7 ms·

U.S. Launches over 50 Missiles at Syrian Military Base

128 points by plessthanpt05 10y ago

ralmidani 10y ago
As a Syrian-American who voted for Clinton, I am incredibly happy that Trump has shown resolve where Obama failed to. This may not directly cause the downfall of the abominable Assad regime, but at least it will make Assad think twice before using chemical weapons again. Hopefully, it will be followed by safe zones and arming the Free Syrian Army.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 3131s 10y ago
  This is nothing new though, Obama committed extensive bombing in Syria too. Obama's initial reason for involvement was alleged chemical weapons. I don't see how this qualifies as direct action while everything else we've been doing there for the past 5+ years is not. Still, that's not to say this isn't horrible. Here's a reminder for people of what Obama was up to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595999
earthtolazlo 10y ago
This is bad. This is very bad.
- flukus 10y ago
  Is this how WW3 starts?
  - czep 10y ago
    Duck and cover, kids. This ain't gonna be pretty.
  - PhilWright 10y ago
    Just a slight overreaction on your part. Just about every President has launched punitive strikes against targets for bad behavior. None led to WW3.
    - flukus 10y ago
      How many of them were under the protection of Russia?
      - johndevor 10y ago
        [citation needed]
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for-syria-not-unconditional/ http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for-syria... (Dated today.)
        flukus 10y ago
        They have a naval base in Syria.
      - seizethecheese 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
        Retric 10y ago
        It's not cold when your actually killing people.
        seizethecheese 10y ago
        The cold war was full of hot wars where the US and USSR fought by proxy.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Pretty much.
  - joecool1029 10y ago
    What a way to celebrate the 100th year anniversary of entering WWI.
- hive_mind 10y ago
  1. The U.S. and ISIS are on the same side in this war. 2. Assad is a secularist, modernizer. Shudder.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    1. The US is also fighting ISIS. Despite the popular saying, "the enemy of my enemy" is not the same as "my friend". 2. Assad is also someone who uses chemical weapons on his own people. (All right, the other side of a civil war, but still citizens of his own nation.) He's a guy who turned protests into a civil war by his brutality in response. "Secularist and modernizer" isn't the same as "good guy".
  - 1001101 10y ago
    Append to 1.: "moderate rebels," like Al-Nusra Front, who were actually caught in Turkey with chemical weapons [1]. Ron Paul is questioning the origin of the attack, but here we are. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia is moving forward as of earlier this week, and the Turkish stream pipeline can't move forward until the Syria question is settled. Add to that in late March Russia announced it was coming up with an alternative to the SWIFT banking system. Collision course. Vlad doesn't seem like the kind to back down. Not looking forward to this one bit. [1] http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels...
  - cup 10y ago
    Secularist, modernizer, dictator, war criminal, human rights violator..
    - Udik 10y ago
      I can't wait for somebody to start judging american presidents by the same standards.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Well they aren't dictators, but they aren't always secularists or modernizers.
- stephenitis 10y ago
  Deep breathes. This may be Donald trying to make good on his campaign promise of sneak attacking without announcement.
ddingus 10y ago
FUCK Sorry all. That is what I felt on reading this. We just don't need war.
plessthanpt05 10y ago
"THE US has launched a massive cruise missile strike against Syria – despite a warning from Russia not to get involved." http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump-syria-strike-russia-military-action-chemical-weapons-gas-attack-putin-assad-WW3 http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump-syr...
- dbcooper 10y ago
  Dude, you can do better than the Daily Star!
  - plessthanpt05 10y ago
    Yeah, I had never heard of it before, so wasn't sure of it's reputation & whether or not to post it. (...guess not)
    - selimthegrim 10y ago
      There's a Lebanese newspaper with the same name with a very good rep
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
And yet just today Rand Paul told Trump not to take unilateral military action, that he needed to clear it with Congress first. (Maybe Trump briefed them. Maybe that's good enough, but I think the idea was that Congress needed to have a chance to vote.)
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  This would be Rand "Republicans don't investigate Republicans" Paul? I can see why any words of warning he issues to Trump would be received a wink and a nod, even if not explicitly issued with them.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  Political idiot here, is that like threatening your parents that you'll hold your breath until you get your way or are there actual checks and balances at play?
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Yes and no. Only Congress has the power to declare war. That's the actual check and balance. But if I understand correctly, in a situation like this[1], the President has authority to authorize military force. He just can't continue to use it for more than 90 days (in the same situation) without congressional approval[2]. But no, Republicans in Congress are not going to magically force Trump to un-fire the missiles. Nor are they going to impeach him over this. (If he violates the 90 day limit, it is somewhat more likely that there will be some kind of action, but still far from certain.) [1] For some value of "like this" - a situation where, in the President's judgment, military action is urgently needed, where it can't wait for days or weeks while Congress debates and goes through all the procedural motions. [2] The 90 day limit is there because the Vietnam War came out of a situation like this - a presidentially-authorized use of force that never was a declared war, that turned into nearly a decade of US involvement and 55,000 US dead.
  - flukus 10y ago
