It will be interesting to see how this plays out for Trump, though. Is this a sign of things to come? Again, I have no problems with dropping hell on Assad's head in this instance.
The speed with which the Trump administration responded — and remarks earlier in the day by American officials who said that options were still being considered — appeared intended to maximize the element of surprise and sharply contrasted with the methodical scrutiny of the use of force by the Obama administration.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
I'd like to know what the larger plan is. Is it "Respond to confirmed chemical weapons attacks with missile strikes on Assad military or government targets in the hopes of building deterrence towards using them"? Is it "get rid of Assad"?
Is it simply a "seat of the pants" response?
malchior wrote:Seat of our pants diplomacy - can't wait to see how this turns out.
US policy depends on what Trump sees on TV, and by all accounts he was genuinely horrified by the images of the chemical attack victims (as were we all, I hope).
It seems like raining Tomahawks was the least dangerous way to "do something." 59 missiles at $1.4 million a pop is a pretty expensive message, but I suppose that's what they're for.
Defiant wrote:I'd like to know what the larger plan is. Is it "Respond to confirmed chemical weapons attacks with missile strikes on Assad military or government targets in the hopes of building deterrence towards using them"? Is it "get rid of Assad"?
Is it simply a "seat of the pants" response?
Have we brought any allies in on this?
I'm reserving judgement for now.
Too many words!
Bad man. Bad things. We do big things bad man. Best biggest things ever, believe.
Defiant wrote:I'd like to know what the larger plan is. Is it "Respond to confirmed chemical weapons attacks with missile strikes on Assad military or government targets in the hopes of building deterrence towards using them"? Is it "get rid of Assad"?
Is it simply a "seat of the pants" response?
Have we brought any allies in on this?
I'm reserving judgement for now.
That's my biggest concern. Is there an actual plan behind this? Or was it nothing more than a chance to get his tiny hands on a big red button?
Like you, I'm reserving judgement until we see what happens next.
For his own sake, Trump better hope there were no Russians on that base.
Last edited by Skinypupy on Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Reports said 43 Tomahawk missiles were launched in an attack against an air field in Shayrat, located outside Homs, where chemicals weapons are believed to be stored. The Tomahawks were fired from the USS Porter and USS Ross, which had been stationed in the Mediterranean as part of ongoing pressure against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched," President Trump said from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. "It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread or use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons."
"Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched," President Trump said from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Ordering targeted military strikes from his goddamn personal resort and STIGGINIT to Bashar. USA! USA! USA!
Asshole is on vacation...again? WTF? He bitched non stop about Obama supposedly not doing his job, and this piece of shit is on vacation every 12 damn minutes?
Ah well, at least Melania gets to see the pool boy.
Reports said 43 Tomahawk missiles were launched in an attack against an air field in Shayrat, located outside Homs, where chemicals weapons are believed to be stored. The Tomahawks were fired from the USS Porter and USS Ross, which had been stationed in the Mediterranean as part of ongoing pressure against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched," President Trump said from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. "It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread or use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons."
U.S. defense officials tell Fox that two warships based in the eastern Mediterranean, the USS Porter and the USS Ross, have been training for the past two days to execute this mission.
“Our forward deployed ships give us the capability to quickly respond to threats," said a Navy official. "These strikes in Syria are a perfect example - this is why we're there."
The original plans called for two targets, the airbase and a chemical weapons storage facility. However, Pentagon planners decided late Thursday to target just the airbase.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., expressed support for the strike, saying in a joint statement that "the United States will no longer stand idly by as Assad, aided and abetted by Putin’s Russia, slaughters innocent Syrians with chemical weapons and barrel bombs."
A U.S. official said the Russians had been warned before the U.S. launched at least 59 tomahawk missiles aimed at Syria, NBC News reported.
NBC is working to confirm that account.
Commentary from earlier:
Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned earlier Thursday of "negative consequences" if the U.S. carried out military strikes on Syria over the attack.
I really hope this isn't something he worked out with the Russians. I really want to see those Moscow hotel room photos splashed across every newspaper in the world.
"Clearly Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on that commitment" to supervise the surrender of those weapons, the secretary of state said. "Either Russia has been complicit or simply incompetent in its ability to deliver."
But this is the quote that really takes it home for me:
Trump continued, "Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."
If only we could have done something else that would have encouraged those helpless men, women and children to go to a location where they couldn't have suffered a slow and brutal death. I'll need to sleep on it because I'm really just totally drawing a blank on something else we might have tried here.
Last edited by Smoove_B on Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well to be fair, he's only doing what Hillary wanted to do. It just remains to be seen whether he went about it in the way it needed to be done.
I'm not opposed to Trump taking action, because I already pointed out that I was highly critical of Obama's limp-wristed Syrian policy (as were many - see Clinton article above). My only fear is that he acts before he thinks, and while action may be necessary, knee-jerk REaction could be dangerous.
YellowKing wrote:Well to be fair, he's only doing what Hillary wanted to do. It just remains to be seen whether he went about it in the way it needed to be done.
I'm not opposed to Trump taking action, because I already pointed out that I was highly critical of Obama's limp-wristed Syrian policy (as were many - see Clinton article above). My only fear is that he acts before he thinks, and while action may be necessary, knee-jerk REaction could be dangerous.
Any reaction can be dangerous. Lack of action can be dangerous.
(and did they pass it forward to... another party?)
Just saw on CNN that the Russians tacitly approved of the strike, at least to the extent that the Russians clearly have the anti-air capabilities in Syria to have taken down those Tomahawks, but they didn't fire a single one of their anti-missile batteries.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
(and did they pass it forward to... another party?)
Just saw on CNN that the Russians tacitly approved of the strike, at least to the extent that the Russians clearly have the anti-air capabilities in Syria to have taken down those Tomahawks, but they didn't fire a single one of their anti-missile batteries.
Who ever told you that is full of it. Shooting down tomahawks if nearly impossible, even iron dome would struggle with it. At best you might get lucky and take down 1 in 10.
Kraken wrote: 59 missiles at $1.4 million a pop is a pretty expensive message, but I suppose that's what they're for.
I guess it's better than giving an "ally" a $3 million Patriot missile, and then having them shoot down a $200 drone with it.
Look what y'all have done now, couldn't just leave the man alone knowing that the US gov't answer is to always go getting into a war to draw attention away from the homefront. Just one of the benefits of being a "warfare/welfare" state.
(and did they pass it forward to... another party?)
Just saw on CNN that the Russians tacitly approved of the strike, at least to the extent that the Russians clearly have the anti-air capabilities in Syria to have taken down those Tomahawks, but they didn't fire a single one of their anti-missile batteries.
Who ever told you that is full of it. Shooting down tomahawks if nearly impossible, even iron dome would struggle with it. At best you might get lucky and take down 1 in 10.
Thanks for correcting that! I don't know where they get some of these "experts" - what a joke! I suppose that's what I deserve for getting lazy and posting something without fact checking. Sad that we cannot rely on the media to do it's job. Sad I can't be lazy!
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Rip wrote:Who ever told you that is full of it. Shooting down tomahawks if nearly impossible, even iron dome would struggle with it. At best you might get lucky and take down 1 in 10.
Thanks for correcting that! I don't know where they get some of these "experts" - what a joke! I suppose that's what I deserve for getting lazy and posting something without fact checking. Sad that we cannot rely on the media to do it's job. Sad I can't be lazy!
Russia has deployed air defenses in Syria, such as the S-300V4, that are reportedly capable of engaging cruise missiles. The salient point seems to be that they didn't try to intercept them when they have systems in place that are designed to do so, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether or not the defenses would actually be effective.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Rip wrote:Who ever told you that is full of it. Shooting down tomahawks if nearly impossible, even iron dome would struggle with it. At best you might get lucky and take down 1 in 10.
Thanks for correcting that! I don't know where they get some of these "experts" - what a joke! I suppose that's what I deserve for getting lazy and posting something without fact checking. Sad that we cannot rely on the media to do it's job. Sad I can't be lazy!
Russia has deployed air defenses in Syria, such as the S-300V4, that are reportedly capable of engaging cruise missiles. The salient point seems to be that they didn't try to intercept them when they have systems in place that are designed to do so, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether or not the defenses would actually be effective.
That's what I thought, but in digging around online in response to RIP's post, it looked like the general consensus was that the tomahawk is VERY difficult to shoot down because of it's low altitude and advanced guidance systems.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Rip wrote:Who ever told you that is full of it. Shooting down tomahawks if nearly impossible, even iron dome would struggle with it. At best you might get lucky and take down 1 in 10.
Thanks for correcting that! I don't know where they get some of these "experts" - what a joke! I suppose that's what I deserve for getting lazy and posting something without fact checking. Sad that we cannot rely on the media to do it's job. Sad I can't be lazy!
