Syria launches fresh airstrikes from the base USA bombed

Status
Not open for further replies.
bomb said:
cause it makes everyone sound dumb. Trump ordered the strike. It's up to everyone else at that point.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said trump is on a naval ship, operating the missiles. He is the boss, so the buck stops with who is responsible. I could be wrong..

Obama didn't personally fly drones to blow up weddings. But he is responsible for them as his signature has actions taken by professionals.

It's the whole idea of chain of command. And as per their own messaging.. the runways weren't a target before they were... then rebuilt.
 
ironcreed said:
C8y9SU5UQAAztC6.jpg:large


Precision strikes.
Click to expand...

The claims that civilians were killed may be true then
 
FreedomFighter said:
No, that makes you no more capable of swiftly and decisively winning a war or we wouldn't be in Iraq and especially Afghanistan still. And what goal posts? Sounds like you just don't like this opinion tbh. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

Are you still arguing that the US isn't more capable? It can be answer with a simple yes or no.

As to your other issue, that's what is called "nation building" and as I stated many times, US should not be doing that. The US military was never designed for that purpose. That's mean we shouldn't permanently / extended period have boots on the station SK, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and etc. I also believe the US shouldn't interfere unless it directly affects national security and some sort of "world" consensus. Thus, I don't agree with this missle attack.

Xando said:
That's great and all but how are these 200 military bases going to help supplying millions of troops trying to march through the muddy russian tundra?
Again we've seen this before with Napoleon and Nazi germany (both superpowers at the time).

Comparing a potential invasion of Russia to Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan shows how clueless you are.
Click to expand...
The closer / quicker you can get to the conflict zone, the faster you can respond, supply and resupply to any crisis. Why else do you think the US military have so many foreign bases and vessels. As for you example of resupply problems through Russia, that issue hasn't been planned for almost 100 years? The modern military resupply lines structure are much different since that time.

US sent large invasion force in WWI, WWII, Korea and etc., but you already know that since you are a military strategist genius...
 
LizardKing said:
But for some reason I'm crazy for stating it's power is far superior to everyone else and no one would fuck with it as it would ensure their own destruction.
Click to expand...

Yep. Heck, we were told to prepare for years of war and thousands of casualties leading up to the first Gulf War. By the second week, sand and heat proved a bigger deterrent than anything Saddam had.
 
LizardKing said:
screen-shot-2012-09-22-at-3-23-35-pm2.png
Click to expand...

Every time I see this I roll my eyes.

The US doe not have a land border with any potentially hostile nations and so it has to maintain a large and expensive naval fleet through which it projects it's power abroad. That plus the 500+ military bases it operates outside of the United States is why the budget is so big.

The astronomical US military budget hasn't helped it control Iraq or Afghanistan. Against a well trained, well armed, large and capable adversary you would have a painful and prolonged war. Ultimately successful? Sure, if your population can stomach the numbers of casualties, but it isn't clear cut as you seem to think and the differences in military spending wouldn't be as impactful as you might want to believe.
 
There has to be consequences to using chemical weapons. I think that the US response was proportionate, timed to minimise human casualities, whilst warning global actors so as to minimise the risks of escalation.

This was a slap on the wrist to Assad, and hopefully they now realise that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and that there will be consequences if they are used again. Militarily, it degrades Assad's forces by a minimal amount, but warns that if they do it again then the degradation of their capabilities could be more severe.

If you're concerned about escalation, then it should probably be reassuring that the military response was minimal.
 
Majik said:
Every time I see this I roll my eyes.

The US doe not have a land border with any potentially hostile nations and so it has to maintain a large and expensive naval fleet through which it projects it's power abroad. That plus the 500+ military bases it operates outside of the United States is why the budget is so big.

The astronomical US military budget hasn't helped it control Iraq or Afghanistan. Against a well trained, well armed, large and capable adversary you would have a painful and prolonged war. Ultimately successful? Sure, if your population can stomach the numbers of casualties, but it isn't clear cut as you seem to think and the differences in military spending wouldn't be as impactful as you might want to believe.
Click to expand...


.
 
BKK said:
There has to be consequences to using chemical weapons. I think that the US response was proportionate, timed to minimise human casualities, whilst warning global actors so as to minimise the risks of escalation.

This was a slap on the wrist to Assad, and hopefully they now realise that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and that there will be consequences if they are used again. Militarily, it degrades Assad's forces by a minimal amount, but warns that if they do it again then the degradation of their capabilities could be more severe.
Click to expand...

What bugs me is that this isn't the first time he's used chemical weapons. How many times will such a weak response be ignored before we realize it's not working.

To be clear, i don't think this was necessarily a bad response but I'm frustrated at the lack of forward thinking.
 
Majik said:
Every time I see this I roll my eyes.

The US doe not have a land border with any potentially hostile nations and so it has to maintain a large and expensive naval fleet through which it projects it's power abroad. That plus the 500+ military bases it operates outside of the United States is why the budget is so big.

