Support NeoGAF

[Lan Dong Mik]

80 million down the fuckin drain

My patriotism is at an all time low. This country is a sad joke right now

 

[Audioboxer]

I wasn't shooting it down, I was saying it isn't going to work.

That Assad won't use chemical weapons again? Well right now the whole world is looking at Syria in regards to that, and America has made a military threat/action. At the very least Assad has got to know if he gases his own people again the world would most likely "by large" cheer on America (and others) to do a lot more the next time.

As I said earlier stopping the use of chemical weapons globally will take it's own precedent as a singular issue. Sure Assad does a lot of other heinous shit than just that, but chemical warfare is something the whole world looks on at as a problem everyone carries the brunt of. Not to mention many countries who signed treaties accepted responsibility to prevent/stop chemical warfare globally.

 

[Dopus]

80 million down the fuckin drain

My patriotism is at an all time low. This country is a sad joke right now

Patriotism is a joke.

 

[Extollere]

Now watch him go nuclear next time.

An action that would be praised by no one. Nobody will stand behind deployment of nuclear weapons that aren't in response to the imminent danger of an American city or a large attack on our soil.

It would be the worst move he could make if he really cares that much about his image.

Hilarious that we're even discussing how our President makes decisions about life or death based on how it will make him look.

 

[Sephzilla]

lol, 50 missiles that can land within 10 meters of a target and the motherfucker misses

 

[Netherscourge]

They missed this one...

 

[victreeb3l]

What a fucking joke.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

not seeing anything on CNN/BBC on this

they are busy reporting on Russia

"Did Russia try to destroy chem attack evidence?"

"Russia says it will beef up Assad's air defenses"

2 stories on CNN's website

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

That Assad won't use chemical weapons again? Well right now the whole world is looking at Syria in regards to that, and America has made a military threat/action. At the very least Assad has got to know if he gases his own people again the world would most likely "by large" cheer on America (and others) to do a lot more the next time.

Said that last time too...

 

[Brandon F]

They let Trump aim?

Surprising it didn't work out given he has had a lot of practice hitting stuff at distance on the golf course.

 

[Surfinn]

So what's next?

 

[Lautaro]

Imagine all the trips to Mar-a-Lago that could have been funded with that money.

 

[slit]

That Assad won't use chemical weapons again? Well right now the whole world is looking at Syria in regards to that, and America has made a military threat/action. At the very least Assad has got to know if he gasses his own people again the world would most likely "by large" cheer on America (and others) to do a lot more the next time.

With Russia willing to put the pieces back together again, he doesn't care. Assad has now been shown he can use chemical weapons and it'll be unlikely anything will happen to him other than bases being attacked which the U.S. has to warn about ahead of time in order to avoid killing Russians. Assad may back off for know with chemical weapons but he'll back to it with them, watch.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

Did Trump really take control and aim? For real?

 

[Rebel Leader]

Imagine all the trips to Mar-a-Lago that could have been funded with that money.

30ish?

 

[Iolo]

lol, 50 missiles that can land within 10 meters of a target and the motherfucker misses

Nobody missed anything. You can't cripple an airfield with Tomahawks. You need to send in pilots on sorties and this would surely result in American planes down via Russian made air defense. US basically did the minimum possible response to send a message of "don't do this again or else". The "or else" part is what will be tested

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

So what's next?

Nothing unless Assad uses sarin again.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Some ex general was talking on MSNBC's Maddox show last about how the Navy has other weapons specifically designed for taking out airfields, and that they wouldn't have used tomahawks if destroying the airfield completely was the goal. It was to blow up a few planes maybe some infrastructure and send a message.

If you really wanted to take out an airfield you'd have two choices-some kind of shaped charge bomb that would go into the airfield and absolutely wreck the concrete and strata below it (which I don't think we can deliver via cruise missile), or cluster munitions, which are largely banned under international law even if we aren't signatory on the treaty. The former is messy to deliver, the latter makes us look like monsters, so chuck some Tomahawks over and hope for the best. Asphalt and some construction equipment can have the runway back up to operational in very little time.

 

[BronsonLee]

lol they didn't fuckin let Trump aim, don't be silly

 

[Judderman]

So basicallly:

 

[Audioboxer]

Said that last time too...

Which is why lying about "not doing it again" and getting rid of all chemical weapons since 2014 arguably means less time for "polite conversations" in 2017.