    The trick is to make it a military action, not a war. The US hasn't been at war sine WW2.
clock_tower 10y ago
Wonderful news! Finally, someone standing up to Assad and Putin! Who would have thought it would be the US president who Putin "absolutely didn't" put into office?
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Wonderful news! Finally, someone standing up to Assad and Putin! Except for the fact that the move indicates nothing less than complete and utter chaos in his stance vis-a-vis Russia. And that it remains to be seen how Putin will decide to "stand up" for his symbolic ally in response.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    Who cares if his stance on Russia is inconsistent, if it used to be "let Putin do as he likes" and it's now "don't let Putin's proxies commit war crimes"? I'm not going to attack someone for flip-flopping from a terrible position to a promising one.
  - douche 10y ago
    What I am not sure I understand is why anyone cares what happens in Syria, save maybe Israel. It's not an oil producer, and it has been a shitshow, rather than a regional power for 20+ years.
    - clock_tower 10y ago
      Human rights more than anything else; Assad's response to the Arab Spring was a pretty ugly one, especially by the standards of people who weren't overthrown. (The other issue is that Russia really likes that naval base. Wouldn't it have saved time to just give them the city and get them to stop interfering with the rest of this?)
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      What I am not sure I understand is why anyone cares what happens in Syria, Well there's this thing known as "empathy", in regard to those who are suffering. You might want to look into it sometime. (Then again, with a handle like yours...)
Zenst 10y ago
Well I expect the Doomsday clock will be getting an update soon. I'm still not convinced that the Chemical Weapons where from Assad or the Russians attack and the probability of them actually being in a weapons store the rebels held, to me seems if not equally probable. Mostly from the aspect that Chemical Weapons in the form of landmine dispersol have been used by ISIS in Iraq. Now the aspect that such types of weapons as a Chemical Weapon dispersal is not one we know that well. So an airstrike upon a weapons depot that had such landmines, could most likely cause the mines to release the chemical weapon. Many experts have said that an airstrike upon a chemical weapon store would destroy the chemical weapons. But we are talking about mines as storage. A factor that may well be overlooked or a large unknown in how they react to airstrikes. What we will know eventually is if they fingerprint the chemical weapon in this Syrian event and compare to that used by ISIS in Iraq then if they are the same. So given how Russia and indeed Assad reacts will prove most telling. I also believe Assad would be totally foolish to use Chemical Weapons, more so with Russian support and no need to use them. This and already gave them up, via Russia and again. There was no need for them and they would know the response if they did, and I don't believe even Russia or Assad would be that silly. So from that perspective, Trump just updated the Doomsday clock.
- novalis78 10y ago
  Completely agree. It almost seems like there is a set of individuals in the US gov that have a personal grudge against Assad and have been trying for years under various administrations to take him out. They don't even seem to consider the possibility of Islamist involvement.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Personal or geopolitical? They probably see removing Assad as removing Russia.
    - novalis78 10y ago
      You are right... that makes more sense in its stupidity - maybe some Cold War leftover that just hates the Russians beyond all measure and reason
ProfessorLayton 10y ago
These situations are always unfortunate. The U.S. does nothing: Innocent people continue to die The U.S. does something: Innocent people die (It is war, after all) Whats worse, is what'll happen when one of the strikes inadvertently hits some of Russia's troops? Whats the solution to all this?
- danharaj 10y ago
  It would have been nice if the US hadn't been a direct actor or accomplice in every destabilizing event in the middle east for the past 50 years. isis and the civil war did not emerge out of the vacuum.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I'm not sure that the civil war in Syria comes from US intervention, or even from ISIS. ISIS tried to take advantage of an existing situation, which was triggered by Assad's brutality to (initially non-violent) protests of his regime.
    - cup 10y ago
      Iraq --> Syria
      - clock_tower 10y ago
        It was Assad's brutal suppression of protests that started the civil war; ISIS (formerly al-Qaida in Iraq, formerly Tawhid wa-Jihad) moved into the east once it was under way.
        danharaj 10y ago
        Who knows how the war would have gone without isis in the picture?
        clock_tower 10y ago
narrator 10y ago
Does the all run on autopilot? It's like this stuff was on the timeline no matter who got elected. They've been deploying all over the South China Sea and Eastern Europe and it all went along smoothly on autopilot right through the election and transition.
- KanyeBest 10y ago
  And more importantly - can anything at all be done about it? It seems that certain interests will carry through no matter what.
- Udik 10y ago
  More than the deep state, there must have been very powerful actors behind the scenes pushing the US for intervention in Syria for all these years. After all, US's direct interest in the Middle East is limited. These are wars made on behalf of someone else, someone in the region.
  - Zancarius 10y ago
