Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Forces Ready To Strike Syria If Ordered

timothy posted about a year ago | from the peace-in-our-time dept.

The Military 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.

cancel ×

918 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685337)

first strike

DEFEND SYRIA! (-1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#44685359)

DEFEAT U.S. IMPERIALISM! Mobilize the power of the working class!

Here we go... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685383)

...again.

Re:Here we go... (-1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44685445)

Apparently the longest the U.S. is able to hold its bloodlust for invasion is a decade.

Re:Here we go... (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44685621)

There is no invasion and no bloodlust here. Most in the US would rather not be involved, and know we will be damned for isolationism and disregard for human suffering if we do not act and damned for adventurism and disregard for sovereignty if we do.

Re:Here we go... (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44685691)

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... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44685721)

Luckily, we have an ally of each side of the war exercising Security Council veto powers, so the odds of having to get involved are less dire than they might otherwise be.

Re:Here we go... (4, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#44685757)

New York is noisy. Mount Rushmore [wikipedia.org] is a better place.

Re:Here we go... (4, Insightful)

rea1l1 (903073) | about a year ago | (#44685711)

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:Here we go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685755)

Most in the US would rather not be involved

So why are we fucking doing it?

Like, I can see the clusterfuck from here.

Re:Here we go... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44685735)

Ooh. A shiny new war. Goody.

bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685387)

Bullshit. Same lies same results.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685425)

Same CIA BS

Tell me again (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44685405)

why we keep spending money interfering with civil wars 1/2 way around the world??

Re:Tell me again (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44685421)

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 (5, Insightful)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#44685459)

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 (4, Funny)

scubamage (727538) | about a year ago | (#44685473)

Error, infinite loop detected.

Re:Tell me again (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44685489)

Welcome to human history.

Re:Tell me again (5, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a year ago | (#44685429)

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:Tell me again (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44685483)

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 (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a year ago | (#44685749)

I'll reply to this first comment, since it's been vocalized a lot by dissenting members.

Now you're catching on.

You're catching on that it's person with the big stick that gets to make the rules. Who is going to come after the US? Come on, please, no one is.

It's a big publicity stunt, I fully agree. I agree that the security council is effectively next to to useless. But have you asked why it's so useless? It does have actual power to do things -- you know like congress. It's because, like congress, we're at one another's throats and can't agree on anything. Russia tries to do something we don't like and we veto it. the USA tries to do something Russia doesn't like and they veto it.

Imagine the only plausible alternative. If we drop out of the game who is going to veto Russia? The UK? France? Russia's neighbor? C'mon let's get real here.

As much as people like to whine about how congress can't get anything done, about how presidents still can't do much, have you actually put thought into exactly how much work it would take to change things? Politics is a delicate, silly game that requires you to make publicity stunts and trade things your opponent wants for things you want -- like some delicate game of chess.

It's a good chance for the USA to flex its military muscles and show the rest of the world that yeah, Iraq wasn't too great. But challenge us and we'll tear your country to pieces.

Re:Tell me again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685549)

The UN security council, where Russia, which does not like an intervention in Syria, has veto power?

Re:Tell me again (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#44685551)

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.

Well that sounds great IN THEORY. But that sort of shit happens ALL THE TIME, except a whole lot worse. The only thing that's maybe a little different was the use of chemical weapons: at last, weapons of mass destruction! Even if the destruction wasn't that massive.

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?

Re:Tell me again (5, Insightful)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year ago | (#44685763)

>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:Tell me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685555)

What about domestic human rights violations?

Re:Tell me again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685565)

I'm impressed with Slashdot today, the honest, correct answer was actually modded up (we'll see if it stays up). I was expecting the neo-isolationists to moderate in force as well as posting in force.

Re:Tell me again (1)

scubamage (727538) | about a year ago | (#44685587)

You know, that's the first time I've seen someone raise this point, and it is a very good one. The sad thing is, the security council is pretty much, well, a stopping point for any effectiveness of the UN. It'd only get worse if we didn't keep ourselves there - at least we (theoretically) can push for our voice there to say something (if the people of the US could stop watching Miley Cyrus' twerking and stuffing their faces for the 2 minutes it takes to call their congress critters). To my knowledge, China doesn't offer that. And I won't say I have enough knowledge of Russia's civic system to venture a guess one way or the other.

