We definitely meant to kill some people and innocent casualties are always a possibility. So it's not the same thing as a malfunction in an energy facility. It's more like when we also illegally try to kill armed militants from drones and then end up bombing a wedding or something.
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
We definitely meant to kill some people and innocent casualties are always a possibility. So it's not the same thing as a malfunction in an energy facility. It's more like when we also illegally try to kill armed militants from drones and then end up bombing a wedding or something.
So turns out that S-300 (and probably S-400) anti missle system is crap? I mean Syrians do have those, and Tomahawks are not that hard of a target to shoot. Quite interesting.
59 missles on one airport is an overkill though. It's clearly more of a message than simple strategic strike.
59 missles on one airport is an overkill though. It's clearly more of a message than simple strategic strike.
Joel Was Right
Member
LATEST: Russia says it is suspending agreement with U.S. to avoid clashes in Syria air space in response to US strike to Assad air base.
There are US military personnel scattered across the country.
There are US military personnel scattered across the country.
Yup. War is coming
Maintenance
Member
It wasn't overkill if the drone videos are not fake, it barely made a dent on it.
I remember one poster saying that would happen yesterday, can't find it now though.
I remember one poster saying that would happen yesterday, can't find it now though.
Audioboxer
Member
Either way, I'm not entirely certain why some people are invoking historical events to compare them to chemical weapons being used in 2017. I understand a bit of a history lesson for some of us, me included, as to what a chemical weapon actually is (a few in here already incorrectly calling a herbicide a chemical weapon). However, trying to say the US can have no comment on/say or even an attempt at intervention on a chemical weapon attack in 2017 because of what it did itself in the past is some serious deflection. Most countries in the world have some terrible past/histories and interactions in wars. Luckily a lot of it way in the past (WW1).
The Iraq war is a dark part of the US/UK history and it's fairly recent, but again, that still doesn't take away from the fact the Syrian government has killed its own people with chemical weapons in 2013, and now 2017. When the EU and many other countries are saying something has to be done about this, and even agreeing with this strike, it's not time to just jump straight in a rocket to "WW3!/Trump!". Do some of you even know what a World War is? The amount of times I've counted "World War 3 is here!" on GAF is a bit perplexing. As much as we can mock "America, fuck yeah!", the big countries do often get looked at to tow a big part of the line on universal agreement/enforcement of treaties surrounding things like chemical weapons. Debates over America's outrageous public spending on weapons/the army are really for another topic. Even if America spent less, which I feel it should, it's still a global superpower many smaller countries will look to for military intervention.
It's not even as if this was lighting up half the country. It's more a warning power play if anything, attempting to take out a base supposedly used for chemical weapon deployment, and echo a message globally chemical weapons are a no-go.
I think russia is doing this to get their sanctions lifted. They say some things, USA says some things. Trump will then offer a deal, offer up Assad for ease on sanctions. Etc.
Also, this talk gives them some cover from the investigations going on.
hobblygobbly
Member
I don't think the Russians intended to use their SAMs given that the U.S notified them about it and they cleared their personnel. I don't believe the Syrian command have authorisation to operate the Russian SAMs either, they are only under Russian command.
TheExecutive
Member
Let's not lose our heads here.
This is bad. Things could get out of control very, very fast.
El_Tiguere
Member
We need to ride this golden opportunity all the way until 2020, by presenting an anti-neocon anti-globalist candidate. Trump supporters are realizing fast that Trump is just another puppet for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Yea but if that's what they are running with this is going to blow up.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Source if you don't mind?
Nothing helps a President get re-elected like starting a war.
MisterFalcon
Member
Ehhh, Bush Sr. 1992 ?
Audioboxer
Member
I don't know why people keep posting things without sources
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ict-military-donald-trump-putin-a7671631.html
Of course every time Russia farts people start the propaganda machines up to say it's end times/WW3. The big players are always involved in proxy wars/threats and sabre rattling. I honestly think some who do the drive-by "WW3" posts even know themselves it would take a colossal effort for any sort of serious war between America/Russia/China to ever materialise. It's mutually assured destruction.
He's the exception, yes.
He also didn't "finish the job" in the eyes of many Republicans around him so they were let down. He could have kept escalating things but he didn't.
It ended to soon, probably.
Thanks.
You're not wrong about sabre rattling and that agencies will (probably) never step over the 'brink' to instigate a 'WW3' scenario...
... But that said, if Russian bombs start landing on US troops (or, if I'm reading wrong, skirmishes between Russian and US airforces begin happening), things will get fucking messy. Like messy to levels we haven't seen in a long time.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Thanks and I don't think this is a WW3 event..
elrechazado
Banned
Audioboxer
Member
True, but I don't think you'll even see that. This is Putin flexing and attempting to instigate fear in people. It works, people read that headline and start panicking.