    I don't think they necessarily have to be powerful as much as they have to have the means. At present, two countries off the top of my head that do are Saudi Arabia and Israel. The latter has enjoyed a direct diplomatic line to the US president (no matter who), but I'm not sure what they'd gain. The former has gifted candidates on both sides of the isle with various odds and ends for years, and in spite of their own local economic problems, they have a keen interest in US politics as well. They might stand to gain more in the short term, but it seems like an unnecessary long term gamble. There's a conspiracy that's been floated for a few years and is resurfacing that the Saudis and Qataris have been pushing for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey via Syria, and Assad has been a thorn in their side preventing diplomatic means to get it done. But there's also sound arguments against this [1], although the source I found suggests that this is directly tied to US access to bases in the area (possible) and thus aligning with SA, Qatar, and Turkey (perhaps in opposition to Russia/Iran/Syria). I'm not sure anyone really knows what's going on at this point. If I had to guess, it probably ties into everything from oil to archaic alliances dating to the Cold War and even military expenditures. The Israelis may have a part to play in all this, too, but in my mind, I don't see what benefit they'd gain by continuing to destabilize the entire region. Then again, I guess you could argue the same point for every other actor, and perhaps there's an advantage behind encouraging your adversaries to go for each others' throats every few years (dangerous!). Another protracted war in the Mideast is the last thing we need... sigh. (Note: I'm just speculating here based on what I've read over the years and my own opinions and biases. This is probably entirely wrong.) [1] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the-assad-regime-is-not-a-pipeline-war http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the...
mythrwy 10y ago
<comment deleted since people are apparently going to down vote without reading and I'm not interested in ill thought out flame wars based on superficial party affiliation>
- ForrestN 10y ago
  Sincere question: how did you find such professions credible given how frequently and baldly Trump lied about basically everything? In other words, how can anyone be surprised by this or any other lie he tells?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mythrwy 10y ago
    Credible? Who wasn't lying? But you know what, I come to this site for tech and science type things. But a large contingent appear to be bent on using it for a political platform. My opinion is they are badly damaging the site. I've tried to register my opinion on things or talk about topics in what I perceive to be an objective manner only to be trolled, flamed and down-voted into oblivion. At this point I'm not going to bother with anything remotely political. If people want to make another ideology bubble fine. It's just not worth the struggle at this point.
- cremno 10y ago
  Do you even know what neoliberal means?
- Udik 10y ago
  I understand your reasons- Trump definitely seemed a safer choice in this respect. However, that probably shows that it's not enough to say you have an opinion or a stance on something; you can only be trusted to keep it if you are already aware, at the moment of expressing it, of all the arguments and forces that will push you in another direction. Three months (of undoubtedly powerful lobbying) have been enough to sway Trump from "no more wars" to "yes let's start another one, possibly with Russia".
colmvp 10y ago
I'm confused how this is so much more controversial or scary than the drone strikes that have occurred over the last number of years by the US that violated the sovereignty of other countries and resulted in unfortunate death of civilians. For the record, I'm not trying to compare Obama to Trump but rather the fact that the US has a long history of exerting its will in a methodical way, so I'm unclear why this is more... serious? Is it because of potential ramifications from Russia? I can't quite imagine that they really want to be involved in a hot war with the US and it's allies.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  It's the Russian ramifications -- not least because of the Russians' "firehose of falsehood" media (http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html). Russia's initial response here suggests that Putin won't dare to start a nuclear war, if it comes down to that (in Lithuania, for example); but talk is cheap, and he and his minions certainly know how to talk a good game.
  - czep 10y ago
    Certainly Putin wouldn't dare to announce "hey I'm going to start a nuclear war, ok?" However, an ICBM launched from a sub in the Atlantic would reach NYC in, well, less time that it would take for the guys watching the early warning radar scopes to get in touch with the President. There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack. With Manhattan pulverized, the US thrown into total chaos, what's Trump going to do? A response would bring total war and the destruction of everything. Both Trump and Putin know this. Trump would have to accept the loss of one city. The US would effectively be off the world stage forever. Putin just may risk this in order to stop the US from meddling in his affairs once and for all. Dr. Strangelove, except orders given by the Kremlin. Anyone find this plausible or should I turn off the computer and go to sleep?
    - mustacheemperor 10y ago
      >There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack. There would be no hard evidence of a submarine launched ICBM pre-impact in the year 2017? I think you can stay up a while longer.
ourmandave 10y ago
We notified the Russians ahead of the strike. No Russian hardware was harmed in the making of this missile strike.
- koolba 10y ago
  That's a snarky way of saying that WW3 was avoided.
- graycat 10y ago
  IIRC there is also a report that no Russians were at the target of the attack.
locusm 10y ago
Its funny what crosses Americas red line, US forces killing over 200 civs in Mosul the other day didnt warrant much outrage.
- flukus 10y ago
  The red line is chemical weapons used by an unfriendly regime.
- afarrell 10y ago
  US forces, or US-backed forces? And was the killing deliberate, or just avoidably collateral? When judging crimes, intent matters. EDIT: Even if you wish it wasn't.
  - locusm 10y ago
    Intent matters, but so does negligence & incompetence.
salimmadjd 10y ago
Beware of war propaganda. A quick reminder about the first Iraq war and how they lied about Saddam killing babies and used a PR firm in Congressional hearing [0] to build public outrage. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War
- Neverchange 10y ago