Russia has deployed air defenses in Syria, such as the S-300V4, that are reportedly capable of engaging cruise missiles. The salient point seems to be that they didn't try to intercept them when they have systems in place that are designed to do so, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether or not the defenses would actually be effective.
When they say they are capable of engaging cruise missiles they are talking more of basic cruise missiles. Against a Tomahawk, not so much even in perfect circumstances without EW support and if the missiles happen to fly directly through their kill zones.
We know where they are and Tomahawks can be programmed to waypoint around them. Not to mention I am sure there was substantial EW employed to prevent effective tracking/targeting of them. With full air and sea access on their borders I am quite sure substantial EW was used even without placing aircraft over target.
I'm not buying they are any good at shooting down Tomahawks until someone actually shoots a few down, which no one ever has.
Britain fully backs the U.S. military strike against a Syrian airfield from which a deadly chemical weapons attack was launched, a government spokesman said on Friday.
"The UK Government fully supports the US action, which we believe was an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime, and is intended to deter further attacks," the spokesman said.
YellowKing wrote:Well to be fair, he's only doing what Hillary wanted to do. It just remains to be seen whether he went about it in the way it needed to be done.
I'm not opposed to Trump taking action, because I already pointed out that I was highly critical of Obama's limp-wristed Syrian policy (as were many - see Clinton article above). My only fear is that he acts before he thinks, and while action may be necessary, knee-jerk REaction could be dangerous.
Obama *did* go to Congress to authorize a strike on Syria and the Republicans rebuffed him. In retrospect he should have just done it. Still Obama acted the way he did for a reason and it wasn't necessarily because he was afraid of using force. He had revolutionaries undermining his actions the whole time.
Scoop20906 wrote:I've got a co-worker trying to convince me that Donny planned this as an excuse to start a war and gain war time president popularity.
I'm stunned to think Donny could have the balls to actually plan something like that.
Nah, that would require him to have planned and executed the chemical attack. There's no conceivable way he could pull that off.
Besides, he has North Korea on tap for when the time comes to wag the dog.
Maybe Trumps puppet master wanted his puppet to have war time popularity ?
ABC News reported early Friday that the Syrian military seemed to know that something might happen. Eyewitnesses claim the military then evacuated personnel and moved equipment before the strike took place.
Smoove_B wrote:Some more commentary on the Russians:
"Clearly Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on that commitment" to supervise the surrender of those weapons, the secretary of state said. "Either Russia has been complicit or simply incompetent in its ability to deliver."
But this is the quote that really takes it home for me:
Trump continued, "Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."
If only we could have done something else that would have encouraged those helpless men, women and children to go to a location where they couldn't have suffered a slow and brutal death. I'll need to sleep on it because I'm really just totally drawing a blank on something else we might have tried here.
Yes.
Someone should ask Trump if any Skittle of God should ever suffer such horror.
My only problem with this is that this looks ... crazy. The "logic" train goes something like this: I'm against foreign intervention. I want a bigger Navy. We need to increase military spending. We need to restore the military. I'm still against foreign intervention. I don't think regime change in Syria is on the books. Oh no he didn't kill these beautiful babies! RAIN THE MISSILES DOWN!
WTF does this even mean?!? We look insane. *Edit: quoted to really point out how crazy this is.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Thursday said a missile attack in Syria ordered by President Trump Thursday isn't a sign of a change in U.S. policy.
"This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for," Tillerson said shortly after Trump launched more than 50 Tomahawk missiles at an airfield in Syria.
"I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today. There has been no change in that status," he added. "I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and actors cross the line and cross the line on violating commitments they've made and cross the line in the most heinous of ways."
malchior wrote:My only problem with this is that this looks ... crazy. The "logic" train goes something like this: I'm against foreign intervention. I want a bigger Navy. We need to increase military spending. We need to restore the military. I'm still against foreign intervention. I don't think regime change in Syria is on the books. Oh no he didn't kill these beautiful babies! RAIN THE MISSILES DOWN!
Yeah, you summed up my reservations much better than I did. With any other President, I might see this as firm and decisive action in the face of a difficult decision. With Trump, I see it as yet another example of his hair-trigger temper and inability to stay consistent on any position.
It just so happens in this case that most people support the action. But what happens when North Korea says he has a tiny penis and he rains missiles on Pyongyang? It's unfortunate that my default position on Trump is to not trust whatever he does even if I agree with it, but that's the bed he made.
