purposes for the President.
Other post was a bit misdirected (Score:3)
I thought Clinton was the warmonger? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you quite sure? (Score:5, Informative)
'Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."'
That's odd. Here was I thinking that the NATO air strike on Syrian Army positions last September, which killed about 100 Syrian soldiers and wounded about as many more, was a "direct American assault". It was immediately followed by a mass terrorist attack that overran the Syrian Army positions - which had previously held out stubbornly for years. Almost as if the terrorists had known about the air strike before it happened.
Of course, maybe some Americans think that killing a mere 100 soldiers and wounding another 100 doesn't really amount to an "assault". After all, they are Asian Muslims, aren't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Wag the Dog (Score:3)
In other news this morning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
Maybe US should just get out of the middle-east? (Score:3)
By "get out" I mean no military intervention, no foreign aid (except for emergencies like natural disasters), no weapons sales, and no immigration by mid-eastern nationals (except for very select cases).
1) Money, and weapons, always end up in the wrong hands.
Hamas is getting their money from Qatar. The US gave Qatar $11 billion. We might as well have given the money directly to Hamas. ISIS is using US military equipment. There are many more examples.
2) The US will be blamed, and hated, even more than it already is, by everybody in the world, especially Muslims.
Any military intervention will be called an invasion. The US will be accused of killing civilians to steal the oil of whatever mid-east nation we are "helping" this week. If we help tribe A, tribe B will hate us even more. Then tribe A will hate us as soon as we stop helping them. All casualties will be blamed on the US, even if most casualties are the result of Muslims killing other Muslims. And there is always that one-in-a-million soldier that does something completely out of line, and that is all the media will focus on.
3) The US can no longer afford the outrageous expense.
The US is drowning in debt. Our credit has been downgrading. Our economy is in the toilet. Yet we borrow more billions from China, to give to mid-eastern Muslim who hate us.
4) There are no "good guys"
Does it really matter if Syria, or Iraq, or whatever, is ran by insane Sunis, or equally insane Shites? Our friends today, are our enemies tomorrow. I believe both Saddam Hussan, and Osama bin Ladan where our buddies at one time. Between Assad and ISIS, who is the good guy? They all seem like murdering thugs, why pick sides?
5) Even if you win, you lose.
Over ten years, and I don't even know how many billions of dollars, or thousands of lives, or how much suffering, in Iraq. And now Iraq is being overrun by ISIS. Even before ISIS, it was non-stop terrorist attacks. If we stop ISIS than what? Peace for two weeks?
6) Other than buying oil, the US has no business there.
Clearly the US does not want another nation interfering in our politics. In only stands to reason that other nations do want the US interfering in their politics. The US may have good intentions, but other nations will not see it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the Slashdot community should be discussing this via telepathy then.
I'm quite sure that the majority of Slashdot readers are capable of having multiple windows open, and not relying on Slashdot for general ewws.
Re:Rape Putin in da his cornhole (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, cause removing the only source of stability is such a great idea. Just look at Libya now.
Re: Rape Putin in da his cornhole (Score:3)
Libya is so freee now! So cool
Re: (Score:3)
Re:some perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I want the US to have nothing else to do with Syria. But using chemical weapons is simply too awful and too horrific to ignore. We can't stop parties from making or using the things, but we can damned well make sure there are painful consequences to doing so.
If not Assad, then who? The Russians aren't this stupid.
Re:some perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. I want the US to have nothing else to do with Syria. But using chemical weapons is simply too awful and too horrific to ignore. We can't stop parties from making or using the things, but we can damned well make sure there are painful consequences to doing so.
Why is it too awful? The death toll from this particular attack is a lot less than from many conventional airstrikes. The fact that people are somehow less accepting of chemicals than of just bombing people to death with explosives is insane.
Re: (Score:3)
“False flag” does not answer “then who”, but more importantly, what war crime can't be written off as a false flag operation? If an army bombs a hospital either by mistake or as a tool of terror, just label it as “false flag”. It would be stupid to do it, so someone else did it. Who exactly? I dunno, must be the enemy.
Using gas to poison your own population makes twisted sort of sense — use terror to subjugate people. The more horrific the crime, the more effectiv
Re: (Score:3)
Just slap an arduino on the missiles and make it IoT or something and bob's your uncle.
Re: (Score:3)
"Throughout 2016 we were told that Clinton would 'declare a no-fly zone over Syria'... "
Hopefully you noticed that one of the people who told us that was Hillary Clinton herself. It wasn't speculation by pundits or her political opponents, she said it directly on multiple occasions.
"and cause a war with Russia"
You tell me. Russian planes were flying missions in Syrian airspace. How do you think the Russians would have responded if the U.S. military started shooting down their planes?