  "Lantos was a strong supporter of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During the run-up to the war, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Lantos was co-chairman, hosted a young Kuwaiti woman identified only as "Nurse Nayirah", who told of horrific abuses by Iraqi soldiers, including the killing of Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor of the hospital. These alleged atrocities figured prominently in the rhetoric at the time about Iraqi abuses in Kuwait. The girl's account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors.[30]" "Nurse Nayirah" later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States." So basically what just happened with the gas attack and all.
  - salimmadjd 10y ago
    Yes...this is the same blueprint on Iraq 2, Libya and now Syria. With Syria they got even better by using social media. Example is the 7 year old who writes better twitter post than many native English speakers. She writes very touching yet concise and to the point twitter posts [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-twitter-girl-syria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-t...
    - 3131s 10y ago
      It's obvious that elements of US government in both parties have been captured by the business of war, for a long time now. I could argue until I'm blue in the face about this, but now I'm mostly just tired. These people are twisted and they need to pay for their crimes. I'll die happy if Bush, Obama, and Trump all spend the rest of their lives in prison. I don't believe a fucking thing from any of these bastards, their PR teams, their 'intelligence' agencies, or their media surrogates.
Tycho 10y ago
If it turns out not to have been an Assad attack then all those in the US government/military who pushed for escalation should walk the plank.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Hypothesis: this is a message to Xi and North Korea. Syria is a consequence-free zone. Unless we depose Assad and commit to nation building, this has limited non-humanitarian consequence. Bonus: decisive action right after McMasters consolidated Bannon's NSC influence.
- flukus 10y ago
  What's the warning supposed to be? "Don't do anything while we're bogged down in the middle east for another decade"?
sandworm101 10y ago
Fifty missiles, in an area where US aircraft can operate unfettered if they so choose, seems like a statement that one side doesn't want to risk its own people. Even the US has limits. There are only so many Tomahawks ready to go. 59+ is a significant reduction in that number. They won't do this again as I doubt they could mount a third such salvo. They need to keep a substantial number of missiles in reserve for taking out air defences in support of a broader air war or special forces operation. The next "message" will therefore come via manned aircraft. That's where things between the Russians and the US get tricky. There is only so much airspace over syria.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Are you sure? There are 62 destroyers that can launch them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer (among other ships capable of launching them) Of course they aren't all deployed in the Middle East and won't each have 90 of the missiles ready to go, but 50 doesn't seem like a huge stretch of capabilities. There are numerous attacks of more than 150 missiles and several thousand available (which I agree doesn't necessarily mean they are all ready for use): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#United_Stat...
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    But how many are actually there today? The fleet must keep in reserve enough missiles to address more pressing issues. Take the 60 missiles to take out a single airport. They probably want to keep twice that many in case they want to strike another airport, perhaps a Russian base. So 60 empty tubes, plus 120 ready to attack another base. Then how many do they need to take out all the air defences should a wider air war start? And then all the deep targets that they wouldn't want to risk manned aircraft to reach during the first wave. Say there are 5 ships x 50 missiles, that's only 250 to spread across all those missions. I;m interested in how many ships actually fired. Whether one ship fires all/most of them, or whether the tasking was spread amongst the fleet, speaks to the potential timeline. If it all came from one ship, and that ship is now racing back to port to rearm, that says to me that they expect to do this again sooner rather than later as that would get the fleet back to full capacity more quickly than waiting for many ships to rotate out.
abetusk 10y ago
Right now this post is ~1 hour old and 88 points yet is nowhere to be seen on the front page. Did this post get forcibly removed?
- dhbanes 10y ago
  It was on the front page for about 20 minutes before it started sinking rapidly. Perhaps it was reflexively flagged by users for some reason or perhaps the mods buried it intentionally.
  - abetusk 10y ago
    Is there any way to find out how many 'flags' a submission has or whether it was flagged by the mods? Does anyone know the HN algorithm?
    - dhbanes 10y ago
      Here is extensive discussion on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13867739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13867739
  - Zancarius 10y ago
    Doesn't HN automatically flag/throttle articles if its heuristics detect a possible flamewar or potentially hot button issue? I might be misremembering this.
    - dhbanes 10y ago
      Perhaps, but if you look at the comments from the original submission, there is little evidence of a flame war brewing.
      - Zancarius 10y ago
        True. I do wonder if it may auto-flag rapidly rising submissions as part of astroturfing prevention or similar? (Flamewar was a bad example, I admit. Sorry about that.)
mamaniscalco 10y ago
The ugly truth is that if you want to change a culture you must permeate it. This requires a multi-generational commitment. You can not assault an opposition into compliance. You must defeat its leaders and its men and then squat upon its culture until its children know nothing other than your own culture. This is what our grandfathers understood when they placed multi-generational bases in Germany and Japan. Today's metro-sexual culture does not have the understanding nor the resolve for such a commitment. A civilized culture must abhor violence. But it must also be ready to use it when the alternative is to ignore the suffering of others.
holydude 10y ago
I as an eastern european am really grateful for US interventions. Better dead than red.

