Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
No President has ever ordered a more successful missile strike.
Syria launches fresh airstrikes from the base USA bombed
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
adamsappel
Member
You seem knowledgable. How is it possible to miss a target? This isn't a Scud missile that you vaguely point towards the enemy; are we not using satellites, drones, GPS, etc. in our targeting?
It is not really about missing the target but that the Tomahawks are not meant for destroying runways. Other structures? Sure, as long as they're not too hardened.
AFAIK.
Audioboxer
Member
Well, sadly arbitrary lines, hypocrisy, double-speak and degrees of "collateral damage" are blood over the hands of many at the top. There are decisions made all the time of let countries fight their own internal wars until they reach some arbitrary line, or we're simply not getting involved in this one. Basically, when do other countries intervene, if ever? Should other countries only ever intervene if they come under threat? When chemical weapons get used is it a global issue for all countries to uphold a stance against them? There's probably some Syrian civilians praying America/others get involved and "free" them. Maybe family of anyone killed by a Sarin attack?
Global politics, wars, ideological battles, hypocrisy, blood money, and so on is an absolute mess. It always will be in the world. Dictators and madmen will never cease to exist. We just have to try our best to resolve peacefully and by threat when we can, only rely on force when it's necessary. At times one persons "necessary" is another's "collateral damage". Hence you see Trump supporters say today America basically shouldn't ever be involved in other countries issues ever again, Trump let them down, etc. While I think the Iraq war was a disaster, and Bush/Blair are War Criminals, I cannot morally take a stance of complete isolation. What is shitty about America right now is the Government backed stance on refugees, as that is isolationist. Things do not need to be as absolute/heavy-handed as they are, and that can be part of a "peaceful" way to try and help people getting hit with chemical weapons needing to escape. As I said earlier that doesn't answer what the hell to do with Assad and all the other shit going on in Syria. A whole countries civilisation cannot be uprooted and airlifted to America/Europe.
Alternatively you cannot just waltz in and utterly destroy a country with no plan for how the hell to rebuild it. Or it just remains in ruins and pockets of "bad guys" end up running it.
Here is something else that is sad, decisions some people make cause others to suffer. There is no line. You take each individual situation assess and make a decision as best you can. The Syrian situation is shit. I'd love for it to end tomorrow but it won't. It won't end because the situation dictates it as so. Philosophizing about when people should and shouldn't interfere is not difficult, it's common sense. We can't risk a world war for the Syrian people, it sucks but the alternative is worse.
The strike intentionally avoided the runways, and it was meant to damage their fortified bunkers and serve as a message that chemical attacks will be responded to with force.
Furthermore, regarding the effectiveness of the strike, the message the US sent via de-confliction channel to warn Russian troops of an incoming attack was​ clearly passed on to the Syrians. There are reports of Syrian cargo and personnel evacuating win an hour before the missiles hit.
FreedomFighter
Member
You all missed the point. It was apparently just a fireworks show to Bryan Williams, who thought the missile strikes were... just... just...
jellies_two
Member
Supposedly this was one slice of a plan obama had in 2013 to degrade the Syrian Air Force
so trump listened to various scenarios then selected a small show of force that was to fly some cruise missiles into the front of those huge reinforced hangers and blow up whatever was inside.
Then trump told the Russians and the Russians told Assad and Assad flew the best stuff out of there or even moved them down to the side of the runway.
Then Russia huffed and puffed a bit on tv and that's it.
this was enough for nevertrump mainstream people like bill kristol to cream their trousers and make up for the loss of tin foil crazies like cernovich and david Duke and Spencer, while Bannon lays low and licks his wounds.
If this is the end of Trumps Syrian meddling, and if he gets more bad news on the Russia investigations he may decide North Korea is another easy place to play with war toys and keep McCain throbbing with pride. That's the scary part of this thing.
so trump listened to various scenarios then selected a small show of force that was to fly some cruise missiles into the front of those huge reinforced hangers and blow up whatever was inside.
Then trump told the Russians and the Russians told Assad and Assad flew the best stuff out of there or even moved them down to the side of the runway.
Then Russia huffed and puffed a bit on tv and that's it.
this was enough for nevertrump mainstream people like bill kristol to cream their trousers and make up for the loss of tin foil crazies like cernovich and david Duke and Spencer, while Bannon lays low and licks his wounds.
