Syria launches fresh airstrikes from the base USA bombed
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
US missiles are pretty accurate right, there's no way 50 missiles did that little damage except by intent, right?
Aztechnology
Member
Dumping foreign aid in won't do much. It doesn't stop the root cause of the issue. So what do we do?
King Tubby
Member
If we're going to retaliate against Syria for its use of chemical weapons then it shouldn't be the US alone. It should be a coalition operation. More importantly, if the aim is to depose Assad there better be a good fucking plan for actually rebuilding the country and resolving the power vacuum. I have no interest in seeing another Iraq as a result of US efforts, especially with an idiot at the helm. I have 0 faith whatsoever in Donald Trump's ability to resolve a playground dispute, I don't want him in charge of this shit.
Audioboxer
Member
Poor internal policy and an inhumane stance on refugees is America's dark side here, yes, but while getting that changed will help it doesn't stop Assad. Hence as I keep saying, chemical weapons being in use is a singular issue as much as it is part of a myriad of overall issues.
I don't disagree. It's why I think a warning of some sorts is best to come first. If Assad carries on then it'll require all of Europe, and America, to come together with a battle plan. All of these sorts of calculations are already going on.
Something needs to be done about Assad anyway, but continued use of chemical weapons is going to force the global hand to act quicker. Put it this way, for everyone totally opposed to any military action you're not going to get a diplomatic end to this if Assad doesn't stop chemical warfare. While it's unlikely, if he can be threatened into stopping that, "peaceful" negotiation can be attempted. Let's face it though, it hasn't worked in 2014. Hence chemical warfare taking precedence to force powers that be to get hands on.
How dare you! The great nation if North Korea, aka Best Korea have perfect launches every time.
Take in refugees for one. If you can't do anything about the root cause, do something to minimize the effects. The issue is that Europe is also sharply divided when it comes to refugees. Germany is leading the world when it comes to addressing the refugee problem but Germany is not the global leader America could be. It's not fair that the US has to shoulder that burden but if the richest, most powerful country in the world is willing to turn its back on these people, that sends a firm message to the rest of the world condoning apathy. Imagine if our sprawling military complex was used to help refugees fleeing conflict rather than pointlessly flexing nuts.
LegendofJoe
Member
90 million well spent
/s
/s
The amount of jingoistic high fiving going on and saying proud of the attack shows it achieved what they wanted. To move away from the Russia-Trump admin story. You think Trump and Bannon and these guys care about dead Syrian children? This was a way to spend hundeds of millions in costly taxpayer funded tomahawks, try and give the illusion that they are fighting back against Russia despite them giving the Russians a heads up which gave time for Syrians to evacuate, and ultimately achieving nothing.
Trump is a man who thinks a dead Navy SEAL would be smiling down because Congress gave him a 4 minute clap, not upset he gave his life due to a stupid administration and will never see his wife and children again. Just pure dumbassery behind decision.
Want to end Russian support of Syria. Sanction any banks dealing with Syrian entities. Sanction Russian Gazprom and other high industries. No way they would support Syria if it came to that. But again, it isn't like that. They wouldn't do that.
Trump is a man who thinks a dead Navy SEAL would be smiling down because Congress gave him a 4 minute clap, not upset he gave his life due to a stupid administration and will never see his wife and children again. Just pure dumbassery behind decision.
Want to end Russian support of Syria. Sanction any banks dealing with Syrian entities. Sanction Russian Gazprom and other high industries. No way they would support Syria if it came to that. But again, it isn't like that. They wouldn't do that.
S.a is reported using white phosphorous in Yemen, on people. And is participating in a damn near genocide. Just as Syria is reported(by rebels) to be using sarin.
Which is why investigations are key. But weren't done before this strike. I believe the ospcw is still investigating syria.
I'm not saying what aboit sa. I'm saying that there isn't some moral line that we must act on. As it's proven that we do not operate this way. We fell for the with saddam, and ghadaffi.
s_mirage
Member
Hardened shelters are pretty tough, and AFAIK Tomahawks aren't the right type of weapon to use against runways. A key part of airfield denial is knocking out the runway, and you probably aren't going to be able to do that terribly successfully with non-specialised cruise missiles.
Right, but I'm not condemning the action taken against chemical weapons, I'm condemning the inaction with everything else. A message had to be sent, and even an ineffectual one like this is better than silence. It was difficult play to chastise Assad without pissing off the Russians too much. But it doesn't actually change anything beyond giving Assad a slap on the wrist for using chemical weapons. Criticizing this administration for having no clear plan for Syria apart from finger wagging over chemical weapons is completely warranted.
maabus1999
Member
From the top they are. Can hit from the side or go for multiple hits on the tops.