128 points by plessthanpt05 10y ago

As a Syrian-American who voted for Clinton, I am incredibly happy that Trump has shown resolve where Obama failed to. This may not directly cause the downfall of the abominable Assad regime, but at least it will make Assad think twice before using chemical weapons again. Hopefully, it will be followed by safe zones and arming the Free Syrian Army.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
3131s 10y ago
This is nothing new though, Obama committed extensive bombing in Syria too. Obama's initial reason for involvement was alleged chemical weapons. I don't see how this qualifies as direct action while everything else we've been doing there for the past 5+ years is not. Still, that's not to say this isn't horrible. Here's a reminder for people of what Obama was up to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595999

earthtolazlo 10y ago

This is bad. This is very bad.

flukus 10y ago
Is this how WW3 starts?
- czep 10y ago
  Duck and cover, kids. This ain't gonna be pretty.
- PhilWright 10y ago
  Just a slight overreaction on your part. Just about every President has launched punitive strikes against targets for bad behavior. None led to WW3.
  - flukus 10y ago
    How many of them were under the protection of Russia?
    - johndevor 10y ago
      [citation needed]
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for-syria-not-unconditional/ http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-says-support-for-syria... (Dated today.)
      - flukus 10y ago
        They have a naval base in Syria.
    - seizethecheese 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
      - Retric 10y ago
        It's not cold when your actually killing people.
        seizethecheese 10y ago
        The cold war was full of hot wars where the US and USSR fought by proxy.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Pretty much.
- joecool1029 10y ago
  What a way to celebrate the 100th year anniversary of entering WWI.
hive_mind 10y ago
1. The U.S. and ISIS are on the same side in this war. 2. Assad is a secularist, modernizer. Shudder.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  1. The US is also fighting ISIS. Despite the popular saying, "the enemy of my enemy" is not the same as "my friend". 2. Assad is also someone who uses chemical weapons on his own people. (All right, the other side of a civil war, but still citizens of his own nation.) He's a guy who turned protests into a civil war by his brutality in response. "Secularist and modernizer" isn't the same as "good guy".
- 1001101 10y ago
  Append to 1.: "moderate rebels," like Al-Nusra Front, who were actually caught in Turkey with chemical weapons [1]. Ron Paul is questioning the origin of the attack, but here we are. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia is moving forward as of earlier this week, and the Turkish stream pipeline can't move forward until the Syria question is settled. Add to that in late March Russia announced it was coming up with an alternative to the SWIFT banking system. Collision course. Vlad doesn't seem like the kind to back down. Not looking forward to this one bit. [1] http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels...
- cup 10y ago
  Secularist, modernizer, dictator, war criminal, human rights violator..
  - Udik 10y ago
    I can't wait for somebody to start judging american presidents by the same standards.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Well they aren't dictators, but they aren't always secularists or modernizers.
stephenitis 10y ago
Deep breathes. This may be Donald trying to make good on his campaign promise of sneak attacking without announcement.

ddingus 10y ago

FUCK Sorry all. That is what I felt on reading this. We just don't need war.

plessthanpt05 10y ago

"THE US has launched a massive cruise missile strike against Syria – despite a warning from Russia not to get involved." http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump-syria-strike-russia-military-action-chemical-weapons-gas-attack-putin-assad-WW3 http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump-syr...

dbcooper 10y ago
Dude, you can do better than the Daily Star!
- plessthanpt05 10y ago
  Yeah, I had never heard of it before, so wasn't sure of it's reputation & whether or not to post it. (...guess not)
  - selimthegrim 10y ago
    There's a Lebanese newspaper with the same name with a very good rep

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

And yet just today Rand Paul told Trump not to take unilateral military action, that he needed to clear it with Congress first. (Maybe Trump briefed them. Maybe that's good enough, but I think the idea was that Congress needed to have a chance to vote.)

CamperBob2 10y ago
This would be Rand "Republicans don't investigate Republicans" Paul? I can see why any words of warning he issues to Trump would be received a wink and a nod, even if not explicitly issued with them.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
Political idiot here, is that like threatening your parents that you'll hold your breath until you get your way or are there actual checks and balances at play?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Yes and no. Only Congress has the power to declare war. That's the actual check and balance. But if I understand correctly, in a situation like this[1], the President has authority to authorize military force. He just can't continue to use it for more than 90 days (in the same situation) without congressional approval[2]. But no, Republicans in Congress are not going to magically force Trump to un-fire the missiles. Nor are they going to impeach him over this. (If he violates the 90 day limit, it is somewhat more likely that there will be some kind of action, but still far from certain.) [1] For some value of "like this" - a situation where, in the President's judgment, military action is urgently needed, where it can't wait for days or weeks while Congress debates and goes through all the procedural motions. [2] The 90 day limit is there because the Vietnam War came out of a situation like this - a presidentially-authorized use of force that never was a declared war, that turned into nearly a decade of US involvement and 55,000 US dead.
- flukus 10y ago
  The trick is to make it a military action, not a war. The US hasn't been at war sine WW2.

