Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

59 tomahawk missiles launched against Syrian targets.

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Headbutt said:

I'm gonna' go ahead and call that a stupid comment.  They want to attack us here, nothing we do or don't do over there will change that desire to attack us over here.  We can't have an affect on that desire, we can only affect their ability to do so.

This whole notion that if we just hide in the basement, the bad people will leave us alone is ludicrous.  We have to constantly remind the world that we can, and finally WILL fight back.

Fight back from what?  Pretty sure Assad wasn't attacking us.   Don't make this act a self defense thing because it was no such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

Conservatives always find a way to deflect and pivot to Hillary.

At least I'm consistent, unlike you two.  I called out Obama for his love of death, destruction and slaughter.  I'm doing the same now.

You two are just massive hypocrites . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

He's still a kook who didn't see a war he didn't like. You'd think given what he went through he'd be a bit more hesitant to subject others to the same shit, especially in pointless little wars around the globe in 3rd world countries. 

McCain was likely treated pretty well.  Gotta keep a songbird well fed and watered.  Probably brought him women as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TILLERSON: Well, as you know, George, the situation in Syria relative to the battlefield is quite complex because there are multiple engagements under way. As I said, we have the war to defeat ISIS in which many of those battle plans are being coordinated between the US, its coalition agreements, Turkey, some of the Syrian opposition and others and it is being coordinated somewhat with the Syrian regime and the Russian forces to put pressure on ISIS to eliminate them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-17-secretary-state-rex-tillerson-sen/story?id=46677381

So what's the plan George?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

He's still a kook who didn't see a war he didn't like. You'd think given what he went through he'd be a bit more hesitant to subject others to the same shit, especially in pointless little wars around the globe in 3rd world countries. 

That may be true.  I don't agree with his interventionist policies but that doesn't extend to defaming what the man sacrificed for this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe from WY said:

Just because you had the misfortune of getting kidnapped by a bunch of gooks doesn't mean that you're immune from criticism when it's warranted. 

Criticizing his policy is one thing.  Lumping him in with a bunch of chicken hawks is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I'm starting to think it was all theater to distract the population from other issues.  

1) We warned the Russians and the Syrians moved a number of planes. 

2) we fired 56 missles and yet the runways were untouched and used a couple days later. 

Something smells wrong here.

As has been pointed out, it's the type of munitions. Taking out the runways and destroying the aircraft bunkers takes weapons delivered by piloted aircraft. From an article this morning:

"'The problem with Tomahawks is their small warhead-explosive yield,” said Murray, a retired colonel and career intelligence officer. “They're precise but lack a bigger bang for the efforts required to get them to a target successfully. Manned aircraft with 2,000-lb. JDAMs would have laid waste to those aircraft bunkers we're seeing on footage. There's a hole in the top and damage inside but they can be repaired.'

JDAM is the abbreviation for Joint Direct Attack Munition, so-called smart bombs with far more destructive power than a cruise missile.

As always, in warfare, there is a trade off: A pilot has to fly a smart bomb through Syria’s air defenses to reach the target. Or those air defense systems need to be degraded or destroyed first, dangerous but doable for U.S. forces. Either way, it’s a more intense mission, and one that’s fraught with more risk."

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

As has been pointed out, it's the type of munitions. Taking out the runways and destroying the aircraft bunkers takes weapons delivered by piloted aircraft. From an article this morning:

"'The problem with Tomahawks is their small warhead-explosive yield,” said Murray, a retired colonel and career intelligence officer. “They're precise but lack a bigger bang for the efforts required to get them to a target successfully. Manned aircraft with 2,000-lb. JDAMs would have laid waste to those aircraft bunkers we're seeing on footage. There's a hole in the top and damage inside but they can be repaired.'

JDAM is the abbreviation for Joint Direct Attack Munition, so-called smart bombs with far more destructive power than a cruise missile.

As always, in warfare, there is a trade off: A pilot has to fly a smart bomb through Syria’s air defenses to reach the target. Or those air defense systems need to be degraded or destroyed first, dangerous but doable for U.S. forces. Either way, it’s a more intense mission, and one that’s fraught with more risk."

