goemaw.com
General Discussion => Essentially Flyertalk => Topic started by: SdK on April 07, 2017, 01:17:10 PM
-
I'm hoping this can be a catch all thread about the US ops. Hopefully, largely, bigly :), devoid of political bickering.
I must have been under a rock in 2013 and am retroactively pisses and my man Obama for not doing something sooner.
I won't dwell on this because it didn't happen. I support the bombings and will support further strategic strikes on Syrian AF. I'll grant that I am limited in my knowledge of the whole Syrian issue. But I hope that the goal is to stop the use of chemical weapons. If the whole AF needs to be wiped out to achieve this, so be it.
I, currently, am not in favor of further action beyond that.
Anyway, feel free to use this thread to post tweets, pics, facts, opinions. Fingers crossed that it won't turn into another anti Trump anti Obama thread. We, as a country, bombed Syria.
Thanks fellow Americans. I look forward to the discourse.
-
I feel this issue deserves it's own thread and the political fighting can stay in the Trump threads. Tia.
-
I have to spend some time this weekend in research about this. I am so in the dark about much of the international relations game. Hopefully there will be some insight shared here as well.
-
jfc
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768
-
So what was the point?
-
yes, pics clearly showed the runways were unhit.
basically just blew up parking garages
-
$100-180 million in tomahawk missiles, and for what? So now we can be drawn in to further retaliations and strikes.
This is a nightmare.
-
We are going to win so HUGE!
-
$100-180 million in tomahawk missiles, and for what? So now we can be drawn in to further retaliations and strikes.
This is a nightmare.
What do you think should have been done?
-
We are going to win so HUGE!
No won will win. I'm still trying to learn about the situation and hone my opinion. I feel this will all be judged with hindsight. I'll be a part of that as well. In this moment, I'm in support.
There will be no winners though. Chaos will ensue. People will die. Destruction will pile up. It's a mess. I'm not sure how anyone can sit idly by while innocent people are being barrel bombed and chemically attacked.
It's a tricky issue and I hope it turns out as well as it can. Fingers crossed.
-
basically just blew up parking garages
i don't think that's accurate. reports suggest as many as 20 syrian aircraft were damaged or destroyed.
-
Thus far, we have hit the Syrian checkbook in the form of infrastructure, aircraft, and buildings with minimal loss of life.
If anything I say is this thread is patently false, feel free to correct me. I'm truly trying to learn itt.
-
jfc
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768
Missed this. Wtf. I renounce my support.
-
$100-180 million in tomahawk missiles, and for what? So now we can be drawn in to further retaliations and strikes.
This is a nightmare.
What do you think should have been done?
My preferred position would be to stay out of it.
A large number of people interested in living in a democracy that had been living in Syria already left. There are thousands and thousands of foreign fights representing al-Nusra (al-Qaeda), ISIS or other retrogrades, and then there is the Syrian government.
If you don't stay out of it, then get a UN resolution and broad, multi-lateral force if anything is going to be done. But even then, there is nothing to be gained by getting involved and empowering al-Qaeda or worse (ISIS) by fighting Assad and Assad is a monster too.
So stay out of it.
-
If we couldn't even blow up some concrete, my goodness. That should have been the main goal. If the jets can't take off, they are rendered useless. Good grief.
-
$100-180 million in tomahawk missiles, and for what? So now we can be drawn in to further retaliations and strikes.
This is a nightmare.
What do you think should have been done?
My preferred position would be to stay out of it.
A large number of people interested in living in a democracy that had been living in Syria already left. There are thousands and thousands of foreign fights representing al-Nusra (al-Qaeda), ISIS or other retrogrades, and then there is the Syrian government.
If you don't stay out of it, then get a UN resolution and broad, multi-lateral force if anything is going to be done. But even then, there is nothing to be gained by getting involved and empowering al-Qaeda or worse (ISIS) by fighting Assad and Assad is a monster too.
So stay out of it.
Ok. I've been seeing reports saying ISIS is losing land hand over foot in Iraq and Syria. That the US has bombed ISIS over 8k times. That the rebels opposed to Asad are also in favor.
