U.S. Launches Millitary Strike Against Syria (merged)

[JFreak]

Let's have Congress pass a $10 trillion budget, and then everything spent in the coming year will be free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

AllVol123 is 100% correct. The missiles were a sunk cost.. the cost simply didn't factor into the strategic level decision making for this limited strike, nor should it have. Literally the only arguments against this strike have been "Omg but we wasted so much money" and "Here, look at this tweet from Trump in 2013". Quite comical actually.

If you honestly think those are the only arguments that have been made against the attack, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[midnight orange]

AllVol123 is 100% correct. The missiles were a sunk cost.. the cost simply didn't factor into the strategic level decision making for this limited strike, nor should it have. Literally the only arguments against this strike have been "Omg but we wasted so much money" and "Here, look at this tweet from Trump in 2013". Quite comical actually.

The government doesn't factor costs into anything but it should. My argument against this is not the cost, but that we have no business in Syrian conflicts. Also wouldn't be surprised if this was a false flag operation. We're now choosing rebels over Assad. It will end up being a quagmire cluster ala Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya if we get involved.

 

[JFreak]

If you honestly think those are the only arguments that have been made against the attack, then you haven't been paying attention.

Been paying quite a bit of attention actually. Have yet to hear 1 argument of merit. If you have something new and Earth shattering I'd love to hear it.

 

[JFreak]

The government doesn't factor costs into anything but it should. My argument against this is not the cost, but that we have no business in Syrian conflicts. Also wouldn't be surprised if this was a false flag operation. We're now choosing rebels over Assad. It will end up being a quagmire cluster ala Iraq and Libya if we get involved.

The government factors cost into nearly all decision making processes. If you don't believe me, sit through a meeting on Defense Acquisition. This strike, however, was one of the instances where cost wasn't a factor due to the aforementioned reasons. We absolutely have a moral obligation as decent human beings to prevent the proliferation and use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians. This was not a false flag operation.. if you want to know more get access to a computer with a SECRET classification. Sadly Wikileaks doesn't count. Most people would agree that a long-term protracted war with the goal being removal of Assad is in no ones best interest. Lastly, we've been choosing rebels over Assad for years now.. so what exactly is your point?

 

[midnight orange]

The government factors cost into nearly all decision making processes. If you don't believe me, sit through a meeting on Defense Acquisition.

How's the F35 working out? How much did Iraq and Afghanistan cost? What are we getting out of it? We're 19 trillion in debt with nothing to show for it.

This strike, however, was one of the instances where cost wasn't a factor due to the aforementioned reasons. We absolutely have a moral obligation as decent human beings to prevent the proliferation and use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians. This was not a false flag operation.. if you want to know more get access to a computer with a SECRET classification. Sadly Wikileaks doesn't count.

Cost will never be a factor with the government until the bond market says no more. How do you know it wasn't a false flag? Do you believe the intelligence agencies? They were spot on with Iraq. Why is it worse to killed with sarin gas than a flamethrower or incendiary bomb?

Most people would agree that a long-term protracted war with the goal being removal of Assad is in no ones best interest. Lastly, we've been choosing rebels over Assad for years now.. so what exactly is your point?

So since we've been doing it we should continue doing it no matter what? We supported Libyan rebels and that worked out well. My point is we have no business over there.

 

[JFreak]

How's the F35 working out? How much did Iraq and Afghanistan cost? What are we getting out of it? We're 19 trillion in debt with nothing to show for it.

F-35 has nothing to do with Syria. Cost is and has been at the forefront of every PM's mind on the F-35 program for some time. You'd be a really bad decision maker if you used F-35 cost over runs to decide whether or not it was cool for Assad to gas his own people.

Cost will never be a factor with the government until the bond market says no more. How do you know it wasn't a false flag? Do you believe the intelligence agencies? They were spot on with Iraq. Why is it worse to killed with sarin gas than a flamethrower or incendiary bomb?

The actual intelligence proving it wasn't a false flag is classified. Remind me the last time someone used flamethrowers or an incendiary bomb on innocent civilians and we didn't act?

So since we've been doing it we should continue doing it no matter what? We supported Libyan rebels and that worked out well. My point is we have no business over there.

Pretty much all our efforts to remove and replace leaders in the ME have been a failure. Good thing that's no longer our policy in Syria. And yes, we have no business in a long protracted war with the ultimate goal of removing Assad.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

You have no perspective (or evidently any real education) on the whole frickin world's position on chemical warfare as WMD. Rather inane actually. Go read history books.

Well, I got my undergrad degree from UT, so I guess that speaks volumes. :crazy:

I've taken your advice, and have now read about the toxin Sarin and its use as a weapon of the course of history. The following list was compiled on Wikipedia, and details the number of deaths caused by this "weapon of mass destruction". I've highlighted (in bold) the number of deaths attributed to its use since 1938:

History[edit]

Sarin was discovered in 1938 in Wuppertal-Elberfeld in Germany by scientists at IG Farben who were attempting to create stronger pesticides; it is the most toxic of the four G-Series nerve agents made by Germany. The compound, which followed the discovery of the nerve agent tabun, was named in honor of its discoverers: Schrader, Ambros, Gerhard Ritter, and von der Linde.[39]

Use as a weapon[edit]

In mid-1939, the formula for the agent was passed to the chemical warfare section of the German Army Weapons Office, which ordered that it be brought into mass production for wartime use. Pilot plants were built, and a high-production facility was under construction (but was not finished) by the end of World War II. Estimates for total sarin production by Nazi Germany range from 500 kg to 10 tons.[40] Though sarin, tabun and soman were incorporated into artillery shells, Germany did not use nerve agents against Allied targets.