Aztechnology
Member
I can understand idealistically we want this to happen. But it doesn't do much to solve the root cause of the issue. I argue the resources are better spent there, otherwise it becomes a cyclical as without resolving the core issue, the additional effects continue.
Regional stability is the goal. You can't have regional stability without the Assad Regime going away. Russia prevents that largely from happening as they don't want the west to get involved in another area of the Middle East/ establish western democracy/ideals there. It's clear there is no future for Syria under Assad. It needs to be a coalition effort and a global stance that says Assad goes. I don't see it happening though sadly.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Bare minimum, you would think the strike would stop Assad from launching airstrikes from the very same airfield THE NEXT DAY.
LizardKing
Member
Taking in refugees is a poor response to dealing with oppressive regimes. It's not effective as it doesn't eliminate the problem for most or relatively many people. Also you can't just empty entire populations of a country and reinstate them into a different one. For many reasons including cultural, economic and infrastructure. Europe's response to the Syrian situation by accepting refugees is an ineffective cowards way out to make them feel like they are doing something to help without having to do what would actually be best for the citizens. It doesn't actually solve anything.
Audioboxer
Member
You're not going to get me disagreeing S.A needs to be dealt with, with many things it does. The issue there is good luck considering the amount of business America, and the UK, does with S.A in regards to arms/oil.
Been that way for ages and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. I don't actually know if white phosphorous is classed as a chemical weapon, for what it's worth.
As for investigations in Syria, there was a decent bit of intelligence work done
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39531045
Fair enough, but you do realise the reality of inevitable plans is probably going to end up with a lot of military intervention? The biggest issue there is good luck convincing a LOT of your fellow Americans. This way for better or worse gives the American government the ability to say Assad was warned before launching a shitstorm of missiles to light up half the country (if he carries on killing with chemical weapons). Or whatever might follow if armies from the US/Europe need to invade to get Assad out.
Where the fuck was this level of critique and outrage when 9 out of 10 drone strikes by Obama killed innocent bystanders?
No, lets be armchair generals about a strategic strike on a military airfield as if we know the exact targets and the goal of the mission. ffs
No, lets be armchair generals about a strategic strike on a military airfield as if we know the exact targets and the goal of the mission. ffs
All im mainly responding to is the "what are we supposed to do? Just let him run wild!?" Argument. There is a ton of room between sanctions and missle strikes. While banning refugees from your country. It's nothing that needs a ham-fisted response from an inept administration.
White phosphorus used on people, is the line drawn as far as international law. But dozens of rights groups are condemning SA for yemen, while we refuel their planes.
This strike, and the Trump admin, isn't working for the benefit of the Syrian people. That's my main take home.
WP is legal weapon to use in war against enemy combatants. Its use against civilians is banned. WP is very inhumane weapon and how and what kind damage it inflicts on soft targets is disturbing. That stuff is napalm on steroids, ultra nasty.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Media is patting Trump on the back, this is that speech all over again except he's using expensive missiles instead of a teleprompter.
Audioboxer
Member
They probably aren't, although there might be some people in intelligence services and even the US government with a heart. As much as the world is filled with atrocities seeing children asphyxiated by gas is hard to just shrug off as an unavoidable collateral, for most people. And yes, I know there is all the hypocrisy of US airstrikes killing civilians.
There's a reason, though, you see a good amount of global chatter jump on the bandwagon today to give a comment of unity with America, even if it's "painful" to the ego of many seemingly "agreeing" with Trump. Chemical weapons will often unify people, as will suffocated children. Again, there is hypocrisy and double standards all over global politics, but it is what it is.
Yeah, reading on it sounds fucking horrific, and it's an atrocity the stuff we sell to SA. It might not be nice to say, though, but under the chemical weapons treaties and documents they do get specific on what is and isn't. Earlier today we had some arguing herbicides are chemical weapons, and technically they aren't.
We still shouldn't be selling that shit to SA...
Well the "real" issue here is Russia. Putin's goal is to make the UN and NATO as ineffective and useless as possible. Russia having veto power on the UN security council undermines the entire purpose of the UN. If Europe and the US are not willing to stand up to Russia, which is honestly another quagmire with no clear answer, the least they could do is treat these refugees like people instead of a pox. If you have a cancer you can't do anything else about, you at least do your best to minimize the symptoms. The world needs to either nut up or shut up and clean up the mess they're letting unfold.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Meals on Wheels too.