Re:Tell me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685597)

Oh good, so our "job" includes attacking and/or invading other countries that have used chemical weapons against their own people?

Then Iraq 2003 was not a mistake after all. Thanks.

Re:Tell me again (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44685615)

That isn't exactly how the security council actually works... Sure, we have some very nice, wonderfully principled, declarations to that effect; but they are totally optional (especially for boring genocides that none of the permanent members give a fuck about).

Re:Tell me again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685673)

But we're not acting under UN directives from the Security Council. This is unilateral action outside of any UN findings.

Re:Tell me again (3, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44685437)

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:Tell me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685497)

Because the photo-shoots look really good when the background is composed of cheering marines, air craft carriers and such. Apparently starting a war is now a permanent fixture on every president's bucket list.

Re:Tell me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685533)

oil, oil, oil. With less than .5% of the world oil production this one gets less attention from the US.

Re:Tell me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685543)

you want the military industry to starve? they make important contibutions to important politicians, you must be one of them hippies to think war is bad

Re:Tell me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685613)

THE AXIS OF EVIL.

I think only Iran remains...

Re:Tell me again (0)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#44685765)

No! The US is still alive and kicking.

yeah, go ahead, -1

Re:Tell me again (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year ago | (#44685661)

Because of their WODs, oh wait...

Re:Tell me again (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#44685713)

why we keep spending money interfering with civil wars 1/2 way around the world??

'Cuz 'Murica! (fuck yeah!)

Re:Tell me again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685745)

Injustice occurs throughout the world regularly and doesn't garner coverage or wide US intervention. The "leaders" of this country pick their fights wisely, it's all strategic marketing in a bad economy with loads of rightful distrust by our (US) citizens. The NSA/Snowden deboggle, economic/"job" state and wealth divergence, fed-up citizens, etc. all lead to an angsty population tired of the current "leadership" (governmental and private) in this country.

Like a magician it's all about misdirection and like the Roman Colosseum games, something to entertain and change the focus except football only goes so far--war everyone can relate to, fear, and stand unified behind a sense of nationalism. What the hell is wrong with people?

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685407)

Again?
We just had article where USA allowed use of chemical weapon and now this?
I ain't gonna trust USA with that...

1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685415)

Good morning, sweetie. Could you pass the milk. Let's see who we are at war with today... Heh, where are the funnies?!

Yay! Wag the dog! (5, Interesting)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#44685417)

NSA what? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all this FREEDOM.

Re:Yay! Wag the dog! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44685481)

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.

Fuck off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685553)

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.

Re:Yay! Wag the dog! (1, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about a year ago | (#44685557)

NSA what? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all this FREEDOM.

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.

Re:Yay! Wag the dog! (4, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#44685693)

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.

hipocrites (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685433)

When Israel dumps white phosphorous on Palestinians that isn't a chemical attack that justifies a "strike?" What about when they just spray Palestinian homes with foul smelling liquid in an attempt to make the homes unlivable so they can be torn down and replaced with new housing projects exclusively for Jews?

Re:hipocrites (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44685517)

This is because white phosphorous isn't classified as a chemical weapon by the powers that decided on the "no chemical weapons" rule. Nevermind that it was invented as an essentially identical replacement for Napalm once Napalm was declared a war crime.

Re:hipocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685573)

WP is an incendiary and is just as illegal to use against civilians as chemical weapons.

Re:hipocrites (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44685595)

I think since we're dealing with international law here, you're going to have to define "illegal" and the original source of your conclusion.

Re:hipocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685695)

The use of incendiary weapons against civilians is banned by the Geneva Conventions and the CCCW. However, using it as a tracer is not prohibited and if those tracers should happen to hit a person, well... all's fair and all that.

Re:hipocrites (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44685583)

Don't forget that the USA originally took that land where the Jews are currently living by force (in 1947).

The USA now has to back the Israelis up or it might appear weak and end up as Palestine's bitch! (or something like that)

Re:hipocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685677)

Your history is all mixed up. Palestine was controlled by British empire at the end of WWII.

Re:hipocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685715)

When Israel dumps white phosphorous on Palestinians that isn't a chemical attack that justifies a "strike?"

