Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Saturday April 14 2018, @02:09AM   Printer-friendly

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:10AM (6 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:10AM (#666762) Homepage Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:27AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:27AM (#666765)

    > 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

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:09AM (#666780)

      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

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 14 2018, @03:33PM (#666957) Journal

      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)

    by JustNiz (1573) on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:14AM (#666783)

    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

      by RedIsNotGreen (2191) on Saturday April 14 2018, @05:56AM (#666816) Homepage Journal

      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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17 2018, @02:26AM (#667915)

      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.