This was basically Trump's state of the union 2.0. Bipartisan Van Jones-ing all across the board.
If he keeps blowing stuff up, he'll be re-elected for sure.
CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News
- Thread starter mackaveli
- Start date
- Status
This was basically Trump's state of the union 2.0. Bipartisan Van Jones-ing all across the board.
If he keeps blowing stuff up, he'll be re-elected for sure.
Netherscourge
Banned
Nah. He wouldn't want to radiate potential oil drilling sites in Syria.
Conventional bombs are fine. They help loosen up the soil anyway for the drilling rigs.
Mr. Giggles
Member
50....you know juuuuuuust in case.
Not happening, the US and their allies won't accept a pro Russian government and the Russians and their won't accept a US replacement to a long standing Russian/Iranian ally.
Second, there's no opposing moderate force on the ground to take his place that can govern a multisectarian multiracial Syria. Take a look at government controlled areas and you'll see Syrians from all faiths living together, whereas Druze in Idlib for example are forced to convert to Sunnism and Shia's are besieged, starved and bombarded, Christians have long since fled to government held territories.
You would need an ICBM or a bomber to actually crater the airfield.
Launching a fucking ICBM kind of freaks people out, and you don't want a bomber to get shot down.
A salvo of tomahawks is about the safest possible response.
I didn't boil your stance down at all.
I literally asked you if you would be okay with a second Iraq War to eliminate Assad and you said "Absolutely." Go back and read the conversation again!
If you didn't actually mean that, you should probably clarify!
Kibbles
Member
They warned them beforehand? wtf
Hey y'all we about to pull of a PR stunt so you might want to move all your nice planes around for a while.
So just posturing and scoring points at home? Because apparently those 50 or so missiles did nothing to harm operations of Regime Military.
Apparently Trump gave Putin heads up and Russia is Syria's friend...
Yeah pretty much.
I mean I guess the implication might be if you do it again there isn't going to be a warning. Pretty pointless imo.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
I'm seeing a lot of articles and leaders talk about how this sends a clear message.
But whats the clear message? Do we still support some rebel groups in hopes of regime change or do we support Assad but just not the use of chemical weapon attacks? What is the goal?
But whats the clear message? Do we still support some rebel groups in hopes of regime change or do we support Assad but just not the use of chemical weapon attacks? What is the goal?
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Doesn't the kinetic force of a ICBM falling from space equal some god awful amount of destruction? Like to the point you don't even need to put a bomb on it?
Yeah you must have missed all the other words in my post. Compared to ISIS growing and eventually attaining a WMD and Assad continuing to gas children....Absolutely. You were taking it to the furthest extreme and asked if I support a second Iraq war, so I took it to the furthest extreme to give an alternative option
FreedomFighter
Member
C'mon, son.
ICBM isn't that big object. For it to cause destruction and mayhem you would actually need to detonate warhead.
Weapons that use kinetic force are something looked into and developed, but dropping tube with rocket engine from space isn't it.
Netherscourge
Banned
It all depends on the war head.
Big heavy bombs dropped by Germany on Britain during the blitzes didn't all explode and they wound up just sticking up out of the ground like little trees.
If you want a big crater, you need a MOAB bomb. Literally, a couple tons of explosive strapped to a pallet and dropped from a bomber.
LiquidSword
Member
They are lying and propping up Trump to further their own agenda. The administration has no strategy and is completely incompetent.
Removing Assad and replacing him with who? People who also chemical weapons and kill government troops? Or ISIS?
No.
Enough US enforced regime change.
This is getting real fucking bullshit.
Autoignition
Member
I won't apologize, daddy.
Anyway, I enjoy that no one is disputing that he's an S-rank concern troll.
They have a loiter capability. You can basically program the missiles to launch and then circle around in an area for a time and then give them actual targets at a later time.
The idea is you can get something on target much more quickly if it's far inland, since Tomahawks launch from the water.