I'm torn, KK, even after seeing that the bombing sucked ass. I wish we weren't so deep in the ME. But I also feel for the people of Syria being terrorized.
Thank you for your input. You are far more knowledgeable on this matter than I.
-
I heard an expert on TV say that if they wanted to destroy runways, they wouldn't have used tomahawks.
-
i don't think destroying the runways was a goal, nor does it makes sense that it should have been. it's not that hard to put an plane in the air.
-
I heard an expert on TV say that if they wanted to destroy runways, they wouldn't have used tomahawks.
Are we planning on using that airport later? I rough ridin' hope not. But that's the only rational reason I can come up with. For goodness sake, mix in some normal bombs then to make the landing strips unusable. The Mediterranean is close enough to launch air strikes from.
(Syrian guy on CNN just ripped Hilary a new one for not voicing her opinion when Obama was inactive. That the Syrian people don't want to immigrate they'd rather stay home)
-
We are going to win so HUGE!
No won will win. I'm still trying to learn about the situation and hone my opinion. I feel this will all be judged with hindsight. I'll be a part of that as well. In this moment, I'm in support.
There will be no winners though. Chaos will ensue. People will die. Destruction will pile up. It's a mess. I'm not sure how anyone can sit idly by while innocent people are being barrel bombed and chemically attacked.
It's a tricky issue and I hope it turns out as well as it can. Fingers crossed.
War in general is bad all the way around. I certainly wouldn't know what to do. It's way easier to criticize and when you aren't making the real decisions. Leading this national is the hardest job of all and only 45 people ever know what it's like.
-
You're probably right Sys. I'm sure there is enough flat land beside the concrete to launch them. I'm gonna stop posting for a bit and read. I'm starting to look silly.
-
I don't know a ton about it, but if there are chemical war crimes being committed, I have no idea how anyone can say the US should just stay out of it.
Now whether we lead/are a part of a movement to get other nations/organizations together to fight this together, can be argued, but the US should absolutely be a part of stopping it in some way, shape, or form.
But again, I've been too busy to read much on it so this post could be irrelevant.
-
The key IMO is that if you're going to do it, you need a plan, and you need to follow through, and you have to have an idea of what that end goal is. Half hearted, half baked, and half cocked is a poor way of dealing with a situation that is as complex as any countries civil war.
If we are going to do this, we need to clearly define what we see success is. Is success deposing Assad? Is success making Syria fully democratic and peaceful? Are you willing to commit to years long occupation, and spend the money to achieve that? Can the American people see a real tangible benefit for it? Are you willing to provide for the veterans properly when they come home broken?
If you can't answer those question with confidence, and with a plan, than stay away, and don't do much more than lob a few missiles for show. I know it sucks, and despicable to allow that bad person Assad gas people, but things like these are giant black hole cesspools of despair where there very few winner, and most people are losers.
-
I think the plan was to just bomb them once to show them we are serious and hope they don't use chemical weapons again.
-
I heard an expert on TV say that if they wanted to destroy runways, they wouldn't have used tomahawks.
Are we planning on using that airport later? I rough ridin' hope not. But that's the only rational reason I can come up with. For goodness sake, mix in some normal bombs then to make the landing strips unusable. The Mediterranean is close enough to launch air strikes from.
(Syrian guy on CNN just ripped Hilary a new one for not voicing her opinion when Obama was inactive. That the Syrian people don't want to immigrate they'd rather stay home)
To do air strikes you have to remove air defense systems which probably means boots on the ground.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This is all a great illustration of why this is such a terrible idea. The logic of intervention will always dictate more intervention.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think the plan was to just bomb them once to show them we are serious and hope they don't use chemical weapons again.
99.9999% sure this is the plan. ideally, i think the strike should have been larger so as to inflict more meaningful punishment with a single strike. as it was, i think it makes it very tempting for assad to provoke additional attacks. but the size and targeting of the strike had to be tempered so as to avoid antagonizing russia. it's pretty much impossible for anyone like ourselves to judge if they got the balance right.