White phosphorus is used to create smoke clouds as well as to incinerate targets. To my knowledge no Palestinian has ever been killed by an Israeli white phosphorus attack, which seems to imply the former use.

What about when they just spray Palestinian homes with foul smelling liquid in an attempt to make the homes unlivable so they can be torn down and replaced with new housing projects exclusively for Jews?

That's a pretty loose definition of chemical weaponry :)

Another war is stupid and unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685435)

What was that pace prize for again?

Re:Another war is stupid and unnecessary (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a year ago | (#44685535)

For not being the person named George W. Bush who was the 43rd President of the United States.

Re:Another war is stupid and unnecessary (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44685541)

Usually you get a pace prize for being an exceptional member of the faculty at Pace university. Not sure how a Harvard teacher got one of those. As to the peace prize, basically everyone, including Obama said it was unwarranted, and it was really dumb.

Re:Another war is stupid and unnecessary (1)

scubamage (727538) | about a year ago | (#44685611)

For having a higher amount of melanin in his skin, and for not being George Bush.

Re:Another war is stupid and unnecessary (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | about a year ago | (#44685687)

That and attacking a country within a week or two of chemical weapons use, instead of 15 years after the fact.

Seems like an important distinction...

Bush Term IV (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685455)

I was dumb enough to vote for George W Bush the first time, but not dumb enough to vote for him a second time. Somehow, he managed to survive through four terms somehow...

As predicted in 2007, U.S. about to attack Syria (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685471)

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 (3, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | about a year ago | (#44685635)

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.

Stwike them wuffly! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685475)

And thwust them to the ground

Always at war with someone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685485)

We've always been at war with Syria oops I mean Eastasia

who gassed who (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685503)

does anyone doubt the rebels wouldn't go to the extreme of gassing civilians then claiming it was the government? Doing it to get US and others involved.

It would be great to see someone not just saying there was a gassing but provide proof of who done it.

Re:who gassed who (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44685639)

The question being where the rebels would have got the weapon from. That seems to be the crux of the matter, that US and the rest of NATO believe that only the regime has custody of these weapons, and if one or more were used, then only the regime could have done it.

Re:who gassed who (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44685683)

actually there were prior suspected chemical attacks in that war and it was suspected that it was the rebels who had used chemical weapons

Well, that's a trip (0)

Huntr (951770) | about a year ago | (#44685511)

Just found out my buddy's son is there because I saw footage on the news of his destroyer parked right there off Syria. Wild way to find that out.

Bad Idea #1 (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#44685521)

Why should the US have the right to strike another country? The US strikes Syria and then Syria strikes the US and we start a war, so how about sitting down and thinking about the best course of action first. Weak men / women go to war, strong men and women find ways to settle the issues with out having to strike blindly.

Re:Bad Idea #1 (5, Informative)

scubamage (727538) | about a year ago | (#44685633)

Technically, we already have a reason to attack, and we did the second one of their missiles hit our ally, Turkey. This is just casus belli.

Re:Bad Idea #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685697)

To answer your question since you missed it:

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.

I hear some echos from the recent past ... (2)

tramp (68773) | about a year ago | (#44685531)

Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, which were never there.

Re:I hear some echos from the recent past ... (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | about a year ago | (#44685659)

The difference is, they were suspected, but never used, so no conclusive proof.

There is conclusive proof Syria has chemical weapons, and there is proof that those weapons are being used. Now the question is, who is actually using them, could be the gov, could be the rebels who then accuse the gov to get international support behind them.

Regardless, I support a strike to destroy the weapons, not an invasion, not supporting either side, just straight up seek and destroy of the stockpiles.

Re:I hear some echos from the recent past ... (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | about a year ago | (#44685703)

No, they did have chemical WMDs, and used them....in 1988!

Not sure why we declared war on them 15 years later, though.

How does that Nobel Peace Prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685539)

taste now, you dumb Hope & [no] Change mothafuckas?

Bet you guys didn't expect to be voting for Bush's 3rd and 4th terms, despite all the evidence to the contrary back then, did you, you dumbasses?

I called this shit while reddit was predictably swooning over the media hype and sucking this guy's dick back in 08.

So... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44685561)

Are we going to be greeted as liberators this time? If so, we might want to not bother.

I'm usually against military action. (4, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | about a year ago | (#44685567)

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.