I don't get why this is so hard for people to get. People that have no military experience, which is most, think we can just destroy runways and hardened bunkers at a whim with a push of a button. It isn't like that. Cruise missiles are good for pinpoint strikes but they don't have the payload to deliver the munitions needed to do things like take out runways. To do that you need aircraft. I'm not willing to destroy the air defense network and then send US pilots to do that just to send a message. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RoscoesDad
5 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I don't get why this is so hard for people to get. People that have no military experience, which is most, think we can just destroy runways and hardened bunkers at a whim with a push of a button. It isn't like that. Cruise missiles are good for pinpoint strikes but they don't have the payload to deliver the munitions needed to do things like take out runways. To do that you need aircraft. I'm not willing to destroy the air defense network and then send US pilots to do that just to send a message. 

Lol.  You have no miltary experience and no experience on ordinance other than google.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I don't get why this is so hard for people to get. People that have no military experience, which is most, think we can just destroy runways and hardened bunkers at a whim with a push of a button. It isn't like that. Cruise missiles are good for pinpoint strikes but they don't have the payload to deliver the munitions needed to do things like take out runways. To do that you need aircraft. I'm not willing to destroy the air defense network and then send US pilots to do that just to send a message. 

This example is why many of us frequent this board.   In my case, I would be one of those people who were unaware of the payload limitations of a Tomahawk missile. Happy to stand corrected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Fight back from what?  Pretty sure Assad wasn't attacking us.   Don't make this act a self defense thing because it was no such thing.

I didn't say we were fighting back from anything.  I said that our adversaries need to know that we will fight back.  Look, I don't want to be at war with anybody despite the knowledge that war will always find us.  I am only for a show of force because I feel it is a better deterrent than just diplomacy.  Peace is great and as long as the rest of the world is on board with that, then it's all wonderful.  Since their not on board with that it's good to make it clear that we like to blow shit up, that way we don't have to blow as much shit up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I don't get why this is so hard for people to get. People that have no military experience, which is most, think we can just destroy runways and hardened bunkers at a whim with a push of a button. It isn't like that. Cruise missiles are good for pinpoint strikes but they don't have the payload to deliver the munitions needed to do things like take out runways. To do that you need aircraft. I'm not willing to destroy the air defense network and then send US pilots to do that just to send a message. 

Then what was the point of the attack in the first place? To take out six already grounded Migs, classrooms and a cafeteria? To make a big cloud of dirt and dust?

No one in Trump's cabinet seems to have a clue what the plan is. going forward.

If this was all just about sending a message, what message was Assad sending to Trump by launching attacks from the airbase on the same city allegedly gassed the very next day?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a proportional response.

 

While I agree Trump and Co have no coherent strategy or goal, limiting the response to Tomahawks to send a message was a reasonable call.

 

Sending in manned planes when you have not only Syrians  flying, but a Russian air presence as well?? Sending a message was the point, risking  a Russian-American altercation over a 3rd country at this point would have been an unreasonable and unwarranted risk. The message was sent, and not just to Assad. The message was don't use chemical weapons.

 

If that message is ignored, I'm not sure what Trump will do and worse, i doubt he knows because he has no strategy or details.

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoscoesDad said:

Lol.  You have no miltary experience and no experience on ordinance other than google.  

It's ordnance. An ordinance is what keeps you from parking in your front yard. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headbutt said:

I didn't say we were fighting back from anything.  I said that our adversaries need to know that we will fight back.  Look, I don't want to be at war with anybody despite the knowledge that war will always find us.  I am only for a show of force because I feel it is a better deterrent than just diplomacy.  Peace is great and as long as the rest of the world is on board with that, then it's all wonderful.  Since their not on board with that it's good to make it clear that we like to blow shit up, that way we don't have to blow as much shit up.

Meh. I think you're much more impressed with it than most of the world. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headbutt said:

I didn't say we were fighting back from anything.  I said that our adversaries need to know that we will fight back.  Look, I don't want to be at war with anybody despite the knowledge that war will always find us.  I am only for a show of force because I feel it is a better deterrent than just diplomacy.  Peace is great and as long as the rest of the world is on board with that, then it's all wonderful.  Since their not on board with that it's good to make it clear that we like to blow shit up, that way we don't have to blow as much shit up.

Name one national security issue we have fixed by attacking any country since Lincoln was president?   I will name 5 we created for each one you can name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...