clock_tower 10y ago

Wonderful news! Finally, someone standing up to Assad and Putin! Who would have thought it would be the US president who Putin "absolutely didn't" put into office?

kafkaesq 10y ago
Wonderful news! Finally, someone standing up to Assad and Putin! Except for the fact that the move indicates nothing less than complete and utter chaos in his stance vis-a-vis Russia. And that it remains to be seen how Putin will decide to "stand up" for his symbolic ally in response.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  Who cares if his stance on Russia is inconsistent, if it used to be "let Putin do as he likes" and it's now "don't let Putin's proxies commit war crimes"? I'm not going to attack someone for flip-flopping from a terrible position to a promising one.
- douche 10y ago
  What I am not sure I understand is why anyone cares what happens in Syria, save maybe Israel. It's not an oil producer, and it has been a shitshow, rather than a regional power for 20+ years.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    Human rights more than anything else; Assad's response to the Arab Spring was a pretty ugly one, especially by the standards of people who weren't overthrown. (The other issue is that Russia really likes that naval base. Wouldn't it have saved time to just give them the city and get them to stop interfering with the rest of this?)
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    What I am not sure I understand is why anyone cares what happens in Syria, Well there's this thing known as "empathy", in regard to those who are suffering. You might want to look into it sometime. (Then again, with a handle like yours...)

Zenst 10y ago

Well I expect the Doomsday clock will be getting an update soon. I'm still not convinced that the Chemical Weapons where from Assad or the Russians attack and the probability of them actually being in a weapons store the rebels held, to me seems if not equally probable. Mostly from the aspect that Chemical Weapons in the form of landmine dispersol have been used by ISIS in Iraq. Now the aspect that such types of weapons as a Chemical Weapon dispersal is not one we know that well. So an airstrike upon a weapons depot that had such landmines, could most likely cause the mines to release the chemical weapon. Many experts have said that an airstrike upon a chemical weapon store would destroy the chemical weapons. But we are talking about mines as storage. A factor that may well be overlooked or a large unknown in how they react to airstrikes. What we will know eventually is if they fingerprint the chemical weapon in this Syrian event and compare to that used by ISIS in Iraq then if they are the same. So given how Russia and indeed Assad reacts will prove most telling. I also believe Assad would be totally foolish to use Chemical Weapons, more so with Russian support and no need to use them. This and already gave them up, via Russia and again. There was no need for them and they would know the response if they did, and I don't believe even Russia or Assad would be that silly. So from that perspective, Trump just updated the Doomsday clock.

novalis78 10y ago
Completely agree. It almost seems like there is a set of individuals in the US gov that have a personal grudge against Assad and have been trying for years under various administrations to take him out. They don't even seem to consider the possibility of Islamist involvement.
- flukus 10y ago
  Personal or geopolitical? They probably see removing Assad as removing Russia.
  - novalis78 10y ago
    You are right... that makes more sense in its stupidity - maybe some Cold War leftover that just hates the Russians beyond all measure and reason

ProfessorLayton 10y ago

These situations are always unfortunate. The U.S. does nothing: Innocent people continue to die The U.S. does something: Innocent people die (It is war, after all) Whats worse, is what'll happen when one of the strikes inadvertently hits some of Russia's troops? Whats the solution to all this?

danharaj 10y ago
It would have been nice if the US hadn't been a direct actor or accomplice in every destabilizing event in the middle east for the past 50 years. isis and the civil war did not emerge out of the vacuum.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I'm not sure that the civil war in Syria comes from US intervention, or even from ISIS. ISIS tried to take advantage of an existing situation, which was triggered by Assad's brutality to (initially non-violent) protests of his regime.
  - cup 10y ago
    Iraq --> Syria
    - clock_tower 10y ago
      It was Assad's brutal suppression of protests that started the civil war; ISIS (formerly al-Qaida in Iraq, formerly Tawhid wa-Jihad) moved into the east once it was under way.
      - danharaj 10y ago
        Who knows how the war would have gone without isis in the picture?
        clock_tower 10y ago

narrator 10y ago

Does the all run on autopilot? It's like this stuff was on the timeline no matter who got elected. They've been deploying all over the South China Sea and Eastern Europe and it all went along smoothly on autopilot right through the election and transition.