-
The logic of intervention will always dictate more intervention.
that's ludicrous.
-
I heard an expert on TV say that if they wanted to destroy runways, they wouldn't have used tomahawks.
Are we planning on using that airport later? I rough ridin' hope not. But that's the only rational reason I can come up with. For goodness sake, mix in some normal bombs then to make the landing strips unusable. The Mediterranean is close enough to launch air strikes from.
(Syrian guy on CNN just ripped Hilary a new one for not voicing her opinion when Obama was inactive. That the Syrian people don't want to immigrate they'd rather stay home)
To do air strikes you have to remove air defense systems which probably means boots on the ground.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can we not take them out with Tomahawks or bomb with B-2s? Last I knew a B-2 has never had been shot at and they can stay in the air for 6+ hours, 12 with a refuel. (I read up on them last night).
The advantage of Tomahawks is how low they fly to the ground to avoid radar. B-2s could aid in that as well. Then unleash the full might.
On the other hand, apparently these Russian AA systems are insane. But have never been put into action. I don't want our pilots to be the first to find out about them.
-
I have no idea how we would get the Syrians and Russians to reveal the locations of the mobile AA trucks though. Lots of drone surveillance? Attack them with more drones to make sure the Intel is credible? Them send out the B2 and Tomahawk welcome party?
-
It's a mess, I agree KK. I'm just trying to figure out what I think we should so from here.
I'll never support boots on the ground in the ME. Unless it is for Osama type missions.
Air and Naval support is all I can be on board with.
-
The logic of intervention will always dictate more intervention.
that's ludicrous.
There is a bipartisan consensus for intervention in Syria, just like here was a bipartisan consensus for Libya, Iraq and continues to be for Afghanistan (our longest running war of all time). There is probably a bipartisan consensus for war in Iran and there will no doubt be some democrats that would support a unilateral strike against North Korea. The Washington consensus from think tanks, to pundits, to press to politicians is we don't have nearly enough wars.
There is absolutely a dominant interventionist bent to our politics whether it claims to be humanitarian or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I have some intellectual honesty problems with this red line. Hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians have been dying every day for years. Do you think the beautiful children care if they were gassed to death vs shot or starved or shelled or barrel bombed?
This op is precarious because Syria is already a proxy war between us and Russia/Iran. Russia was operating out of this airfield and is a direct ally with the Syrian regime. One misplaced missile could have turned this proxy war into open war.
Also embarrassing to expose our missiles as such losery underperformers. This might have been done ib purpose to funnel billions into missile development?
-
I don't think they missed their targets puni. As sys corrected me, it was about the jets and 20 were taken out, the tarmac wouldn't have stopped the jets from taking off.
I think the sheer number of Tomahawks was to overwhelm defenses had there been any.
Curious why there was no defenses set up. Either the ruskies let it happen because they wanted it to happen. Or they didn't want to waste exposing their supposed badass air defense systems over 20 jets.
These missiles don't miss (that I'm aware of). Out of 58 and none hitting the tarmac, it's clear that wasn't the goal.
-
Some pundits feel Russia is just paying lip service to this. That Putin really doesn't like Asad at all.
-
Putin doesn't care about Assad, Putin cares about defending the legitimacy and sovereignty of brutal authoritarian regimes.
-
Some pundits feel Russia is just paying lip service to this. That Putin really doesn't like Asad at all.
assad just made him look like a fool. russia signed up to guarantee syria's disposal of chemical weapons.
-
Or Putin knew and dngaf
-
There is a bipartisan consensus for intervention in Syria, just like here was a bipartisan consensus for Libya, Iraq and continues to be for Afghanistan (our longest running war of all time). There is probably a bipartisan consensus for war in Iran and there will no doubt be some democrats that would support a unilateral strike against North Korea. The Washington consensus from think tanks, to pundits, to press to politicians is we don't have nearly enough wars.
if it were true that there was a bipartisan consensus to intervene in syria or iran, we'd have intervened by now. we have the capacity to do so and have not done so, ergo we do not wish to do so.
irregardless, that is not relevant to what you argued in your previous post. you posited, without support of either evidence or logic, that limited intervention is impossible. it was a ludicrous assertion.