If this is the end of Trumps Syrian meddling, and if he gets more bad news on the Russia investigations he may decide North Korea is another easy place to play with war toys and keep McCain throbbing with pride. That's the scary part of this thing.
LizardKing
Member
Russia isn't going to do shit. The US could literally airstrike Russia out of Syria and Russia wouldn't do shit. As long as the US doesn't attack Russia itself. They know that engagement with the US military is instant assured destruction. I would call their bluff all day long.
Audioboxer
Member
Sure, as I said, at times one persons "necessary" is another's "collateral damage". As someone that doesn't think we're on the brink of a WW, and that Russia really wouldn't touch America, due to the fear of "mutually assured destruction", my brain might tick a bit differently than others. I accept there are people who think "Russia/WW3!", and that leads to their "collateral damage" stance. I'm just not convinced there.
I would also say philosophising about when to attack, and when to retract is actually one of the most difficult moral questions of global politics. Every action has a consequence and all that jazz. Hence, life is often about weighing up all the options and trying to find the best consequence. At times that is doing nothing, but other times you need to do something. The "line" here for many is using chemical weapons, not just on your own people, but using them at all.
Well good, I'm glad you're not in charge of world affairs!
Let me rephrase, it CAN be but it's not in this situation. There are no good options.
jakonovski
Member
100% it was Trump and/or advisors micromanaging the strike and failing. They're already making sounds about escalating because they don't want to lose face.
That's only slightly better than Stormtrooper aim.
So they didn't know the runways was easily fixed... but now they do :-D
Turkey shot down a Russian jet, Russia responded by bombing Turkish backed rebels all the way out of Latakia and took the whole of Aleppo, tipping the entire wars' balance in Assad's' favor and making Erdogan Putin' lapdog.
Russia knows how, when and where to respond. It's not always in your face response. Similar to the Iranians with their 2007 Karbala raid against US forces in Iraq.
Gallup comes out every day at 1 PM. Not sure about others.
You can't be serious. This is one of those things that are easy to say but suddenly the immense risks become real once you're actually pulling triggers and dropping bombs.
FreedomFighter
Member
This type of hubris, man... It's hilarious.
There's a reason US tends to invade weak nations with shit air defenses only.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Other than conduct one of the most successful cyber operations in history, they won't do shit. That's the thing about them, they engage in subversive warfare. It's why they are helping the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It's this kind of no worries attitude that has gotten us to this point, we should have been much more wary.
LizardKing
Member
And? Turkey isn't the US.
There is a next to insignificant risk. The US wouldn't come away unscathed like a war with Iraq for example but Russia would be crushed in a few weeks. Russia knows this. Do you think they would take action to ensure their destruction over Syria?
FreedomFighter
Member
Lizard King, you trippin' bruh.
That graph of military expenditure actually makes US military look more inept to me.
US expenditure is so high due to how it's designed, not because it's any more capable.
That graph of military expenditure actually makes US military look more inept to me.
US expenditure is so high due to how it's designed, not because it's any more capable.
LizardKing
Member
Well at least this boards preferred presidential candidate last year agrees with me.
LOL. I'm trippin? To call the US military not anymore capable than anyone else is laughable.
They are far more capable than the next 10 countries combined. They spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined.
Buddy, if the Iranians weren't afraid to kill American soldiers and conduct clandestine operations against US forces within Iraq during the Bush era, I doubt the Russians aren't going to do shit as a response.
jakonovski
Member
I hope lizardking is at least enlisted.
Bubba_Sparks
Member
He's not entirely wrong in the sense that the US has a larger and more capable military, however Russia would be able to inflict significant damage to the US.
Well at least this boards preferred presidential candidate last year agrees with me.
LOL. I'm trippin? To call the US military not anymore capable than anyone else is laughable.
They are far more capable than the next 10 countries combined.
Hey Rambo, yeah we get it. Russia are weak little pushovers. Putin pisses his pants at the sight of U.S. military might.
FreedomFighter
Member
These graphs mean absolutely nothing, man.
You think more money spent and several aircraft carriers means swift and ultimate destruction of any adversary... you could actually come up with counter examples yourself if you thought this through.
Sorry to appeal to authority here but unless you have that on record from multiple foreign policy experts, I don't believe you.
