'MURICA!!!

quote:

Originally posted by BillyBonesNY:
Also sends message to N Korea.

Excellent observation. I agree.



.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Power move

59 surgical sledgehammers sends quite a statement. The following Chuck Norris quote comes to mind "I don't step on toes...I step on necks." This was a necessary and measured show of force and justice that needs no further explanation, that even a child would understand. Then again, the stupidity and irrational motivations of our adversaries and those that would harm others never ceases to amaze me.

Washington Post, literally yesterday:

In Trump’s world, is it okay to use chemical weapons? Now we will find out.
Calling for forceful action.


Today Washington Post:
In striking Syria, Trump risks confirming the worst fears about his presidency

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Washington Post, literally yesterday:

In Trump’s world, is it okay to use chemical weapons? Now we will find out.
Calling for forceful action.


Today Washington Post:
In striking Syria, Trump risks confirming the worst fears about his presidency

LOL WaPo can fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Washington Post, literally yesterday:

In Trump’s world, is it okay to use chemical weapons? Now we will find out.
Calling for forceful action.


Today Washington Post:
In striking Syria, Trump risks confirming the worst fears about his presidency

Ah, the Ministry of Truth. Double plus good.

I agree that a secondary intention of this attack was-- well, not so much a message to N.Korea, as that psycho is not going to receive messages anyway. But it was a message to whatever sane elements remain in the Nork government or military: "Assassinate Kim Jong-un or face the consequences from the US. Donald Trump does not screw around."

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Syria is calling this an "act of aggression"

The fuck you gonna do about it, small fry? Not a damn thing, that's what.

First thought was the scene from Johnny Dangerously "Ima gonna cutta you bells off and shove'em upa you icehole!"

58 of the 59 launched hit their targets. That's contrary to what russia is saying.

If Assad is responsible, why are we bombing an airfield and not his residence?

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If Assad is responsible, why are we bombing an airfield and not his residence?

How would you propose proving that?

We tracked the aircraft and know where they came from, thus bombing the airfield is absolutely justified.

'Proving' that Assad personally ordered it is another thing - in the eyes of international law.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...rike/article/2007563

On Wednesday afternoon, the National Security Council convened in the White House, with President Donald Trump in the chair, to discuss how the United States would respond to Bashar al-Assad.

The Pentagon's plan, delivered by Defense Secretary (and former Central Command commander) James Mattis, at Wednesday's NSC meeting: a hellfire of Tomahawk missiles on the airfield where Assad's regime had launched the attack. If there was dissent among any on Trump's national security team, nobody spoke up. "Everybody agreed that this was the option that they liked," said an administration official with knowledge of the meeting.

So on Thursday morning, a number of national security officials went to work at the White House believing the strike was imminent. But only a small number of principals—President Trump, Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and national security advisor H.R. McMaster among them—had knowledge the strike would happen Thursday night.

A little more than 24 hours after Trump's NSC meeting, two U.S. Navy destroyers stationed in the Mediterranean launched 59 Tomahawk land attack missiles at Shayrat airbase, targeting "aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars," according to a Pentagon statement. There appear to be no immediate casualties to either Syrian forces or those of Assad's ally, Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If Assad is responsible, why are we bombing an airfield and not his residence?

Evidently he lives in a densely populated area. Also, as much of a despot as he is, at least he is fighting w/ISIS and Al Qaeda and probably other terrorist groups. Kind of like Saddam Hussein - he was a devil, but a least he kept the other devils in check/busy.

I would rather leave a despot who apparently isn't a jihadist, in power, than allow jihadists to take power. The jihadists are a bigger threat to us than a local despot. Granted, WMDs complicate that issue.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Syria is calling this an "act of aggression"

The fuck you gonna do about it, small fry? Not a damn thing, that's what.

And if they try something else, they can relabel the first one a micro-aggression.

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If Assad is responsible, why are we bombing an airfield and not his residence?

Evidently he lives in a densely populated area. Also, as much of a despot as he is, at least he is fighting w/ISIS and Al Qaeda and probably other terrorist groups. Kinda of like Saddam Hussein - he was a devil, but a least he keep the other devils in check/busy.

I would rather leave a despot who apparently isn't a jihadist, in power, than allow jihadists to take power. The jihadists are a bigger threat to us than a local despot. Granted, WMDs complicate that issue.

When we bombed Libya in 1986, we didn't take out Qadaffi. We just sent him a message (a message he received, by the way). We just want Assad to chill; we don't necessarily want him removed (at this point in time, at least).

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If Assad is responsible, why are we bombing an airfield and not his residence?

Evidently he lives in a densely populated area. Also, as much of a despot as he is, at least he is fighting w/ISIS and Al Qaeda and probably other terrorist groups. Kinda of like Saddam Hussein - he was a devil, but a least he keep the other devils in check/busy.

I would rather leave a despot who apparently isn't a jihadist, in power, than allow jihadists to take power. The jihadists are a bigger threat to us than a local despot. Granted, WMDs complicate that issue.

When we bombed Libya in 1986, we didn't take out Qadaffi. We just sent him a message (a message he received, by the way). We just want Assad to chill; we don't necessarily want him removed (at this point in time, at least).

Exactly. Killing one bastard will just make a space for a different bastard to take over. Assad, from my limited understanding, doesn't have any desire to kill, convert or subjugate every person on the planet to Islam. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but my impression is he just wants to brutally rule his corner of the world. ISIS and the other Jihadists do crave world domination, and they're eager to give their lives, the lives of their children to their cause.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
This is a good first step but now the US air force needs to level ALL SAA installations in Syria and any Russian assets that get in the way. Hopefully Trump will send our marines to kick in the door and a standing army to pacify the country and help usher in a real change in the region. It's great that we finally have a president who isn't afraid to give our men and women in uniform some action.

Do you think if we just kill those particular bad guys the remaining factions, of which there are many, and they are armed, will embrace democracy and secular government?

I wish it were so.

One of the biggest problems in the middle east is the peaceful, reasonable people are too few, too far between, and they're not ruthless enough to take and hold power in such circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
This is a good first step but now the US air force needs to level ALL SAA installations in Syria and any Russian assets that get in the way. Hopefully Trump will send our marines to kick in the door and a standing army to pacify the country and help usher in a real change in the region. It's great that we finally have a president who isn't afraid to give our men and women in uniform some action.

So that ISIS can take over? The same people who strangle woman and children and sell girls off as sex slaves? Good plan.

Is there any proof that it wasn't a conventional attack that broke containment of chemical weapons stored on the ground?

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
This is a good first step but now the US air force needs to level ALL SAA installations in Syria and any Russian assets that get in the way. Hopefully Trump will send our marines to kick in the door and a standing army to pacify the country and help usher in a real change in the region. It's great that we finally have a president who isn't afraid to give our men and women in uniform some action.

So that ISIS can take over? The same people who strangle woman and children and sell girls off as sex slaves? Good plan.

Is there any proof that it wasn't a conventional attack that broke containment of chemical weapons stored on the ground?

I'm with you. Something is incredibly off with this whole gas story. There was absolutely no benefit to Assad to gas his own people at this point. Something is way off and not in a conspiracy kinda way either.