-
A Russian frigate is steaming out to shadow our 2 destroyers that launched the attack #brinksmanship
-
I have some intellectual honesty problems with this red line. Hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians have been dying every day for years. Do you think the beautiful children care if they were gassed to death vs shot or starved or shelled or barrel bombed?
This op is precarious because Syria is already a proxy war between us and Russia/Iran. Russia was operating out of this airfield and is a direct ally with the Syrian regime. One misplaced missile could have turned this proxy war into open war.
Also embarrassing to expose our missiles as such losery underperformers. This might have been done ib purpose to funnel billions into missile development?
If I had to choose between which of those I'd rather die by, gas would be dead last on the list.
-
Worse than starving to death?
-
Apparently TLAMs don't carry enough explosives to crater a runway. So goal was accomplished.
-
There is a bipartisan consensus for intervention in Syria, just like here was a bipartisan consensus for Libya, Iraq and continues to be for Afghanistan (our longest running war of all time). There is probably a bipartisan consensus for war in Iran and there will no doubt be some democrats that would support a unilateral strike against North Korea. The Washington consensus from think tanks, to pundits, to press to politicians is we don't have nearly enough wars.
if it were true that there was a bipartisan consensus to intervene in syria or iran, we'd have intervened by now. we have the capacity to do so and have not done so, ergo we do not wish to do so.
irregardless, that is not relevant to what you argued in your previous post. you posited, without support of either evidence or logic, that limited intervention is impossible. it was a ludicrous assertion.
That isn't what I said.
Let's just use this metaphor-
Interventionists = "just the tip"
Red lines beget red lines because they perpetually shift the negotiations to a new baseline/context.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If we couldn't even blow up some concrete, my goodness. That should have been the main goal. If the jets can't take off, they are rendered useless. Good grief.
jfc
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768
Missed this. Wtf. I renounce my support.
Look at this dumbass and his reactionary posts without all of the facts. What a buffoon.
-
Apparently TLAMs don't carry enough explosives to crater a runway. So goal was accomplished.
This is incorrect.
-
Then that General on tv is lying his lying his face off. I see that their are a variety of TLAMs. All could have cratered the airfield?
He also said it'd be stupid to blow something up that could easily be fixed.
-
Then that General on tv is lying his lying his face off. I see that their are a variety of TLAMs. All could have cratered the airfield?
He also said it'd be stupid to blow something up that could easily be fixed.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1375.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag451%2Fcolemanwmullins%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2F01tomahawk_zpsgf3lbr0d.jpg&hash=71df8934a3130d61d9ecbfdbd099d862c1c75a3b) (http://s1375.photobucket.com/user/colemanwmullins/media/Mobile%20Uploads/01tomahawk_zpsgf3lbr0d.jpg.html)
-
Even if that structure was packed to the brim with rock and dirt it wouldn't compare to a direct impact with the ground. The force of the explosion has 5 sides to expand and reek havoc. And the back side is open air. Whereas the ground is solid and would project much of the force upward.
I have no doubt that they runways could have been destroyed. I am not sold by that image that TLAMs would have cratered the earth enough to waste ~2mil on.
I'm sure someone with a greater grasp on physics can shed more light.
-
I recognize that you have a far more intimate knowledge than I on this matter. You very well may be right.
-
I feel the difference would be akin to shooting a watermelon and shooting the ground. How deep is that bullet going?
-
Even if that structure was packed to the brim with rock and dirt it wouldn't compare to a direct impact with the ground. The force of the explosion has 5 sides to expand and reek havoc. And the back side is open air. Whereas the ground is solid and would project much of the force upward.
I have no doubt that they runways could have been destroyed. I am not sold by that image that TLAMs would have cratered the earth enough to waste ~2mil on.
I'm sure someone with a greater grasp on physics can shed more light.