Yes, obviously thats what Im saying. I want to replace Assad with ISIS or someone else who is the same as Assad. That makes sense.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Just free fall alone without any type of acceleration besides gravity it would be (Weight of ICBM kg)*) (10m/s^2) = force thats not factoring in anything else. How much energy? depends on the height as well. But you get the basic idea..
Joel Was Right
Member
Greenwald has done more to highlight the hypocrisy of the Dems and anti-Trump movement than he has defending Trump or his campaign himself. In fact, Trump's views are the antithesis to Greenwald's beliefs. Anyone who is familiar with his writing over the past few years would realise that. And so I'm curious as to how you've come to the opposite conclusion.
Can you point to some select articles?
https://twitter.com/GebeilyM/status/850415933365596160
Talk about ineffective use of 50 and change Tomahawk missiles. Knocked out airfield for... 12 hours? Maybe point of strike was to try say "Don't do it ever again!", but still.
Haha Trump fucked up and couldn't even destroy an empty airfield. Today I'm an embarrassed american.
If we had found WMDs in Iraq would you have supported it? Or rather, did you support the Iraq war when we thought Saddam had WMDs?
Audioboxer
Member
Well, the message is isolated to don't use chemical weapons or you'll attract military attention, globally. It's a response on a singular issue. Everyone widening it to talking about ISIS/Russia/Assad in general, is trying to stretch "the message". When you do that it's easier to say what a shit message, or look at how little damage was done. The aim wasn't to kill Russian soldiers, or even Syrian. It is literally just a response to a country using chemical weapons. American intelligence says there are chemical weapons at that base or at least been dropped from there. So they're "chest thumping" how easy it is for America to hit the base with missiles to warn Assad the world won't stand by as kids get gassed to death.
FreedomFighter
Member
And cost $94+ million dollars (
$94,068,875 dollars and .75 cents to be exact
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
They are mainly happy that he's looking Presidential. You have to understand that it's very disheartening as a media person to constantly cover your President as a side show and a buffoon.
Now? At least this is normal political topics and not a reality show.
https://twitter.com/GebeilyM/status/850415933365596160
Talk about ineffective use of 50 and change Tomahawk missiles. Knocked out airfield for... 12 hours? Maybe point of strike was to try say "Don't do it ever again!", but still.
So they are sending up jets the very next day from the same base that we hit?
Really? Cuz we just watched Assad use chemical weapons. He has them. And hes not supposed to. Not really an "if". So you're saying, in hindsight, because we know how it all shaked out, even if it turned out Saddam had WMDs, you wouldn't have supported taking him out?
No. That's why the inspectors were sent in. You don't start a war with someone just because they have wmds. See North Korea.
Saddam was bluffing because he thought it was better to potentially have a card in his hand than not. He miscalculated.
The UN was completely baffled because the established Intel was that Saddam didn't have an advanced nuclear program, and if he had any chemical weapons they would be so old that they wouldn't even be effective.
Don't you find it a little odd that saddam maybe having nukes prompted a response but NK for a fact having an advanced program doesn't matter?
https://twitter.com/GebeilyM/status/850415933365596160
Talk about ineffective use of 50 and change Tomahawk missiles. Knocked out airfield for... 12 hours? Maybe point of strike was to try say "Don't do it ever again!", but still.
lol wow. What a farce.
Sqrt_minus_one
Member
My take on the situation - most western nations would love Assad to piss off at this point but there is a realisation that - Rebel groups are not united, destroying Syria's Army in a bid to get rid of BA. Would lead to fragmentation of the country as goups vie for power. To this day I cannot name an overall commander of rebel / overall FSA forces
There are regional countries supporting some of the factions so waiting for someone to exhaust resources and the situation to be resolved.
The US will not force him out with military force given recent experience in the region so I think diplomacy really is the only option.
Ok but
1) We know Assad has them, the UN knows too
2) North Korea is entangled with other interests like China, which is why the Korean War went the way it did, and why we treat NK the way we do. Its not odd, we know exactly what happened.