LifEndz
Member
People arguing that herbicides are chemical weapons technically aren't wrong when we consider their effect on humans and animals in high concentrations, but international laws define what chemical agents are actual chemical weapons. It's kinda amazing that we have banned use of e.g. sarin gas as weapon of war while we still allow weapons like napalm and white phosphorous. In some cases chemical weapon can kill you faster and cause less suffering than being burned from inside out and through your bones by white phosphorous.
At least napalm and WP has some stigma to them so nations like US and Russia are somewhat afraid to use them.
Edit: movie Fury has scene where they use WP and is very authentic presentation of how it works on person. Walking and smoking lanterns.
I'd agree with Trump if this was something to stop chemical weapons use. Without the shadow of a doubt I'd agree.
AcademicSaucer
Member
This really, if you dont have atleast a 20 year plan for Syria dont even bother , you just want to make yourself feel better and leave a chaos behind you
poppedcollar69
Member
I see I'm not the only one that sucks at military strategy.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Artillery, even artillery launching missiles from destroyers, are not going to knock out an airbase.
Trump probably wanted to make a big angry gesture to swing his weight around. The fact that is has backfired to make him look impotent is simply yet another day in this cocaine-fuelled clown car that the US elected to run their executive.
Trump probably wanted to make a big angry gesture to swing his weight around. The fact that is has backfired to make him look impotent is simply yet another day in this cocaine-fuelled clown car that the US elected to run their executive.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Chemical weapons are awful against soldiers. You shoot a bunch of sarin at them, they put on suits and they're good to go. Except then to gas blows into civilian towns, and civilians don't usually have NBC suits or the training to use them.
That's the difference. White Phosphorous has actual military value. Chemical weapons don't, they're really only useful if you're trying to kill civilians.
Lol you are smoking crack if you think Obama hasn't gotten flack for his foreign policy. You should probably calm down.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
you know there is a lot of threads on neogaf about drone strikes during the obama years. if you are actually interested you can find them
Audioboxer
Member
It's all horrific, and what is even more unsettling is how much we sell to the Saudi's knowing where it's ending up and what it's being used for. Just the other week my PM Theresa May was over cosying up with them again. Probably doing some sorts of arms deals.
Sadly I don't know if there is any stopping Assad with anything other than sheer force. Worrying how we get to that though, and/or how it would be done. Therefore, I understand worrying times with Trump in charge. I can't say this response as much as most are mocking it, is lunacy. It's probably going to be an ineffective deterrent, but at least it's not jumping right into full-scale war. Even although I take on board some posters saying we should have had a "war" to get rid of Assad before now.
I got called a young armchair general earlier, and yeah okay, I'm talking about shit if I was truly educated in, I'd be working in intelligence/government. All I can do is articulate my thoughts as best as I can based off of things I read and feelings. Most of us are in positions like that when it comes to war/global politics. Although, I'd like to think 99% of us can unify on statements such as using chemical weapons on civilians is out of order. The debates really start around what the hell can we do about it?
I guess I missed that day of school.
I think you're overestimating the average person's knowledge of missiles.
Against what? If I was hit by WP and I was soldier I most likely would just kill myself. Quicker way out than being burned from inside out slowly and suffering insane amounts of agony from fire that can't be extinguished. Napalm at least can be extinguished and doesn't burn through you like 6yo hitting bag of candy.
As someone who has gotten some training on this shit it amazes me how inhumane weapons like WP and napalm are still okay'd by international community.
plagiarize
Banned
All over my facebook wall?
And if we're being honest, all over yours too I'm betting.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Five seconds of googling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions
What do you think the military application of lobbing sarin at guys in hazmat suits is? None, you just hope there are civilians in the mix that don't have suits.
What you don't seem to understand is you can't do that without confronting Russia.
In that case there are people around here who didn't care while Assad has killed massive amounts of people with barrel bombs or when Russia was using a scorched Earth policy in it's raids against the eastern Syrian populations but I guess now an arbitrary line has been drawn and people are wrong to not care NOW.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I wonder if they were hoping that the Susan Rice spin was going to stick better than it did, when they saw the media call BS and asking for evidence, along with all the stories about Bannon vs Kushner, his approval ratings, failing healthcare, SCJ fillibuster, and Nunez having to step aside he probably decided to just call Putin, have him get his guys and all the syrian planes out of the airfield so he could attack and look strong without actually doing anything.
As you keep making that point and aim it at me let me make this clear; Just because I see no value in WP and Napalm being OK'd as weapons of war doesn't mean I'm advocating for legalization of chemical weapons. I fully understand why they are banned and I support that ban.
- Status