Submitted via IRC for chromas
President Trump announced Friday night that the U.S. and its allies had launched attacks on Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack last week by President Bashar Assad's regime.
In televised remarks from the White House, Trump said the attacks were underway, and that Great Britain and France were also taking part.
The president did not provide details, but U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea, armed with cruise missiles, were in position to strike. British and French forces were also in place.
[...] The president said the U.S. prepared to sustain effort until the Syrian regime stops using chemical weapons.
[...] In the days leading up to the U.S. attack, Russia had warned that it would defend its troops in Syria. This has raised fears of a possible direct clash of U.S. and Russian forces.
Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/13/601794830/u-s-launches-attacks-on-syria
Also at Bloomberg and The Guardian
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @02:39AM (17 children)
One friend tends toward conspiracy theory (he's also very well read on history and current events). He figures this is the start of WWIII with nukes. I'm not so convinced, but it's still pretty scary.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:10AM (6 children)
Nah. If either major power involved was interested in it escalating beyond the area it would but it doesn't serve either Russian or US interests for it to do so. Right now both nations can actually mix it up with each other for political reasons in an area neither gives two shits about without, and this is important, actually having to worry about a real war that they don't want breaking out.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:27AM (2 children)
> If either major power involved was interested in it escalating beyond the area it would but it doesn't serve either Russian or US interests for it to do so.
Has Trump done anything yet that serves our (USA citizens) interests? You've only succeeded in scaring me further, since our leadership is far from making a rational decision based on just about any interpretation of "our interests".
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:09AM
You think this is Trump's decision?
AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING! | 6:20 AM - 5 Sep 2013
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:33PM
He shitcanned TPP. He's brought NAFTA and other trade deals into question. He's brought the mega-corporate takeover of America something of a slowdown, if not a stop. Because he ain't real bright, he's turned around and handed the corporations compensatory gifts. Trump isn't bloodthirsty enough, or he would have destroyed a couple of mega-corps by now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JustNiz on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:14AM (2 children)
If you want a good conspiracy here's one of my favourites:
The problem with having high-tech weapons is that you don;t know if they will work until you try them against an equally skilled enemy.
Countries look for, or even start limited wars just to test their latest weapons every 10 years or so.
Stopping chemical weapons is just the excuse that the US wants to test their latest weapons against the USSR in a way they (and the world) can exit from.
Putin at least equally loves the chance to test his weapons in a limited way against the best that the USA has too.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RedIsNotGreen on Saturday April 14 2018, @05:56AM
I'm pretty sure this is true. I developed the same theory when I was following the conflict in Ukraine, where I am originally from. I noticed news of the U.S. shipping their latest armored vehicles to Ukraine as "aid", as well as providing training, but it was very small numbers, maybe dozens of units.
The macro-world sometimes looks like a Command & Conquer or Starcraft multi-player game. Of course, that is based on reality itself, but it's sad how much of our macro-existences are about "gain control the resources" and "upgrade weapons" and "maintain dominance over the area and resources".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17 2018, @02:26AM
this is true of the whole apparatus. the army is not going to be very good at war if they sit around playing bingo all day. :) still doesn't make it right. i think there's things they could be doing instead of destabilizing countries. kind of how cops just drive around raping and stealing from largely kiss ass working people instead of going after actual violent criminals. soldiers get the benefit of the doubt from me most of the time, even though it's sad to see them borg'd into the scum of the predatory police/fbi/atf/war machine. fuck government.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:36AM (8 children)
Hey Lefties... Are you still proud of screaming THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING constantly for 18 months until Trump got pushed until he felt he had to make a special gesture of not being Putin's puppy? How many of you young turks are going to be drafted if we get into a real shooting match with Russia? You just might find yourself in the involuntary employ of "not my president"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:38AM
Totally agree with the sentiment except replace "lefties" with "democrat". Democrats are neither lefties nor progressives, though they like to play them on TV.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:57AM (6 children)
There's no one to blame for this other than Trump. He's an adult in a position of power. He makes his own decisions, such as they are. In this, he's acting not very differently than most previous presidents. If you truly want to point a finger, that's your target.
You'd probably learn something if you explored why almost all presidents tend to do this — meddle in other country's affairs at great taxpayer expense/MIC payout within our borders, and no long term positive results anywhere else — perhaps there's something else going on, eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:01AM
+1 Follow The Money
Works double plus good with anything connected to Trump.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:31AM (1 child)
My understanding of all the events up until now since Trump's election has been that deep state is unhappy, and Trump is slowly bowing down to its will. Either way I think he is gonna go, but may be not soon?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @12:39PM
Clinton was probably a tool of the deep state (look at how happy she was with killing Gaddafi).
Trump wasn't their guy but it's obvious he wouldn't be that difficult to manipulate or blackmail.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:36PM (2 children)
'No Man is an Island'
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Olde English Version
No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man
is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine;
if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe
is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as
well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine
owne were; any mans death diminishes me,
because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
MEDITATION XVII
Devotions upon Emergent Occasions
John Donne
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday April 14 2018, @05:10PM
It seems to me that such a sentiment, in this context, is trite at best.
We're all islands when it comes to deciding to aggress outside the reach of our legitimate authority. Trump's no better than you or I in this regard; he's just got a lot more power, and lacks the wit to know how to manage it in any way even remotely compatible with the idea of a sovereign nation. He's hardly alone in this, it's a very typical presidential stance, but that doesn't make it better, it makes it worse.
The US has no authority whatsoever as to what goes on in Syria, or does not go on there. The legitimate responsibility of dealing with what goes on in Syria is entirely Syria's — that of its government and its population.
Any nation-state's legitimate authority ends at the national borders of that nation-state until/unless someone attacks them or compromises their resources (air/water, that sort of local-but-not-local thing) from outside those borders. When a nation-state makes war outside of those bounds, that nation-state is saying to everyone else, "go ahead, come in our nation-state and blow shit up. That's what we do!" To be very clear about all this, Syria has not attacked our nation.
If we want national borders to mean anything, we'd be far better off acting like they do mean something.
For example, do you want England, or Russia, or China, dropping bombs on us because our congress is operating well outside the bounds of our constitution? Or because our cops are killing people at the slightest excuse (or without any excuse)?
Or are these things our problem to solve?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @09:26PM
unless his name is... [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @05:38AM
I agree. Hope everybody is ready to see what nuclear war looks like.