TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Is there ever a bad time to blow up some muslim **** hole air base? Win! I encourage you, while not optimistic given your brief posting history, to focus on not saying such ignorant ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richstadiumowner Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) I encourage you, while not optimistic given your brief posting history, to focus on not saying such ignorant ****. Yes it's our "ignorant ****" that's the problem How'd encouraging, talking, asking, hand wringing, line drawing, warning work out for the last thirty years? I forgot to add "Korea and China sleep over" to Staged, Isis, deep state, Iran, false flag, Russia ??? Edited April 7, 2017 by richstadiumowner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 But we do. The Russians very publicly moved in a bunch of S-300s in 2013, which can shoot down slow moving tomahawks with ease. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22652131 It's not even remotely that easy to make that statement. Russian AD doctrine traditionally relies on multiple different systems (missiles, radars, guns, C2, and combinations thereof) interfaced with each other and controlled centrally in an integrated air defense system. Any particular weapon within that system is optimized for specific engagement envelopes, and supported by others for engagement outside that envelope. Plus...S-300s are pretty old, enough so that we can expect reliably countermeasures exist, including the simple measure of routing the strike on an evasive course around defenses (which is the whole point of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk: they don't have to fly straight.) So just saying "They have S-300s" is pretty meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 How'd talking, asking, hand wringing, line drawing, warning, "saying" work out for thirty years. I forgot to add "Korea and China sleep over" to Staged, Isis, deep state, Iran, false flag, Russia ??? ... You're unusually casual in your lack of self awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 So let me get this straight. Assad was on the verge of victory and decided to use chemical weapons because he thought Trump would do nothing about it? That's what we're buying? So after four years of not using them he decided to use them now? Smells fishy to me. Dumbass gonna dumbass. More seriously, it's not unheard of for mistakes to be made. I can think of a couple of examples of chemical munitions being accidentally distributed in place of conventional...and that's just the documented ones I know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richstadiumowner Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Dumbass gonna dumbass. More seriously, it's not unheard of for mistakes to be made. I can think of a couple of examples of chemical munitions being accidentally distributed in place of conventional...and that's just the documented ones I know about. Or it is "fishy" I agree more with Justice on this one but either way blowing up a Syrian airbase that Iran, Russia and potentially Isis and every other POS org uses in Syria after dead gassed baby pictures were flashed world wide just feels right. Throw a chair, I'm more along with Row's take above. Blowing it up is genius. You know what doesn't work? Edited April 7, 2017 by richstadiumowner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Actually, I did just flip to MSNBC, to see how badly their diapers were soiled. Maddow may be insufferable, but their analysts are much better than CNNs. The media looks like they're loving this - the White House press pool is getting briefings, they're getting camera time, the studio personalities are getting to report on facts rather than bull **** for once. And everyone has a look on their face like "God, this is refreshing! It's been so long..." This is what 24 hour news channels are built for. The problem is they have to create news most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 So let me get this straight. Assad was on the verge of victory and decided to use chemical weapons because he thought Trump would do nothing about it? That's what we're buying? So after four years of not using them he decided to use them now? Smells fishy to me. im surprised nobody has said this so far, but this was obviously a test by assad to see what he could get away with against a new american regime. assad loses very little and gains a lot (mostly from iran and its surrogates) with this gambit. at worst they get their hand slapped, at best assad gains a ton of prominence within the rogue states. now that don has responded, as long as assad doesnt launch another chemical attack his downside from this point forward is limited. and while he technically lost on this gambit, his thumbing his nose at the international community and don in particular will gain him some influence among the states he cares about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The decision to use military force against Syria marks a remarkable reversal for Trump. In 2013, he was a vocal critic of President Barack Obama's contemplation of strikes in Syria following President Bashar al-Assad's initial use of chemical weapons against his own people. "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?" Trump asked in one tweet. "Obama needs Congressional approval." http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/trump-syria-foreign-policy/index.html?adkey=bn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Not quite as joyful when Reagan hit Libya, hope this sends a warning. I think Nelson DeMille could write a whole new series of books about this. I consider it a possibility that Trump wanted to forcefully break out of the binary choice that Putin and Assad were marching the world toward. They were fighting the rebels more than they were ISIS in order to get rid of those elements that want to remove Assad from power. Once they eliminated them, the remaining "simple" choice would have been: You want Assad or you want ISIS. Back us now because you really don't have a choice, do you? Trump's an iconoclast. Sadat threw the Russians out of the Middle East over thirty years ago. Obama's administration let them back in. That was a mistake. I think last night's events have reset the chessboard not only in the Middle East but also in North Korea and perhaps Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 The decision to use military force against Syria marks a remarkable reversal for Trump. In 2013, he was a vocal critic of President Barack Obama's contemplation of strikes in Syria following President Bashar al-Assad's initial use of chemical weapons against his own people. "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?" Trump asked in one tweet. "Obama needs Congressional approval." http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/trump-syria-foreign-policy/index.html?adkey=bn My guess is that Assad and company just don't get our crazy democratic system and actually took Trump at his word not realizing how our politics works. And attacked thinking there would be no response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 When I first heard the news, I was pretty uncertain on how I felt about it, due to Russia's friendship with Syria, but if they were forewarned, and didn't act on it, then I think we're good. Assad needs to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 When I first heard the news, I was pretty uncertain on how I felt about it, due to Russia's friendship with Syria, but if they were forewarned, and didn't act on it, then I think we're good. Assad needs to go. The US struck a specific target. Don't expect a lot more to happen on the remove Assad front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The US struck a specific target. Don't expect a lot more to happen on the remove Assad front. Oh I'm not, at least yet. I still think he needs to go, so I'm not exactly upset about striking said target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 At least Russia's response is good for comic relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) So let me get this straight. Assad was on the verge of victory and decided to use chemical weapons because he thought Trump would do nothing about it? That's what we're buying? So after four years of not using them he decided to use them now? Smells fishy to me. It's a set up. False flag. The "moderate rebels" aka ISIS did it. Why in the hell would Assad do this after what happened last time? Makes no sense. You have to think who benefits from this and it certainly isn't Assad. So here we go again. "That evil Assad killing his own people! C'mon America lets go beat the shite out of some country we have no business in. Let's go war!! Again, I mean still." Edited April 7, 2017 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 It's a set up. False flag. The "moderate rebels" aka ISIS did it. Why in the hell would Assad do this after what happened last time? Makes no sense. You have to think who benefits from this and it certainly isn't Assad. So here we go again. "That evil Assad killing his own people! C'mon America lets go beat the shite out of some country we have no business in. Let's go war!! Again, I mean still." Yes the Assad family has no history of brutally slaughtering his own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yes the Assad family has no history of brutally slaughtering his own people. We will see but don't expect a lot more than this strike on a single target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yes the Assad family has no history of brutally slaughtering his own people. He did and still does. Nobody is refuting that. He's probably killed over 500,000 of them, mostly without the use of CW, so now, all of a sudden, when he's nearing the finish line he decides to use them again? Doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 He did and still does. Nobody is refuting that. He's probably killed over 500,000 of them, mostly without the use of CW, so now, all of a sudden, when he's nearing the finish line he decides to use them again? Doesn't make sense. Mass murderers are supposed to make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts