View Full Version : Trump just lit up a Syrian airbase
hollohas
04-06-2017, 19:41
"At least" 50 tomahawk missiles launched into Syria. Damn.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-launches-missiles-syrian-base-after-chemical-weapons-attack-n743636?cid=eml_nbn_20170406
alan0269
04-06-2017, 19:44
Fox News reporting the Pentagon has confirmed 60 Tomahawks. Trump could be making an address any time now. Targets were a chemical plant and an airstrip.
Well that didnt take long.
Pres. just addressed the press...
...but Trump is in cahoots with the Russians! [Sarcasm2]
Bailey Guns
04-06-2017, 20:20
I have mixed feelings about it. I don't give a rat's ass about a Syrian airbase. I don't have a problem with the airstrikes to prove a point...to the Syrians and the Russians. But I sure as hell don't wanna see us get any more involved. Assad is a really bad guy. Most of the "rebels" (or many of them anyway) are probably ISIS or sympathetic with them. This is a no win situation.
Honey Badger282.8
04-06-2017, 20:37
I'm fine with taking out all of Syrias military capabilities with targeted strikes, my only concern is how much Russia would be willing to assist.
Sheesh. I thought on my way home from work they said Trump was talking to his advisors about possible military options.
That didn't take long.
Between Syria, N. Korea, and the southern border. It's gonna be an interesting 4 years. But maybe if N Korea was watching this then they might ratchet the bs down a bit. But i not gonna hold my breath. He's a short fucker that needs to be executed.
Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk
BushMasterBoy
04-06-2017, 21:14
I'm surprised they did not target the guy personally. He probably sleeps in a orphanage.
Jesus-With-A-.45
04-06-2017, 21:35
I have mixed feelings about it. I don't give a rat's ass about a Syrian airbase. I don't have a problem with the airstrikes to prove a point...to the Syrians and the Russians. But I sure as hell don't wanna see us get any more involved. Assad is a really bad guy. Most of the "rebels" (or many of them anyway) are probably ISIS or sympathetic with them. This is a no win situation.
It's statement that Trump had to make not only to Russia/Syria/Iran but also the rest of the world, that the yellow bastard obama is gone & a new man is in charge now. That said, I agree that we shouldn't get involved & it would probably be a no win situation.
Fuck. We need to quit being the world police.
Seamonkey
04-06-2017, 21:43
Fuck. We need to quit being the world police.
+1
Fuck. We need to quit being the world police.
I agree but disagree.
If we don't intervene in some of this garbage nobody else is going to do anything and eventually this type of stuff will show up in our backyard.
What I'd like to see is the rest of the world maybe intervene from time to time. Or at least jump in on our six after we kick the door in.
GilpinGuy
04-06-2017, 22:14
World police = bad
Dictators (elected...right) gassing civilians to death = bad
Difficult situation. I do believe that this was a "See! I'm not a giant pussy like Obama" moment.
Well, I was thinking this morning that Trump would, without a doubt, make a strike on Assad, but I figured he would wait until his meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping had concluded. That he acted now is more significant than the Syrian problem.
I agree but disagree.
If we don't intervene in some of this garbage nobody else is going to do anything and eventually this type of stuff will show up in our backyard.
What I'd like to see is the rest of the world maybe intervene from time to time. Or at least jump in on our six after we kick the door in.
If you don't want terrorism in your backyard, supporting Assad instead of the terrorists (via the lovely Christians In Action) would be a good start.
His dad was anti-Jihadist (particularly of the Sunni variety, which is the most prevalent) and straight up slaughtered a bunch of them in the 80's.
Assad is no benevolently elected politician, granted. But ya know what? He's better than the lunatics in the KSA who are our supposed allies. Nothing good will come of overthrowing him.
Iraq - shit
Libya - shit
Egypt - shit
Gee... I wonder what would happen if Syrian government fell? Hrm? Perhaps.... shit?
If you don't want terrorism in your backyard, supporting Assad instead of the terrorists (via the lovely Christians In Action) would be a good start.
His dad was anti-Jihadist (particularly of the Sunni variety, which is the most prevalent) and straight up slaughtered a bunch of them in the 80's.
Assad is no benevolently elected politician, granted. But ya know what? He's better than the lunatics in the KSA who are our supposed allies. Nothing good will come of overthrowing him.
Iraq - shit
Libya - shit
Egypt - shit
Gee... I wonder what would happen if Syrian government fell? Hrm? Perhaps.... shit?
Agree.
Iraq was a good enemy of Iran that kept that region in a fragile "peace".
Sadam's end awoke Iran by removing the checks and balances.
Imagine if we never went to free Kuwaiti oil fields in the 1990s. Maybe the Saudi terrorist supporting kings would have been done away with also. The US has no need for middle east oil
I think Trump just bombed the place because the name of the airbase (Shayrat) sounds like a terrorist resort, “Chez Rat”.
DavieD55
04-07-2017, 00:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IiS6Fehd44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQcPZrBbb2Q
Madeinhb
04-07-2017, 01:14
I'm surprised they did not target the guy personally. He probably sleeps in a orphanage.
Probably? You know he does.
If Syria was such a shit hole before we started dropping weapons to the moderate terrorist why is it just the last few years it's civilians
Decide they are better off trying to row a boat to Europe?
There are Russian planes and troops in Syria. Hope we didn't hit any of them. Lets not forget Russia
Has nukes....big fucking nukes. We've had enough trouble and expense fighting cavemen in the middle east. We don't want Russia.
If you don't want terrorism in your backyard, supporting Assad instead of the terrorists (via the lovely Christians In Action) would be a good start.
His dad was anti-Jihadist (particularly of the Sunni variety, which is the most prevalent) and straight up slaughtered a bunch of them in the 80's.
Assad is no benevolently elected politician, granted. But ya know what? He's better than the lunatics in the KSA who are our supposed allies. Nothing good will come of overthrowing him.
Iraq - shit
Libya - shit
Egypt - shit
Gee... I wonder what would happen if Syrian government fell? Hrm? Perhaps.... shit?
I agree. This act emboldens ISIS which is making the former pResident and hrc happy. Anytime people like mccain or the former administration are happy then a mistake has been made.
There are Russian planes and troops in Syria. Hope we didn't hit any of them. Lets not forget Russia
Has nukes....big fucking nukes. We've had enough trouble and expense fighting cavemen in the middle east. We don't want Russia.
I thought Russia and Trump were BFF's. According to the "news" their intervention in our election process helped get him elected.
Also, thirty years ago Russia might have been a little scary to deal with. From what I can tell it's not quite the super power it was back in its glory days.
Big change from sending James Taylor over to sing to them.
I like it.
Zundfolge
04-07-2017, 08:10
The lesson we should have learned from Iraq and Libya (and the Shaw in Iran for that matter) is that as distasteful as these oppressive middle eastern dictators are, they are ruling over a culture and people that is simply incompatible with democracy.
You either keep these people under the boot of a brutal dictator that's content to trade with the west but otherwise leave us alone or you give them the vote and they vote for Sharia and Jihad and they end up back under the boot of a brutal dictator that wants to expand Sharia and Jihad to OUR lands.
So the real option is you either prop up these tin horn dictators or you prepare for a war of genocide against these countries. Those are the only way you get peace. (instead we'll remove these guys from power because it "feels good" in the short term and then we'll see the west flooded with jihadis that we'll never have the stones to eliminate once and for all)
I agree but disagree.
If we don't intervene in some of this garbage nobody else is going to do anything and eventually this type of stuff will show up in our backyard.
What I'd like to see is the rest of the world maybe intervene from time to time. Or at least jump in on our six after we kick the door in.
I agree. We stop stopped after ww1 and you what happened then.
Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk
If you think Saddam added an element of peace to the region, you're kidding yourselves. Saddam used gas against the Kurds (<-not jihadis) and was funding and fueling terrorism targeting Israel. Hell, the sarin used by the Syrians probably came from Saddam when he moved it out of Iraq.
*EVERYONE* knew that Obama was a pussy and had no moral compass. The world is more peaceful when the US is willing to flex its military muscle. It's not that the US has to be the world's cop. When we're willing to act when necessary, the world takes note and there's an element of self-policing that takes place.
Ummm... Osama Bin Laden considered Saddam an apostate (he was, generally). Of the options in the region, he wasn't actually that bad in terms of international problems. If gassing the Kurds (which was bad) was such a "take him out!" problem, why didn't he get taken out then?
Saddam's encouragement or financing of terrorism was no more than the rest of the Middle East leaders (especially our "allies" in the KSA!). Generally, he'd do things like give $1k to families of suicide bombers from the PLO, etc.
As for Iraq, let me ask you, what changed from 1991/1994 (interview year) to 2003, but nothing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
If Israel is the litmus test for us wag our dicks all over the Middle East, I say let God deal with it. If He wants Israel to exist in some fantasy world of revamped ideology (which has no resemblance to Biblical Israel, since Biblical Judaism is ipso facto impossible now), then let His Angel deal with it a la the Assyrians, Jericho, the followers of Core, etc.
Saddam was bad, granted. But he was no worse than the folks we ally ourselves with. Assad is better than Saddam was. All the various Al-(insert here) Brigades are bad in a way the secular dictators of the Middle East would never dream of. No good can come of Assad's ouster.
Isolationism also has a bad historical record, so pick your level of suck factor.
Saddam was beginning to trade oil for Euro's. The Oil market propped up the US Dollar. Bretton Woods is dead with Fiat currency and only force can keep the dollars reserve status.
Check out PETRO DOLLAR WARFARE by William R Clark.
Notice other nations who have tried to trade in other currencies become unliked by the USA.
Does anyone need a list of isolationist nations that aren't being bombed?
The lesson we should have learned from Iraq and Libya (and the Shaw in Iran for that matter) is [snip]
I didn't know that George Bernard Shaw was an Iranian!
Sorry, I had to do it.
Isolationism also has a bad historical record, so pick your level of suck factor.
I'm not saying be isolationist (though it could work if we adopted a "don't mess with me", ripped dude in the corner reading a book style position). What I'm saying is don't do dumb crap with a thus far 3x fail rate in the last 14 years.
What I'd like to see is a US/Russian/Syrian coalition where we support Assad in ridding the region of ISIS. That includes the on-again/off-again elements which are "moderate" rebels, currently being armed by the CIA. The only moderate Islamic element in the mix is the Assad regime, given they pull from the Alawite sect.
In other words, stop trying the same thing over and over while hoping for a different result.
Zundfolge
04-07-2017, 15:49
What I'd like to see is a US/Russian/Syrian coalition where we support Assad in ridding the region of ISIS.
This.
Have we already forgotten that the main reason the US wanted to get rid of Assad was because he was standing in the way of Hillary's Qatari buddies getting the contract for the pipeline (with requite kickbacks to the poor Clintons, bless their little hearts)? That and Hillary gets of on getting foreign leaders killed "We came, we saw, and he died [insert maniacal giggling]".
Some Presidents talk about a Red Line then take no action when crossed. Other Presidents don't focus on any Red Line but take action when they deem appropriate.
Presidential decisions that need to be judged as right or wrong are judged during elections and by historians.
What are our nation's interests in Syria? I can think of a few potential answers but I'm not certain those answers would conform to what the President has decided are our nation's interests.
Aloha_Shooter
04-07-2017, 16:27
This airstrike was well worth it. It's more than punishing Assad for using chemical weapons (which Obama, Rice, and Kerry had taken credit for eliminating). It sends a HUGE signal to Iran and North Korea that THIS president doesn't fool around and doesn't beg "Mother, may I" to the UN. THAT signal is priceless and probably saves American lives in the future. This was a short-term expenditure with HUGE future payoff (unlike Clinton's Tomahawk raid on Al Qaeda camels when Lewinski's blue dress was becoming known).
The multi-trillion dollar debt increase wasn't (primarily) a result of conflict in the Mid-East, it was a result of Obama and the Democrats raiding future generations' coffers to both fund their current political fights (through transfers to organizations like SLPC and "green" groups) and to practice monetary redistribution for their Communist wet dreams.
Bailey Guns
04-07-2017, 16:53
I keep hearing about the "signals" this airstrike has sent to the N Koreans, Iran, etc. Personally, I don't think the irrational or radically religious leaders in those countries give a rat's ass about any signals. Just like I don't think our military actions in the region are breeding more terrorists. We've been dealing with these people since the late 1700s...long before we had any real interests in the region.
I think Assad got the signal, though. Maybe some of our allies got the message that we know longer have a hand-wringing, I-hate-America panty-waist in the white house. That could be important.
CNN fail
Brought on a Syrian to try to support Hillary and bad-mouth Trump over his travel ban, and it backfires brilliantly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3uaf1NFxXc
GilpinGuy
04-08-2017, 05:31
I'm no military genius, but if Russia has such a big presence there, it seems to me that they would have the capability to shoot down our cruise missles. Maybe not, I just don't know what their capabilites are.
If they do have that capability and didn't use it, what does that say? No, I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy between Putin and Trump and that's why Trump was elected, but perhaps there was a wink and a nod after the warning was given to Russia that missiles would be raining down.
I see these headlines like we're on the brink of conflict with Russia directly. It's hard to believe anything these days.
Aloha_Shooter
04-08-2017, 08:14
I'm no military genius, but if Russia has such a big presence there, it seems to me that they would have the capability to shoot down our cruise missles. Maybe not, I just don't know what their capabilites are.
If they do have that capability and didn't use it, what does that say? No, I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy between Putin and Trump and that's why Trump was elected, but perhaps there was a wink and a nod after the warning was given to Russia that missiles would be raining down.
I see these headlines like we're on the brink of conflict with Russia directly. It's hard to believe anything these days.
Quite the opposite of what you fear. Had Russia shot down the Tomahwaks rather than simply evacuated their personnel as they did, they would placed themselves squarely in opposition to the US and openly allied with Assad's war on his own people. Hardly anyone buys their public story about fighting ISIS but it IS their story and has been accepted diplomatically rather than call them liars outright. If there was collusion like Chuckie Schumer and company allege, we would have "consulted" with Russia and let them veto action in the UN Security Council. The fact we simpy told them to get their people out (and with barely enough time to do so) speaks volumes about the lack of collusion.
Zundfolge
04-08-2017, 08:43
Black Pigeon (A Canadian/American living in Japan that publishes somewhat alt-rightish videos) has an interesting theory on the Syrian attack that kinda makes sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU2TapgWl-A
spqrzilla
04-08-2017, 12:24
I'm no military genius, but if Russia has such a big presence there, it seems to me that they would have the capability to shoot down our cruise missles. Maybe not, I just don't know what their capabilites are.
.
There are air defense systems that can defend against the kind of low level TLAM cruise missile but they are very short range point defense systems. They would have had to be already set up at the target airbase. My understanding is that the Russians deployed such a system at the airbase and the port that they are operating out of.
Defending against 59+ incoming tomahawks fired in rapid succession is an unlikely thing to accomplish.
Defending against 59+ incoming tomahawks fired in rapid succession is an unlikely thing to accomplish.
That's a fuck you strike.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
I read that tomahawks were 1.4 million dollars a piece. So we threw away 84 million dollars. Of course the mission and support drives that price way way up. We need to stop war ing our self into the poor house. We dont need to be the worlds police.
I believe they have a finite shelf life, and the old stock needs to be used up to make room for fresh stuff.[Sarcasm2]
But seriously, they've probably been sitting around for many years collecting dust, requiring maintenance, etc., so the real cost is likely several times $1.4m.
From technical standpoint, it's a neat challenge to get ~60 missiles to hit the targets within ~60 seconds. I think they carried ~1K lbs. each, so a total of ~30-tons of explosives in 1-minute. Wow!
I believe they have a finite shelf life, and the old stock needs to be used up to make room for fresh stuff.[Sarcasm2]
But seriously, they've probably been sitting around for many years collecting dust, requiring maintenance, etc., so the real cost is likely several times $1.4m.
From technical standpoint, it's a neat challenge to get ~60 missiles to hit the targets within ~60 seconds. I think they carried ~1K lbs. each, so a total of ~30-tons of explosives in 1-minute. Wow!
Bet that hurt though.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
Martinjmpr
04-10-2017, 12:54
Hmmm...so Trump reversed himself on attacking Syria even though back in 2013 - before he was even a candidate - he tweeted that Obama didn't have the authority to act w/o Congressional approval and that getting involved in Syria was a bad idea. But a few horrific pictures, an outraged world, and he reversed himself, and now he's on the same page as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
Makes me wonder what he's going to do the next time there's a mass shooting somewhere in the US and the press starts howling about how we need "reasonable gun control..."
hollohas
04-10-2017, 13:27
Hmmm...so Trump reversed himself on attacking Syria even though back in 2013 - before he was even a candidate - he tweeted that Obama didn't have the authority to act w/o Congressional approval and that getting involved in Syria was a bad idea. But a few horrific pictures, an outraged world, and he reversed himself, and now he's on the same page as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
Makes me wonder what he's going to do the next time there's a mass shooting somewhere in the US and the press starts howling about how we need "reasonable gun control..."
He's a typical politician, has been all along.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.