You can argue America should just have gone straight to Assad is to be killed, let's bomb fucking everything, but most people myself included do think a "warning shot" is best first considering the state Syria is in.

With Russia willing to put the pieces back together again, he doesn't care. Assad has now been shown he can use chemical weapons and it'll be unlikely anything will happen to him other than bases being attacked which the U.S. has to warn about ahead of time in order to avoid killing Russians. Assad may back off for know with chemical weapons but he'll back to it with them, watch.

Possibly but as above, what is your solution? America should just go in right now for the kill and aim to dethrone Assad by mass lethal force?

 

[Future PhaZe]

With Russia willing to put the pieces back together again, he doesn't care. Assad has now been shown he can use chemical weapons and it'll be unlikely anything will happen to him other than bases being attacked which the U.S. has to warn about ahead of time in order to avoid killing Russians. Assad may back off for know with chemical weapons but he'll back to it with them, watch.

Yep. I'd be emboldened if anything after this. The US have to warn the Russians to avoid collateral, and the Russians will always just inform Assad.

The US can't do a fucking thing unless its willing to engage Russia.

 

[HideyoshiJP]

I see I'm not the only one that sucks at military strategy.

 

[FullMetaltech]

lol they didn't fuckin let Trump aim, don't be silly

I can see that happening too. They told him to move a little to left so that way it looks like they did some damage.

 

[Ric Flair]

I don't know what pisses me off more. That they don't know how to aim and missed pretty much everything, or that they knowingly missed to send a stupid fucking message that holds zero weight.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

So in this instance you'd want the base totalled? What's your thoughts on



To expand on your general thoughts, do you want more American military force in Syria right now, as in an attempt to get rid of Assad?

I wanted their striking capabilities from this base totalled, yes. Any retaliation needs to be disproportionate to have the appropriate deterrent effect. I'm not going to delve into specifics, but Hillary was right from the very beginning that as a general point, removal of Assad was necessary for peace in Syria. Also, her policy of implementing a no-fly zone over Syria is looking genius right about now despite how roundly criticized it was back then.

 

[Effect]

Some ex general was talking on MSNBC's Maddox show last about how the Navy has other weapons specifically designed for taking out airfields, and that they wouldn't have used tomahawks if destroying the airfield completely was the goal. It was to blow up a few planes maybe some infrastructure and send a message.

A message that says the US can waste money? Assad doesn't seem hurt by this. The airfields would have hurt and sent a real message. Thing is that wasn't what this was about at all.

 

[slit]

Possibly but as above, what is your solution? America should just go in right now for the kill and aim to dethrone Assad by mass lethal force?

There is no solution without boots on the ground and nobody in the U.S. will tolerate it. There is nothing that can really be done in Syria by anybody without triggering bigger problems. All Trump did was waste time, money and civilians.

 

[Iolo]

The sad part about this is, Trump probably thought this was it. He has no idea it could result in a cycle of escalation as Assad tries to prove he withstood the giant and the US is forced to make good on their threats. That's what happens when you don't consult your NSC and just listen to your military.

That said, I would consider the mission a success if Assad stops using chemical weapons. Obviously they were going to continue using the runway afterward. That's what people are overlooking

 

[Madness]

So we waste 70-something million dollars, get Russia hot on our ass, and do basically nothing to help the situation regarding Assad bombing his own citizens. Right. Got it.

Nah brah, we crossed the red line Obama said he would. We are saving the children hoo-rah. Reading some of the responses to the haphazard tomahawk strikes was ridiculous. Also these are precision cruise missiles. Sure they carry upto 1000 pounds if high explosives. But hardened military runway, packed earth, they should have used bunker busting JDAM's and other munitions but are probably fearful of Russia mobile SAM's or anti-aircraft batteries in the area. Which is why they just fired 60 cruise missiles.

Won't be long until russia strengthens Syrian air defenses either. This would have been smart to do 4 years ago. Take out Syrian air bases and cripple Assad. Instead the US did nothing, allowed russia to destroy the Syrian rebels, give Assad total control and now want to act like regime change will do anything better than Libya which is a lawless tribal shithole right now full of refugees fleeing, rape and death and a growing ISIS terror presence.

 

[Audioboxer]

I wanted their striking capabilities totalled, yes. Any retaliation needs to be disproportionate to have the appropriate deterrent effect. I'm not going to delve into specifics, but Hillary was right from the very beginning that as a general point, removal of Assad was necessary for peace in Syria. Also, her policy of implementing a no-fly zone over Syria is looking genius right about now despite how roundly criticized it was back then.

In all fairness to the government America has right now, many of them weren't in charge in the past. We're dealing with the realities of where we are now with trying to handle all of this. Russia is knee deep in this as well, and while I think the WW3 rhetoric plastered over GAF today is a bit wild, America acting slightly coy before they go to let's raise Syria is arguably better if you ask me. It's very unlikely any of this is going to end well tyring to stop Assad, but it might be a longer battle than anyone is comfortable with. With all the pieces involved, war in Syria, and ISIS to top it off.

I mean look how divisive this is on GAF. Tons of people saying America shouldn't have fired anything at Syria, regardless of chemical weapons, and now others saying America should be a full scale at war with Syria right now in regards to dethroning/killing Assad. Whilst the MSM and the general public are all over the place as well. Unified opinion, there is not.

There is no solution without boots on the ground and nobody in the U.S. will tolerate it. There is nothing that can really be done in Syria by anybody without triggering bigger problems. All Trump did was waste time, money and civilians.

Potentially, but yeah, good luck selling that to anyone. Still, I'll ask again, what was the realistic action from America in the short term? Just do nothing? Sit and wait as Assad gases enough people till enough death = yeah okay, now go and kill/dethrone Assad?

 

[commedieu]

Boy. Trump really did what needed to be done!!!!


Lol. Such a fucking con.and everyone is falling for it.

 

[Suikoguy]

Patriotism is a joke.

Unquestioned Patriotism is the problem.

 

[Emwitus]

Guess, the bombing didn't have that big of an effect on anything.

Lololol they probably just hit an empty airfield. Free mowing I guess.

 

[chuckddd]

I am so fucking tired of winning. I don't think I can take much more.

 

[CadetMahoney]

They knowingly missed to send a stupid fucking message that holds zero weight.

bingo.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

How many fucking times will pundits be immediately proven wrong when they gush over him doing something "presidential"?

 

[commedieu]

How many fucking times will pundits be immediately proven wrong when they gush over him doing something "presidential"?

Look in that other thread. It ain't just pundits.

 

[wandering]

Patriotism is a joke.

There's nothing wrong with patriotism. It's nationalism that's ugly.

 

[BstnRich]

The missiles just got 10 feet higher.

 

[King Tubby]

Potentially, but yeah, good luck selling that to anyone. Still, I'll ask again, what was the realistic action from America in the short term? Just do nothing? Sit and wait as Assad gases enough people till enough death = yeah okay, now go and kill/dethrone Assad?

Leave Assad alone as long as he isn't posing any threat to America or its allies. I don't see why that can't be an option. Our main priority in Syria should be defeating ISIS, we can't go around trying to play world police all the time with how often it backfires.

 

[Aztechnology]

Trump did what we assumed he was absolutely against given what he talked about during the campaign. Hillary as president likely would have made a surgical strike as well. I strongly dislike Trump, but I don't think he and the generals made the wrong move. Western global ideals are being challenged heavily and are In jeapordy. Assad used Sarin to see how far they could go as with Russia's backing they perceive U.S and U.N as a joke. If you're all bark and no bite forever people will stop listening. I'm not promoting troops on the ground or a direct conflict with Syria. But I do think it was far superior to doing nothing and having the U.N council essentially waived off yet again by Russia and China. They've seen condemnation from member states as mild grumblings/whimperings to be ignored for a long time now.

If anything I agree as others are starting it didn't go far enough. The Russian metaphorical firewall of Syria seems to be too strong for us to break/test.

 

[guek]

That approach hasn't worked out in any of the countries that US has intervened or invaded the last few decades, so why would it be different for this one?

Moreover, the was an opportunity in 2012 with a Russian-led regime transition which would have led Assad to step down. This, however, was not explored by Obama. Would it have been any different? We don't know, but we do know it wasn't taken seriously.

Liberals and the media cheering for this sort of behaviour have terrible memories. It's the same cycle repeating itself over and over again. And don't pretend it's about the morality of it all, when the US routinely kills civilians and destabilises entire regions, whilst at the same time turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in countries that they are allied with.

Something like this has the potential to turn into an even worse disaster as Syria is the only ally Russia have in the region. This has much wider effects for the country and for the West's relationship with Russia. It's a disaster by all accounts.