FreedomFighter
Member
So, with info of the air field being completely operational, and media now singing praises of Trump now that he's dropped meaningless bombs... They completely forgot about RussiaGate. It's like Putin and Trump hatched this plan to kill all that noise. Worked beautifully.
Obviously I'm being silly but so many ideas are running through my head right now to make sense of this.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Why give America this much credit? It's not always America's fault when bad stuff happens.
NK having nukes matters. A lot.
But they are also backed by china. Who also has nukes. Without that NK's nukes are gone very quickly.
The strike happened last night, maybe give it a day before saying everyone forgot about Russia. Its kind of a big story...
Besides they can only forget for so long until Comey comes back with info.
Moscow closes military hotline with the Pentagon.
https://twitter.com/DailyStarLeb/status/850407950602706945
https://twitter.com/DailyStarLeb/status/850407950602706945
It's still a reality show.
Ok, but how does intervention help the situation? What is the end game and how do you successfully get there?
If you remove Assad you essentially become Assad to the rebels who are aligned with ISIL and AQ. It's basically impossible to do regime change that ends the civil war there.
It's essentially the same situation with Iraq, except we created the power vacuum that started the civil war there. Syria is already in a full blown state of civil war. Removing Assad won't change that because we won't just hand things over to the rebels.
Iraq, Syria, NK are all situations where entering a full blown ground war are/were obviously worse than the status quo for the US, and likely even the people you are trying to help. Lots of people predicted an Iraqi civil war as the aftermath of taking out Saddam. It's very sectarian. Saddam was an asshole, but he managed to keep a lid on sectarian violence and civil war. The US isn't capable of doing the same. Why does anyone think we would be able to in Syria?
With NK even going after their nuclear program with calculated strikes is far to dangerous. If they manage to get a nuke off, or if you don't get all of them, they are crazy enough to launch one.
FreedomFighter
Member
That looks so fragile.
And then you chose one option over the other.
I don't really see that this changes the discussion at all. I'm asking you how much military commitment you would support to remove Assad. You seem to be saying "as much as Iraq was, because the consequences of not doing it might be really bad."
That's what we said about Iraq, and it turned out to be a bad decision! The potential negative consequences of inaction are always nearly infinite, so this argument can be used to justify any war.
Thats the big question, isn't it? If I had the answer I'd get a prize. Intervening helps by removing Assad, who is using chemical weapons. Taking responsibility for Syria afterward is obviously the crux of the issue. If you think we shouldn't intervene, how does that help? ISIS still exists, theyre still going to grow. Its not the same situation as Iraq because we actually know for a fact this guy just used WMDs right in front of our face.
As much military commitment as it takes to do everything we can to solve the situation. We can't just dip our toes in Syria. This has many similarities to Iraq, but one major difference is we just watched this man use WMDs in front of the whole world, after already supposedly turning in all his weapons. Another major thing we could do this time is, idk, take responsibility for the fact that we are intervening in another countrys development and not create a vacuum by Bush agreeing to remove all our troops? We cant just leave everyone alone, thats not going to solve anything. You think taking out ISIS and them getting replaced is bad, one of the points I was trying to make earlier is that what would be even worse than that is ISIS growing to a level unseen by any terror organization, or attaining WMDs themselves. We have to take them out. Just because you can't defeat an ideology doesn't mean we do nothing. There is no good answer to any of this, but doing nothing VS getting involved in a war, to me, means we have to get involved in the war. Assad is not a guaranteed guard against ISIS , who we have to eliminate anyways. Staying out of Syria does not keep ISIS at bay.
Tube is just to house the missile against environment and then aim it towards the sky. Stress of launch isn't that significant on platform.
---
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768
Dead Prince
Banned
i see why trump diverting money to the military. he really wants to let the world see how strong the US is but fuck this shit.
Maintenance
Member
So the drone footage was true after all.
Shocked.
Tube is just to house the missile against environment and then aim it towards the sky. Stress of launch isn't that significant on platform.
---
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768
Damn.- Status