You're probably right. I didn't work on them for 5 years or anything... :rolleyes:
-
I didn't say you were wrong. Just that the pic doesn't prove you right. Smdh
-
Might be oscar's calling.
(https://media.tenor.co/images/73546812ea40d3e0837494e865858a2e/tenor.gif)
-
Haha. No problem, man. Just saying, they could do the damage that has been reported as a goal, apparently.
I just saw the tomahawks mentioned and thought I'd chime in.
-
Hahaha I would have too in your shoes. I think the coolest part, is that the Tomahawks came in the front door and not from above the hangars. Guidance systems are amazing.
-
i'm not some military dork, but it seems pretty clear to me that if you were about to launch an attack, destroying the runway would be a great idea, because it'd (hopefully) ground their entire bunch of planes at that airbase for as long as it'd take to either repair the runway or move the planes elsewhere. which could be super useful if you had something you wanted to do in the next couple three hours that airplanes could get in the way of.
oth, if you just want to attack somebody solely to punish them, with no further operations planned in the immediate future. it'd probably make more sense to blow up some 20 million dollar planes rather than punch a few holes in a runway that'd take maybe a bulldozer, a roller, $500 worth of asphalt and a couple three hours to fix.
-
Agree with sys here
-
Worse than starving to death?
Yes, absolutely. Starvation takes more than a week. If somebody offered me starvation as an alternative to immediate death, I'd hold out hope that maybe I find some source of food and don't die.
-
You don't need boots on the ground to negate air defense systems.
-
basically just blew up parking garages
i don't think that's accurate. reports suggest as many as 20 syrian aircraft were damaged or destroyed.
There are a lot of people that want to believe 59 tomahawk missiles didn't do any damage, and I think we should let them, bc it amuses me.
-
26ish tomahawks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Thanks everyone for keeping this politics free. Loving this discussion in here. It was by mistake that I didn't put this in the pit. Glad I didn't.
Curious what, if anything, comes of today's air strikes by Syria/Russia/Iran.
-
I'm no expert, but haven't syria, russia, iran been airstriking for the better part of a decade withou recourse?
The gassing kids and children prompted the tomahawk blitz.
-
You are correct. I'm just curious where the US is going to draw the line moving forward. Barrel bombs and general munitions have killed more civilians than chemical weapons.
-
This op was the military equivalent of an angry tweet
-
eff yeah! While picking up some Chinese at Chen's, saw on the bottom line, "Spicer: If Syria uses barrel bombs, US will respond"
-
Kick Syria/Russia/Irans ass, US!
-
I know the AP is not exactly credible these days but if this true.... damn.
AP: Russia Knew Gas Attack Was Coming and then Bombed Hospial to Coverup (https://www.apnews.com/19772be1238e49fbb62c509a5b659b3d)
-
the bombing hospital to destroy evidence theory has been out there since day 1
it's quite plausible, but destroying the evidence to cover up the attack doesn't mean they had advance knowledge
-
if they knew ahead of time and really wanted to cover their asses, they should have rushed in ahead of the Syrians and killed all those beautiful children with conventional bombs before they had a chance to get gassed so Donald trump wouldn't have been upset
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/us-drops-mother-of-all-bombs-in-afghanistan-marking-weapons-first-use/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/us-drops-mother-of-all-bombs-in-afghanistan-marking-weapons-first-use/)
-
would love to see the video of that going off
-
would love to see the video of that going off
Not the exact launch but the same bomb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9H50tHiHjs
-
Saw that video too. I wish they had launched it into a mock village or military camp to truly show the blast radius
-
Is that one bigger than the one they used in Outbreak?
-
Who will Trump bomb today?
-
There really isn't any planning for these things so it's a mystery!
-
Pretty much. Definitely no planning that goes into knowing where ISIS tunnels are and blowing the crap out of them.
-
Hey guys. Let's keep that stuff in the pit . Tia.
-
Saw that video too. I wish they had launched it into a mock village or military camp to truly show the blast radius
the blast is 1mi diameter
-
I read that. I thought it'd be cool to see the radius knocking stuff over. Heck I would have settled for some fence posts or something.