There were plenty of
Re:I thought you said Clinton would do this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
A great many people (at least one, here on slashdot in reply to me) however used that as a justification to vote for Trump. Because apparently it makes some sort of moral difference WHICH brutal dictator you suck up to and which you oppose (hint: it doesn't - a good president would be opposed to and, if need be, willing to go to war with BOTH Russia and Syria) ?
We were told that her tough stance on Syria was a reason to vote for Trump, because, his voters seemed to believe: he would stay out of the Syrian mess and not provoke Russia.
He has now BOMBED Syria. Do you seriously think Russia is happy right now ?
Isolationism is an incredibly stupid idea, both times America ever tried it there was a world war, one of those times ended with the largest military attack on home soil in history. Now I won't say that hte US hasn't thoroughly fucked up in it's international role since world war 2 sometimes - hell I've repeatedly cited the fuckups, like removing a democratically elected leader in *insert list of over 50 countries here* to install a dictator, going to war in Iraq etc.
But, and this matter, over-all they global liberal order has stood - there has not been another world war. The US has kept wars local in this time, to it's own and the world's benefit.
Isolationism would dismantle all that, and almost certainly lead to a new world war.
Now the truth is also that the world, over the past 3 years, have reach the closest point to a world war since the last one ended. Tensions have not been this high in 70 years. Countries around the world are flexing their muscles and itching for a fight. I'm not a Clinton fan (I WAS a Sanders fan) but I did think she had the knowledge, experience and acumen required to hopefully keep a lid on things and calm things down. It was a longshot but it was also the ONLY shot. The one thing I was sure of was that a blustery buffoon like Donald Trump was the absolute worst possible person to have in charge of the US military at a time like this. A brash, loudmouth, egotist with authoritarian and fascist tendency who appeals to ethno-nationalist sentiments - worst possible person for the job.
Nobody saw world war 1 coming, the markets didn't even shift until 3 months after the events that started it. The tensions were there, the build-up is obvious in retrospect, but it was not visible at the time.
Now though, with the benefit of having seen it there - I see the same patterns in global geopolitics today. And it takes extremely skilled leadership to steer through this without igniting another one. No rash decisions can be made. 99.9999% very careful and skilled diplomacy, and the tiny 0.000001 surgical precision military strikes - that's what could keep things calm and resolve these tensions without breaking out.
Trump has none of the qualities required. Clinton did - she'd STILL be a longshot because of the other world leaders out there Merkel is ONLY other one who is up to the task. Could the two of them keep things calm ? I don't know - but there was a chance. With the election of Trump - there is no chance. Indeed a no-fly zone over Syria with diplomatic pressure to force Russia to accept it could potentially have been exactly the right approach. It would certainly have reduced the likelihood of bombing Syria today.
Do not be surprised if, in future decades, historians refer to this week as the week world war 3 started. And no, the poison gas attack would not be the start- Asad's been doing that for ages. It's this strike, this morning. This strike could very well be the first strike of world war 3.
I hope it isn't, I hope there is no world war 3. I hope that the leader of the free world Angela Merkel (oh remember the good old days when that title belonged to whoever was POTUS ?) and the leaders in her European alliances (France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia) have the wisdom (and the scars) to manage to keep a lid on things even in a world where Trump has the big red button.
It's not a big hope, but it's hope and I cling to it. I have never so badly wanted to be wrong.
I just fear I'm right, because it's far more than a possibility, it's a strong probability.
Re: (Score:3)
The International Red Cross agrees with my assessment, now calling the Syrian war an international armed conflict.
At this time, it is still unclear what exactly happened. The UN wants an investigation, the Russians claim that an islamist bomb factory was hit, causing the poison gas explosion, neither side can be believed because they are all far from independent.
What we do know is that Turkey is trying since 2013 to make the USA cross the red line, and has been caught selling poison gas (the same, interesti
Re: (Score:3)
Why are the West the bad guys for intervening against a war criminal, but Russia isn't a bad guy even though it's also carrying out war crimes by bombing civilian populations, by annexing sovereign foreign territory (Crimea), by shooting down an airliner full of civilians over the sovereign territory of a nation it is attacking, and by backing a war criminal?
Because we are the subject to propaganda no less than anyone else in the world. Let's dissect that statement:
"bad guy" is not a term likely to be found in any law book. So you are making a moral argument, but I was making a legal one.
Then you are mixing Syrian and Crimea as if they were the same thing. While western propaganda links them, there's no legal connection between the two.
Bombing of civilian populations is done by all sides in Syria, they all claim that they target military targets (or "terrorists