No different than Bush (3, Insightful)

BigDaveyL (1548821) | about a year ago | (#44685569)

Yet another war.

Is there... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#44685577)

... even going to be an attempt to get authorization from congress? Or, is that something only republican presidents do?

Re:Is there... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#44685653)

Or the UN?

Fuck yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685579)

Bombing sand nigger looking people, our boys didn't have the chance to do this with public approbation for such a long time. Man the harpoons. We'll make it up for Snowden.

Or it is just a good scapegoat to hold position with our biggest ships inside Mediterranean sea, the fucking antipodes, far from where they should stay put.

they don't even have oil.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685585)

What are we the 'muslum country human rights enforcer'? This isn't our problem. We are $16 trillion in debt plus every action we take puts our soldiers lives at risk. We should only use our military when it is a vital national interest. Just because someone joins the military, this does not mean they are cards to be dealt whenever we want to make ourselves feel better. Did we sell chemical weapons to Syria? The Israelis would be more than capable of taking out the entire Syrian airforce and most of its armored division. Let them deal with it. It is right next door to them. Turkey is a NATO member. They have a western military with western hardware. They could deal with this too. If Saudi Arabia actually cared about muslum people, they could join in and fund it. However, they don't.

We are the only country in world history that acts like this. We waste our national resources on things that are not of vital national interest. Syria doesn't have anything we really want. Even if they did, we are probably better off supporting Assad to undermine the Russians and the Chinese.

Team America: World Police Part 2 (2, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44685591)

The US are members of NATO. Turkey, who has actually been attacked, has done everything they could to stay out of it, and are also members of NATO, but are doing what they can to help Syrians fleeing the war. Turkey is definitely proving the smarter of the two NATO members here.

History strikes again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685603)

US intelligence knew with Absolute certainty (and claimed there were irrefutable evidence) that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction back when Sadam was in charge there (I'd still like to see that evidence btw)
and used that as a reason to invade...
Do they still use the same kind of information sources, or has NSA picked up something interesting this time?

Nobel Peace Prize (4, Insightful)

KermodeBear (738243) | about a year ago | (#44685625)

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.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685709)

He could win it again if he could talk Putin into taking custody of Syria's CW stockpiles. Not a shot fired...

The hypocricy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685631)

How about the USA deals with its own war criminals first, starting with the Bush administration!

didn't take long, did it? (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year ago | (#44685641)

It's almost as if they were already there...

Great (1)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about a year ago | (#44685647)

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.

Re:Great (3, Interesting)

js3 (319268) | about a year ago | (#44685667)

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?

Isn't that the military's job? (4, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#44685649)

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:Isn't that the military's job? (0)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#44685739)

No. That's actually the thing. We aren't supposed to have a standing army... one that is sitting around being prepared.

again? (3, Insightful)

gerardrj (207690) | about a year ago | (#44685669)

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.

It is China and Russia's turn (1)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | about a year ago | (#44685675)

NATO and allies need to take a pass on this one and let our friends from China and Russia protect the people of Syria from chemical attacks by their own government. Oh wait - they don't care. Too bad for them.

I'm still waiting for Congress (4, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#44685705)

I always thought that when you wage war, they are supposed to consult with Congress first.

Re:I'm still waiting for Congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685777)

lol

The Onion has it covered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685727)

Who knew The Onion would get it right:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/help-has-to-be-on-the-way-now-thinks-syrian-man-cu,32265/

YAFF (-1, Troll)

lazylion (101229) | about a year ago | (#44685737)

Yet Another False Flag operation. Has everyone seen the newly leaked emails alleging that the United States is actually responsible for the chemical weapons attack precisely to justify this invasion? See this [herald.co.zw] and this [cyberwarnews.info] and this [deeppoliticsforum.com] and this [facepunch.com] and this [freerepublic.com] and this [infowars.com] and this [wordpress.com] .

Hagel Prediction? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685751)

Hagel also predicted that U.S. intelligence agencies would soon conclude that last week's deadly attack on civilians in a Damascus suburb was a chemical attack by Bashar Assad's government.'"

Yeah, just like they concluded that Iraq was involved in 9/11 attacks. and had WMD's. Sorry, but the US, NATO, Israel, and the Arab monarchies intelligence agencies have NO credibility at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?