LizardKing
Member
Hmm, GAF attacking me for agreeing with Hillary Clinton policy. Maybe not Americans?
Sitting on 40% atm according http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
ikr, not agreeing with US of A being greatest military power ever to exist that can decimate any target with ease is so unAmerican!
ChemicalCutthroat
Member
Yeah, you're not wrong there. We tend to have incredibly bloated budgets that jerk off the military industrial complex rather than efficient use of funds. We built Littoral Combat Ships that have almost no strike capability and are made of paper mache'. We have the F-35 program which is horribly bloated and is nowhere near being what it was supposed to be, complete with a complete lack of accurate ground attack measures. We made the new Zumwalt class of ships... and then the custom gun that was designed for it was deemed too expensive, so despite making the guns, nobody will make ammo for it. We have a (pretty interesting) railgun program, which while kinda badass, is not going to be seeing actual warfare anytime soon.
We spend a lot of money, but we spend it in horribly inefficient means. We have some badass gear, but the price to performance ratio isn't really that great.
hydragonwarrior
Member
It's crazy that you can send a warning before an attack. I guess it's a standard practice?
Of course it didn't. We gave the Russians a heads up and they reportedly gave the Syrians a heads up.
What is this gaslighting bullshit. Criticism of Hillary's foreign policy is nothing new.
The US would meet the same fate as the germans in 41-45. Unless they're gonna nuke Russia they're not going to be able to supply such a large scale operation (we're talking about millions of soldiers here).
It's delusional to think open war between Russia and the US would not end with the death of humanity anyway.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Привет товарищ!
Disagreeing with your naivety most likely. The US and Russia have been rivals for decade and yet the US established a hotline with Moscow for a reason, they hesitated to bomb Soviet forces in Cuba for a reason, they never attacked Russian forces in Ukraine or Syria because they know there will be payback.
FreedomFighter
Member
More capable is arguable these days. Larger, for sure. But a war with Russia or China would mean the US going there to invade. And I think that'd end up being a decisive loss.
US spends a ton of money because it's military is designed to project power abroad. Russia and China don't need to spend nearly as much because their militaries are designed to protect the homeland with limited power projection. US invading countries like these with sophisticated air defense systems and huge land masses to occupy would be nuts. There is a limit to US military power - I know it's not easy to admit since we're program from birth to believe we're indestructible.
LizardKing
Member
Sure but to make it seem like I'm way off base and crazy for supporting the policy of the person most people on here wanted to be president is kinda silly.
And it's also not crazy to call the US military by far the most powerful in the world. No one disagrees with that and even most of the people here who are butt hurt that I'm calling a spade a spade probably wouldn't. They just are agitated because they think I'm dick waving but I'm not. Just calling a spade a spade. I think our military is ridiculous. But no one is going to fuck with it over Syria.
lastplayed
Member
lol sooner or later that US military chart always shows up in threads like this.
Moscow is the most heavily defended city on Earth behind maybe Pyongyang right now.
The US would ultimately defeat Russia but at what cost? Thousands of nuclear weapons killing each other.
Also, Russia and China are not going to go to war with the US. What people never seem to understand is that they know war with the world superpower means they lose.
Nothing can touch US surveillance, forward operating bases and power projection if they wanted to. But what would the end goal? Does America want to destroy China and Russia and kill billions? Do they want retaliatory strikes killing all americans igniting nuclear winter. Just stupid fantasy designed to take billions of taxpayer dollars to keep restocking and using them and restocking.
You just prove his point that the US is more "capable" being able to project and attack power anywhere. As to whether the US would take possibly heavy losses, that's debatable, but by side the point. But, hah, keep on moving the goal post...
ChemicalCutthroat
Member
This is a really good read if anyone has the time to scroll through it.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-attack-on-syrias-shayrat-air-base-was-a-sham
Tyler does good work.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-attack-on-syrias-shayrat-air-base-was-a-sham
Tyler does good work.
Another Su-22 taking off the Airbase today.
https://twitter.com/MmaGreen/status/850415982808117248
There doesn't seem to be much difficulty with taxing fighter jets around the runways.
https://twitter.com/MmaGreen/status/850415982808117248
There doesn't seem to be much difficulty with taxing fighter jets around the runways.
Russian MOD posted a drone video of the aftermath. The runways are long, and there are a lot of lanes.
- Status