The astronomical US military budget hasn't helped it control Iraq or Afghanistan. Against a well trained, well armed, large and capable adversary you would have a painful and prolonged war. Ultimately successful? Sure, if your population can stomach the numbers of casualties, but it isn't clear cut as you seem to think and the differences in military spending wouldn't be as impactful as you might want to believe.
Click to expand...

You are misinformed. Yes it operates many bases which help it project it's power through the world, a very important aspect of actually winning a war. But it is also far superior in every other way and has the capability to project that power through said bases. It's really not close, I'm not sure why some want to pretend it is. I guess some people will argue anything if they don't want to believe it's true.
 
guek said:
What bugs me is that this isn't the first time he's used chemical weapons. How many times will such a weak response be ignored before we realize it's not working.

To be clear, i don't think this was necessarily a bad response but I'm frustrated at the lack of forward thinking.
Click to expand...

This should have been done a long time ago (a limited tactical strike against a specific site related to chemical attacks). That's why he felt emboldened to continue using them, and has created the risk that the use of chemical weapons becomes normalised. With a new president, this really was the last opportunity to draw a line in the sand. Assad miscalculated, and thought that because Trump wasn't interested in interfering in the Middle East, he would ignore the use of chemical weapons.

I realise that Trump is a controversial figure, but these decisions are made by many people, and the President is just the person that approves them. I think the fact that most centre right and and centre left politicians approve of this action (whilst many on the more extreme right and left disapprove of it) shows that this was the right decision, which was come to by many people, and finally agreed by the president.
 
timepiece said:
This Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTTqx3Zy2rE) breaks my heart. You guys talking about fucking misses and what not. I would be raining Tomahawks on Assad's quarters if I was Trump. Fuck the Assad, Fuck the Russians and Fuck anyone who thinks this isn't justified.
Click to expand...

I know right? I always get a chuckle when people want to talk about how US action is terrible because people will accidentilly die from US missiles. Like wtf do you think is going on over there right now except it's not an accident or collateral.
 
BKK said:
This should have been done a long time ago (a limited tactical strike against a specific site related to chemical attacks). That's why he felt emboldened to continue using them, and has created the risk that the use of chemical weapons becomes normalised. With a new president, this really was the last opportunity to draw a line in the sand. Assad miscalculated, and thought that because Trump wasn't interested in interfering in the Middle East, he would ignore the use of chemical weapons.

I realise that Trump is a controversial figure, but these decisions are made by many people, and the President is just the person that approves them. I think the fact that most centre right and and centre left politicians approve of this action (whilst many on the more extreme right and left disapprove of it) shows that this was the right decision, which was come to by many people, and finally agreed by the president.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree

but what now?
 
BKK said:
This should have been done a long time ago (a limited tactical strike against a specific site related to chemical attacks). That's why he felt emboldened to continue using them, and has created the risk that the use of chemical weapons becomes normalised. With a new president, this really was the last opportunity to draw a line in the sand. Assad miscalculated, and thought that because Trump wasn't interested in interfering in the Middle East, he would ignore the use of chemical weapons.

I realise that Trump is a controversial figure, but these decisions are made by many people, and the President is just the person that approves them. I think the fact that most centre right and and centre left politicians approve of this action (whilst many on the more extreme right and left disapprove of it) shows that this was the right decision, which was come to by many people, and finally agreed by the president.
Click to expand...

Sure but I think the objection many people have is that Trump is an incompetent baffoon who hired a bunch of yes men incompetent baffoons and it shows. The messaging leading up to this, the sudden change, botching execution, no actual goal in mind (cripple air power, reduce air strike capabilities), and no further plan or cohesive message coming out of the admin (tillerson's and mattis comments specifically).

They are a mess. Sure bombing the airfields is the consensus solution, that's why Hillary and Trump came to the same conclusion, but trump and his admin are fucking omnishambles. They have no plan! Any other politician would! Literally! Any other politician who ran for president last year and I would be less worried! Instead he lobs 60 missiles in, half miss, and we further a proxy war for no apparent reason! I would rather they do nothing at all!
 
guek said:
I don't disagree

but what now?
Click to expand...

I think we have to disassociate the use of chemical weapons, from regime change in Syria. The first is realistically possible, with few unintended consequences. It's something that should have been achievable a long time ago (presuming that Assad isn't completely irrational, which I don't believe that he is).

The second is obviously more complicated. Assad clearly couldn't be a leader who could be acceptable to all sections of the country, and whilst he is accused of being a war criminal, there is no incentive for him to relinquish power. Dictators generally don't want to go in to exile, so I think that the west would have to offer him immunity from prosecution. Maybe the Northern Ireland peace process could be used as a precedence.

Just a suggestion for a possible political solution, I'm not naive enough to think that it would be a likely solution.
 
