Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel suggested Friday that the Pentagon was moving naval forces closer to Syria in preparation for a possible decision by President Obama to order military strikes.

The president's senior national security advisers are expected to meet at the White House this weekend to discuss possible military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, a U.S. official told Fox News Friday.

U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military action, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.

"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options -- whatever options the president might choose," Hagel said.

He said the U.S. is coordinating with the international community to determine "what exactly did happen" in the reported use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons against civilians earlier this week. "We're still assessing that," he said.



What then? Bomb them. Rebuild them $$$. Give them visas to come here. Finally, thank everyone for service to our country?
We are MAD.

obama the peacemaker outrage ! I thought everything would be hunky dory once we elected our clean articulate half white presdint.

It will be interesting to see whether his peacenik followers go all wackadoodle bush hate on him or make excuses.

Obama is the new Savior..

I have no problem moving a bit closer in possible anticipation (LOL) to be ready at a moment's notice, yet I hate to see the U.S. get involved. Movement alone after all, in and of itself just might be enough to influence Assad- a little bit. What I do have a problem with is the U.S. getting involved to any additional degree- without approval and military contribution from Russia, China and other Islamic countries.

And then, only if we are going to act on their behalf to a very minor overall degree in total- a couple missiles here and there (among friends [sarcasm] ) and perhaps a bombing or two [sarcasm] of
Assad's the capability to use WMD. But, but that is it. NOTHING MORE.

No troops on the ground; no being the enforcer of a no-fly zone. Certainly nothing without overwhelming support and contribution from the rest of the world. This is, IMO, Russia's problem, not ours.](*,)

My real U.S. geopolitical concern here is four-fold: Israelis and Palestinians; Turkey and Jordan (order means nothing). No more attacks on Israel from Syria or Lebanon. No detriment to any chance of Israel and the Palestinians continuing to "negotiate". No destabilization of either Turkey or Jordan with Syrian civil war +refugees.

So, to answer Bloody's question succinctly: YES, I think we are, once again, on the very border of insanity.

This has nothing to do with our national security. Those nations in the area should handle this. Not us.

But, what will eventually happen is we will come to the rescue by bombing the snot out of them. Then of course we will need to go in and rebuild. Before we do so we need FOB's.

Damn, time to sell some under performing stocks so I can load up on Halliburton.

If we don't do something now, they Syrian navy will be invading New York City within three years and you will all regret your inaction.

Too late. Haliburton already gave the U.S. permission to move its ships.

I blame Sadam for giving Syria the WMDs..... 😟

Posing the question "are we insane" on this board is about like asking do we want a free beer .....

Remember when the liberals were bleeding out their eyeballs in outrage when Bush invaded Iraq, when when he had congressional approval to do so?

This guys gets us involved in Libya, and will get is involved in Syria, with no approval whatsoever.

This is not our fight. No matter what side we back, they will turn around and bite us one day, so we should just sit it out.

Funny how you blame a past event on liberals, but ignore "conservatives" right now- like John Mccain who is calling for U.S. involvement in Syria right now. This isn't a liberal v. conserative issue no matter how much some people want to make it one.

And, a better example/analogy would likely be Libya's recent civil war, which involved state attacks on civilian populations. We participated with other nations, including some Arab nationss, by shooting a bunch of cruise missles, dropping a few bombs and tamping downn a no-fly zone. No boots on the ground, plenty of support from Europe, NATO and others. Hell, a U.N. Security counsel resolution was not even vetoed by Russia or China.

Should Syria be found by today's UN inspectors to have gassed its own people, there is at least something that needs to be discussed by the nations of the world. I do not want to see us involved as this IMO is Rusiia's problem fostered in part via Iran.

John McCain is still alive?!

I figure we're about 7-10 days away from the cruise missile launches.

You hit it on the head. Actually, I'm surprised that you didn't see this one a while ago. You are generally better at reading what's going on. 🍺

Le Hockey Dad.


Will they paint the cruise missles UN blue?

John McCain is a conservative?

This will not be a UN war. The UN will not allow it. We're going rogue.

Buckwheat, it's the blatant effrontery to the tax payer & total worthless and unprovoked finality of this violent action by a President who is supposed to be anti-intervention that gets to me.

It was also the "thanking" of folks for their service to OUR country that I was never able to wrap my brain around completely when, IMHO, they were doing mercenary jobs & rebuilding for others. Shame that I came to this realization late in life after thanking so many for fighting in Vietnam, etc. So many brothers and sisters lost or damaged unnecessarily for the gain of a few.

"Yes". Didn't you know that. After all, Republican is the oposite of liberal.