Russia wants to have an allusion of being feared, as much as it also is actually going in and massacring people. It's one thing for them to attack 3rd world, or underdeveloped countries, but when it comes to America it'll large either be empty words, or "chess play". Not actual attacks of any kind. Hence one super power clearly understanding if it actually attacks another it can't continue to sit on top of its bully chair attacking lesser nations. It'll actually have another "big boy" standing up to it. Hence, mutually assured destruction.
Not to say superpowers don't attack each other in other ways, besides the news headline/PR shit throwing. However, we're talking war here because that is what commentators who read such headlines keep jumping straight to. WW3, or at least, America/Russia are going to war!
Haven't you heard of classic american freedom?
"Time delayed weapon"
"Our strategy here is to wait until they start having afflicted children and can no longer afford military defense. We're taking chemical warfare to the next level!"
I'm pretty sure that was not the goal.
Why not? It's illegal to attack a sovereign state without decree from the UN..?
I don't think you can really make a determination about the S-300
The Russians were pre-warned, and since the Syrians moved equipment and personnel out they were pre warned as well. The Syrians have a limited number of S-300 missiles they're not going waste them on a slap on the wrist.
The UN has no power against big military forces.
The US, China, Russia etc. are not going to be stopped by resolutions unless they want to be. It's literally impossible to make a resolution against them unless they agree to it.
If it makes you feel better, Hillary was also in favor of bombing the airfields:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-calls-strikes-syrian-airfields/story?id=46635881
Sunster
Member
No because we are exceptional. and "better us than China as world police hur dur..."
Let's step back from the polemics - the core point was that we should never underplay the damage that wanton chemical deployment can do (whether intended as weapons or not).
That's the whole reason the discussion started (people downplaying chemical weapons) and I'm sure we can agree on that.
elrechazado
Banned
Where did you get the idea anywhere in history that any international body pre approves any armed conflict before it happens?
Lol right? Putin may be an asshole but I'm sure he doesn't want to reign over a nuclear wasteland. He's not stupid.
Trump is, though
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
The whole idea that Russia is mad about these strikes is manufactured. The Russians have anti-missile systems that can take down Tomahawks. None were shot down and the Russians were absent from the base. This was done with the consent of the Russians. They only care about Syria as far as their access to it's naval and air bases. The fake disapproval of the Russians is just designed to make people question their installation of Trump as fPOTUS.
ClosingADoor
Member
There have been bombings in Syria for years now from all parties around. I don't know why this would suddenly be "illegal" or whatever. Not that it matters, countries don't ask for approval to start an attack most of the time.
This is the beginning of the nightmare scenario laid out during the election. We have a manchild in charge who doesn't know what he is doing trying to fix world affairs. I guess the dolts in this country that voted can rest easy though, afterall they'll have a pretend wall to celebrate around.
mercenar1e
Member
nobody listens to the UN.
Audioboxer
Member
Pretty much. No one can say it would never happen, but at the very least the countries aren't going to war over Trump sending mean tweets or Putin acting like an angry pirate talking smack about the US over the airwaves.
Hence, every time you read a 'scary headline' there isn't much point in dumping another $1,000 on the bomb shelter in your back garden. It's pretty much wasted money, in so far as letting your nervous system go into a state of panic is bad for your health.
The realities around modern war is it's all happening in underdeveloped or lesser developed countries. Leading to destabilisation and the death if not uprooting of thousands if not millions of refugees (utterly tragic in on itself). Not between America/Russia and China, because they like to get involved too, actually going to War with each other. Those refugees are the real talking point (as well as now the civilians who have just been chemically wiped out), not smokescreens about WW3.
GutsOfThor
Member
Ethical Hedonism
Banned
Yeah, it's not like all the nations were planning and gearing up to the world wars in advance, things happened that spiraled out of control, much like a chain of reaction of events, then they became WWs.
That's it, the WWs happened because of a perfect storm of diplomatic nightmares across large and complex regions, propelled by the drastic actions of a few specific nations.
With how Trump + his administration are handling things, our current storm is getting worse and worse month on month.
Russia didn't loss any personnel in the strike because the US warned them beforehand. They won't do something as reckless as attacking US forces because the US attacked a Syrian base. I can't believe people are actually expecting a WW3.
WW and WW2 happened because countries actually wanted to go war. There are 0 benefit for both side to go to war directly against each other now.
Why do you have a picture of your son as your avatar? Either that or armchair generals are getting younger and younger. Do carry on.
mysocksarepink
Banned
honestly I was just thinking this is manufactured to distract from trump-russia
is that too conspiracy-hat-ish though?
why you gotta be rude though
- Status