Kindekuma said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just get home, haven't been able to watch the news all day. Turn on CNN and I'm hearing there is universal praise for Trumps actions last night. I don't understand this world anymore...

We all deserve whats coming honestly with this much stupid on planet Earth.
 
Soroc said:
I just get home, haven't been able to watch the news all day. Turn on CNN and I'm hearing there is universal praise for Trumps actions last night. I don't understand this world anymore...

We all deserve whats coming honestly with this much stupid on planet Earth.
Click to expand...

to be fair, no one knew how complicated the situation in Syria was
 
OG_Original Gamer said:
Strike wouldn't and couldn't do much, if you have to warn Russia in advance, which means they might as well contacted Assad too.
Click to expand...

The reality of the situation. The message was loud and clear "we don't like chemical weapons because we saw pictures on fox news... but we still can't actually do shit because we don't want to start ww3... so please be nice."

Things only stop if Russia says so, or all hell really breaks loose. This was the exact same situation before and after the pointless strike.
 
shem935 said:
Sure but I think the objection many people have is that Trump is an incompetent baffoon who hired a bunch of yes men incompetent baffoons and it shows. The messaging leading up to this, the sudden change, botching execution, no actual goal in mind (cripple air power, reduce air strike capabilities), and no further plan or cohesive message coming out of the admin (tillerson's and mattis comments specifically).

They are a mess. Sure bombing the airfields is the consensus solution, that's why Hillary and Trump came to the same conclusion, but trump and his admin are fucking omnishambles. They have no plan! Any other politician would! Literally! Any other politician who ran for president last year and I would be less worried! Instead he lobs 60 missiles in, half miss, and we further a proxy war for no apparent reason! I would rather they do nothing at all!
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think this action has a very clear and defined goal; to dissuade the further use of, and normalisation of the use of chemical weapons. I think that's an achievable aim. Now, if like John McCain, you want to expand this in to regime change, then that would expand this into a proxy war, but there is no evidence that the current administration are planning that.
 
Majik said:
Every time I see this I roll my eyes.

The US doe not have a land border with any potentially hostile nations and so it has to maintain a large and expensive naval fleet through which it projects it's power abroad. That plus the 500+ military bases it operates outside of the United States is why the budget is so big.

The astronomical US military budget hasn't helped it control Iraq or Afghanistan. Against a well trained, well armed, large and capable adversary you would have a painful and prolonged war. Ultimately successful? Sure, if your population can stomach the numbers of casualties, but it isn't clear cut as you seem to think and the differences in military spending wouldn't be as impactful as you might want to believe.
Click to expand...

Why does the US deserve to hold so many military bases around the world capable of resupplying their fleet? Why do they need it if they are so far away from danger due to geography? Why does this country specifically deserve to be the world police when we can't even figure out how to rein in the power of our internal police?

We have clearly demonstrated that we should not be the dominant earth military force. I say this as a 20 year Navy retiree.
 
BigDug13 said:
Why does the US deserve to hold so many military bases around the world capable of resupplying their fleet? Why do they need it if they are so far away from danger due to geography? Why does this country specifically deserve to be the world police when we can't even figure out how to rein in the power of our internal police?

We have clearly demonstrated that we should not be the dominant earth military force. I say this as a 20 year Navy retiree.
Click to expand...

Nobody deserves anything, you have to earn it.
 
Taiser said:
damn... China could just brute-force-foot zerg the US.
Click to expand...

Foot soldiers are the most useless expenditure in modern war. Those numbers don't show the truth which is that the US has more air superiority fighters and bombers and missiles and carriers and nuclear submarines. That all matters.

The war hawks have been itching to spend some of these missiles. This was only the start. Just like they want US to arm Urkaine like crazy too. All on the taxpayer dime. Not enough money for planned parenthood but here is a $100 million spent attacking a runway that still functions.
 
BKK said:
There has to be consequences to using chemical weapons. I think that the US response was proportionate, timed to minimise human casualities, whilst warning global actors so as to minimise the risks of escalation.

This was a slap on the wrist to Assad, and hopefully they now realise that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and that there will be consequences if they are used again. Militarily, it degrades Assad's forces by a minimal amount, but warns that if they do it again then the degradation of their capabilities could be more severe.

If you're concerned about escalation, then it should probably be reassuring that the military response was minimal.
Click to expand...

Yup time for Assad to just bomb his civilians with conventional weapons now. Mission accomplished?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
God bless the USA.
Cringe 
31
2K
Dacvak replied
  • Locked
Syria has fallen
2
70
6K
Joramun replied
Moved to the UK from USA, what's a good VPN?
2
55
4K
notseqi replied
Chuck E. Cheese launches an arcade for adults
42
265
Deft Beck replied
More Europeans die from the heat each year than Americans die from guns
3 4 5 6 7
320
819
DaciaJC replied
Top Bottom