It's a disaster, but if we're going to accept that there are no right answer to the Assad/ISIS power struggle, that doesn't mean there isn't a better answer to the humanitarian crisis. What grinds my gears and should bother every decent American is the fact that this administration does not care about the suffering of Syrians, merely the use of chemical weapons. It's politicizing the wholesale slaughter of innocent people with no regard for the people being killed.

 

[slit]

Potentially, but yeah, good luck selling that to anyone. Still, I'll ask again, what was the realistic action from America in the short term? Just do nothing? Sit and wait as Assad gases enough people till enough death = yeah okay, now go and kill/dethrone Assad?

So the response to Assad killing his people should be to kill more of them with U. S. missiles which will accomplish nothing? Let me ask you, what alternatives do you propose? Continue to look like fools which will result in chemicals being used anyway?

 

[Jmille99]

I mean...I dont even know what to say. I believe if it was anyone else, Trump would be uttering the words "disaster", "worst strike ever", etc. How do you fuck up this badly and make yourself look even worse than when you initiated the attacks?

 

[Pai Pai Master]

There's nothing wrong with patriotism. It's nationalism that's ugly.

Captain America would be proud of you for this

 

[Audioboxer]

Leave Assad alone as long as he isn't posing any threat to America or its allies. I don't see why that can't be an option. Our main priority in Syria should be defeating ISIS, we can't go around trying to play world police all the time with how often it backfires.

Chemical weapons do "impact" on that laid back attitude.

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. The full name of the treaty is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction and it is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an intergovernmental organization based in The Hague, Netherlands. The treaty entered into force in 1997. The Chemical Weapons Convention comprehensively prohibits the use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of chemical weapons. Any chemical used for warfare is considered a chemical weapon by the Convention. The parties' main obligation under the convention is to effect this prohibition, as well as the destruction of all current chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

So the response to Assad killing his people should be to kill more of them with U. S. missiles which will accomplish nothing? Let me ask you, what alternatives do you propose? Continue to look like fools which will result in chemicals being used anyway?

I'd be willing to seriously ask, debate and probably accept the next time it happens the hard question of seriously aiming to take him out is required. By force. Considering I'm not against force, I just feel trying to wade into this mess with a little caution is best. I'm probably not the person you'd think would carry on acting like a fool, to use your words. There's clearly others around here who don't seem to care how many people Assad gases, it's not another countries issue to meddle in.

 

[commedieu]

Potentially, but yeah, good luck selling that to anyone. Still, I'll ask again, what was the realistic action from America in the short term? Just do nothing? Sit and wait as Assad gases enough people till enough death = yeah okay, now go and kill/dethrone Assad?

Seems to be the way we deal with Saudi arabia. We aren't the world police, and it shows with our double standards. This isn't about morality.

The world doesn't end. Diplomacy happens. The whole "are we supposed to do nothing?!?" Argument is flawed because that's exactly what the United States does.

The Trump admin isn't qualified to even start this discussion. Let alone strike sovereign nations that they couldn't even find on a map. It's not really a serious consideration because trump is a moron manbaby that trolls on Twitter.

This isn't about helping Syrians either. See: ban.

At least one of those things above would have to be false to even have this discussion... somewhat genuinely. But alas. We are here.

 

[Aztechnology]

It's a disaster, but if we're going to accept that there are no right answer to the Assad/ISIS power struggle, that doesn't mean there isn't a better answer to the humanitarian crisis. What grinds my gears and should bother every decent American is the fact that this administration does not care about the suffering of Syrians, merely the use of chemical weapons. It's politicizing the wholesale slaughter of innocent people with no regard for the people being killed.

That I agree with. They care about the weakening of the U.S position and western position. They don't actually care about the disgusting human rights violations being committed. The sad fact is, if we did, we'd go to war or carry out massive stroke that would probably prompt a wad. And people don't want to go to war for good reason. But to help and protect those people, there's really no other way.

 

[guek]

Potentially, but yeah, good luck selling that to anyone. Still, I'll ask again, what was the realistic action from America in the short term? Just do nothing? Sit and wait as Assad gases enough people till enough death = yeah okay, now go and kill/dethrone Assad?

There is no solution to the Assad problem but there are plenty of things the US could be doing about the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that it refuses to address under Trump.