KanyeBest 10y ago
And more importantly - can anything at all be done about it? It seems that certain interests will carry through no matter what.
Udik 10y ago
More than the deep state, there must have been very powerful actors behind the scenes pushing the US for intervention in Syria for all these years. After all, US's direct interest in the Middle East is limited. These are wars made on behalf of someone else, someone in the region.
- Zancarius 10y ago
  I don't think they necessarily have to be powerful as much as they have to have the means. At present, two countries off the top of my head that do are Saudi Arabia and Israel. The latter has enjoyed a direct diplomatic line to the US president (no matter who), but I'm not sure what they'd gain. The former has gifted candidates on both sides of the isle with various odds and ends for years, and in spite of their own local economic problems, they have a keen interest in US politics as well. They might stand to gain more in the short term, but it seems like an unnecessary long term gamble. There's a conspiracy that's been floated for a few years and is resurfacing that the Saudis and Qataris have been pushing for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey via Syria, and Assad has been a thorn in their side preventing diplomatic means to get it done. But there's also sound arguments against this [1], although the source I found suggests that this is directly tied to US access to bases in the area (possible) and thus aligning with SA, Qatar, and Turkey (perhaps in opposition to Russia/Iran/Syria). I'm not sure anyone really knows what's going on at this point. If I had to guess, it probably ties into everything from oil to archaic alliances dating to the Cold War and even military expenditures. The Israelis may have a part to play in all this, too, but in my mind, I don't see what benefit they'd gain by continuing to destabilize the entire region. Then again, I guess you could argue the same point for every other actor, and perhaps there's an advantage behind encouraging your adversaries to go for each others' throats every few years (dangerous!). Another protracted war in the Mideast is the last thing we need... sigh. (Note: I'm just speculating here based on what I've read over the years and my own opinions and biases. This is probably entirely wrong.) [1] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the-assad-regime-is-not-a-pipeline-war http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the...

mythrwy 10y ago

ForrestN 10y ago
Sincere question: how did you find such professions credible given how frequently and baldly Trump lied about basically everything? In other words, how can anyone be surprised by this or any other lie he tells?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mythrwy 10y ago
  Credible? Who wasn't lying? But you know what, I come to this site for tech and science type things. But a large contingent appear to be bent on using it for a political platform. My opinion is they are badly damaging the site. I've tried to register my opinion on things or talk about topics in what I perceive to be an objective manner only to be trolled, flamed and down-voted into oblivion. At this point I'm not going to bother with anything remotely political. If people want to make another ideology bubble fine. It's just not worth the struggle at this point.
cremno 10y ago
Do you even know what neoliberal means?
Udik 10y ago
I understand your reasons- Trump definitely seemed a safer choice in this respect. However, that probably shows that it's not enough to say you have an opinion or a stance on something; you can only be trusted to keep it if you are already aware, at the moment of expressing it, of all the arguments and forces that will push you in another direction. Three months (of undoubtedly powerful lobbying) have been enough to sway Trump from "no more wars" to "yes let's start another one, possibly with Russia".

colmvp 10y ago

I'm confused how this is so much more controversial or scary than the drone strikes that have occurred over the last number of years by the US that violated the sovereignty of other countries and resulted in unfortunate death of civilians. For the record, I'm not trying to compare Obama to Trump but rather the fact that the US has a long history of exerting its will in a methodical way, so I'm unclear why this is more... serious? Is it because of potential ramifications from Russia? I can't quite imagine that they really want to be involved in a hot war with the US and it's allies.

clock_tower 10y ago
It's the Russian ramifications -- not least because of the Russians' "firehose of falsehood" media (http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html). Russia's initial response here suggests that Putin won't dare to start a nuclear war, if it comes down to that (in Lithuania, for example); but talk is cheap, and he and his minions certainly know how to talk a good game.
- czep 10y ago
  Certainly Putin wouldn't dare to announce "hey I'm going to start a nuclear war, ok?" However, an ICBM launched from a sub in the Atlantic would reach NYC in, well, less time that it would take for the guys watching the early warning radar scopes to get in touch with the President. There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack. With Manhattan pulverized, the US thrown into total chaos, what's Trump going to do? A response would bring total war and the destruction of everything. Both Trump and Putin know this. Trump would have to accept the loss of one city. The US would effectively be off the world stage forever. Putin just may risk this in order to stop the US from meddling in his affairs once and for all. Dr. Strangelove, except orders given by the Kremlin. Anyone find this plausible or should I turn off the computer and go to sleep?
  - mustacheemperor 10y ago
    >There would be no hard evidence linking the source of the attack. There would be no hard evidence of a submarine launched ICBM pre-impact in the year 2017? I think you can stay up a while longer.

ourmandave 10y ago

We notified the Russians ahead of the strike. No Russian hardware was harmed in the making of this missile strike.

koolba 10y ago
That's a snarky way of saying that WW3 was avoided.
graycat 10y ago
IIRC there is also a report that no Russians were at the target of the attack.

locusm 10y ago

Its funny what crosses Americas red line, US forces killing over 200 civs in Mosul the other day didnt warrant much outrage.

flukus 10y ago
The red line is chemical weapons used by an unfriendly regime.
afarrell 10y ago
US forces, or US-backed forces? And was the killing deliberate, or just avoidably collateral? When judging crimes, intent matters. EDIT: Even if you wish it wasn't.
- locusm 10y ago
  Intent matters, but so does negligence & incompetence.

salimmadjd 10y ago

Beware of war propaganda. A quick reminder about the first Iraq war and how they lied about Saddam killing babies and used a PR firm in Congressional hearing [0] to build public outrage. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War

Neverchange 10y ago
"Lantos was a strong supporter of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During the run-up to the war, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Lantos was co-chairman, hosted a young Kuwaiti woman identified only as "Nurse Nayirah", who told of horrific abuses by Iraqi soldiers, including the killing of Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor of the hospital. These alleged atrocities figured prominently in the rhetoric at the time about Iraqi abuses in Kuwait. The girl's account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors.[30]" "Nurse Nayirah" later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States." So basically what just happened with the gas attack and all.
- salimmadjd 10y ago
  Yes...this is the same blueprint on Iraq 2, Libya and now Syria. With Syria they got even better by using social media. Example is the 7 year old who writes better twitter post than many native English speakers. She writes very touching yet concise and to the point twitter posts [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-twitter-girl-syria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-t...
  - 3131s 10y ago
    It's obvious that elements of US government in both parties have been captured by the business of war, for a long time now. I could argue until I'm blue in the face about this, but now I'm mostly just tired. These people are twisted and they need to pay for their crimes. I'll die happy if Bush, Obama, and Trump all spend the rest of their lives in prison. I don't believe a fucking thing from any of these bastards, their PR teams, their 'intelligence' agencies, or their media surrogates.

Tycho 10y ago

If it turns out not to have been an Assad attack then all those in the US government/military who pushed for escalation should walk the plank.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Hypothesis: this is a message to Xi and North Korea. Syria is a consequence-free zone. Unless we depose Assad and commit to nation building, this has limited non-humanitarian consequence. Bonus: decisive action right after McMasters consolidated Bannon's NSC influence.

flukus 10y ago
What's the warning supposed to be? "Don't do anything while we're bogged down in the middle east for another decade"?

sandworm101 10y ago

Fifty missiles, in an area where US aircraft can operate unfettered if they so choose, seems like a statement that one side doesn't want to risk its own people. Even the US has limits. There are only so many Tomahawks ready to go. 59+ is a significant reduction in that number. They won't do this again as I doubt they could mount a third such salvo. They need to keep a substantial number of missiles in reserve for taking out air defences in support of a broader air war or special forces operation. The next "message" will therefore come via manned aircraft. That's where things between the Russians and the US get tricky. There is only so much airspace over syria.

maxerickson 10y ago
Are you sure? There are 62 destroyers that can launch them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer (among other ships capable of launching them) Of course they aren't all deployed in the Middle East and won't each have 90 of the missiles ready to go, but 50 doesn't seem like a huge stretch of capabilities. There are numerous attacks of more than 150 missiles and several thousand available (which I agree doesn't necessarily mean they are all ready for use): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#United_Stat...
- sandworm101 10y ago
  But how many are actually there today? The fleet must keep in reserve enough missiles to address more pressing issues. Take the 60 missiles to take out a single airport. They probably want to keep twice that many in case they want to strike another airport, perhaps a Russian base. So 60 empty tubes, plus 120 ready to attack another base. Then how many do they need to take out all the air defences should a wider air war start? And then all the deep targets that they wouldn't want to risk manned aircraft to reach during the first wave. Say there are 5 ships x 50 missiles, that's only 250 to spread across all those missions. I;m interested in how many ships actually fired. Whether one ship fires all/most of them, or whether the tasking was spread amongst the fleet, speaks to the potential timeline. If it all came from one ship, and that ship is now racing back to port to rearm, that says to me that they expect to do this again sooner rather than later as that would get the fleet back to full capacity more quickly than waiting for many ships to rotate out.

abetusk 10y ago

Right now this post is ~1 hour old and 88 points yet is nowhere to be seen on the front page. Did this post get forcibly removed?

dhbanes 10y ago
It was on the front page for about 20 minutes before it started sinking rapidly. Perhaps it was reflexively flagged by users for some reason or perhaps the mods buried it intentionally.
- abetusk 10y ago
  Is there any way to find out how many 'flags' a submission has or whether it was flagged by the mods? Does anyone know the HN algorithm?
  - dhbanes 10y ago
    Here is extensive discussion on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13867739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13867739
- Zancarius 10y ago
  Doesn't HN automatically flag/throttle articles if its heuristics detect a possible flamewar or potentially hot button issue? I might be misremembering this.
  - dhbanes 10y ago
    Perhaps, but if you look at the comments from the original submission, there is little evidence of a flame war brewing.
    - Zancarius 10y ago
      True. I do wonder if it may auto-flag rapidly rising submissions as part of astroturfing prevention or similar? (Flamewar was a bad example, I admit. Sorry about that.)

mamaniscalco 10y ago

The ugly truth is that if you want to change a culture you must permeate it. This requires a multi-generational commitment. You can not assault an opposition into compliance. You must defeat its leaders and its men and then squat upon its culture until its children know nothing other than your own culture. This is what our grandfathers understood when they placed multi-generational bases in Germany and Japan. Today's metro-sexual culture does not have the understanding nor the resolve for such a commitment. A civilized culture must abhor violence. But it must also be ready to use it when the alternative is to ignore the suffering of others.

holydude 10y ago

I as an eastern european am really grateful for US interventions. Better dead than red.