U.S. Honest John missile warhead cutaway, showing M134 sarin bomblets (c. 1960)1950s (early): NATO adopted sarin as a standard chemical weapon, and both the USSR and the United States produced sarin for military purposes.

1953: 20-year-old Ronald Maddison, a Royal Air Force engineer from Consett, County Durham, died in human testing of sarin at the Porton Down chemical warfare testing facility in Wiltshire, England. Ten days after his death an inquest was held in secret which returned a verdict of "misadventure". In 2004, the inquest was reopened and, after a 64-day inquest hearing, the jury ruled that Maddison had been unlawfully killed by the "application of a nerve agent in a non-therapeutic experiment".[41]

1957: Regular production of sarin chemical weapons ceased in the United States, though existing stocks of bulk sarin were re-distilled until 1970.[42]

1976: Chile's intelligence service, DINA, assigns biochemist Eugenio Berríos to develop sarin gas within its program Proyecto Andrea, to be used as a weapon against its opponents.[43] One of DINA's goals was to package it in spray cans for easy use, which, according to testimony by former DINA agent Michael Townley, was one of the planned procedures in the 1976 assassination of Letelier.[43] Berríos later testified that it was used in a number of assassinations.[44][45]

March 1988: Over two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died.[46]

April 1988: Sarin was used four times against Iranian soldiers at the end of the Iran–Iraq War, helping Iraqi forces to retake control of the al-Faw Peninsula during the Second Battle of al-Faw.

1993: The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by 162 member countries, banning the production and stockpiling of many chemical weapons, including sarin. It went into effect on April 29, 1997, and called for the complete destruction of all specified stockpiles of chemical weapons by April 2007.[47] When the convention entered force, the parties declared worldwide stockpiles of 15,047 tonnes of sarin. As of December 2015, 89% of the stockpiles had been destroyed.[48]

1994: Matsumoto incident; the Japanese religious sect Aum Shinrikyo released an impure form of sarin in Matsumoto, Nagano, killing eight people and harming over 200. The Australian sheep station Banjawarn was a testing ground.

1995: Tokyo subway sarin attack; the Aum Shinrikyo sect released an impure form of sarin in the Tokyo Metro. Twelve people died.[49]

2004: Iraqi insurgents detonated a 155 mm shell containing binary precursors for sarin near a U.S. convoy in Iraq. The shell was designed to mix the chemicals as it spun during flight. The detonated shell released only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded with age. Two United States soldiers were treated after displaying the early symptoms of exposure to sarin.[50]

2013: Ghouta chemical attack; sarin was used in an attack in the Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq Governorate of Syria during the Syrian civil war.[51] Varying[52] sources gave a death toll of 322 to 1,729.[54]

2017: Khan Shaykhun chemical attack; sarin gas was allegedly released in rebel-held Idlib Province in Syria during a Syrian army airstrike. Civilian death toll of ~57 reported, over 200 more injured.[55][56]


So, in sum, it would appear that the use of Sarin as a weapon has resulted in a total of less than 6,000 people worldwide over the course of nearly 80 years. Most of these deaths (~5,000) occurred during the Iran/Iraq war - during which a total estimated 500,000+ soldiers and civilians were killed.

So, it would seem that a review of history proves - once again - that bullets, bombs and shrapnel remain the real "weapons of mass destruction" in our world.

 

[midnight orange]

F-35 has nothing to do with Syria. Cost is and has been at the forefront of every PM's mind on the F-35 program for some time. You'd be a really bad decision maker if you used F-35 cost over runs to decide whether or not it was cool for Assad to gas his own people.

Didn't say it did. Just pointing out the criminal waste of money. It's nice that it's "on their minds".

The actual intelligence proving it wasn't a false flag is classified. Remind me the last time someone used flamethrowers or an incendiary bomb on innocent civilians and we didn't act?

Sorry but I don't believe anything the government says including the intelligence agencies. Their track record is abysmal. Did we not burn Fallujah to the ground using white phosphorous?

Pretty much all our efforts to remove and replace leaders in the ME have been a failure. Good thing that's no longer our policy in Syria. And yes, we have no business in a long protracted war with the ultimate goal of removing Assad.

I hope so.

 

[JFreak]

So, it would seem that a review of history proves - once again - that bullets, bombs and shrapnel remain the real "weapons of mass destruction" in our world.

By the numbers, yes of course bullets and conventional bombs have killed a lot more people. Even dictators know that the use of chemical weapons will lead to multilateral intervention. I fail to see how the kill radius of a weapon is such a hard concept to grasp. 6 lbs of weaponized VX has a kill radius of approximately 1 km. Conversely, a standard 500 lb airburst bomb may have a kill radius somewhere on the order of 150-200m. That is a monumental difference, especially in an urban environment. Also, consider that chemical weapons generally have a stay time as well with their effects being felt minutes or hours after the initial explosion. Not to mention that those most effected by chemical weapons are usually those with no access to CBR protective gear (civilians). Chemical weapons if properly used are an absolutely devastating indiscriminate killer. Bullets, bombs, and shrapnel require much more directed strikes.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

By the numbers, yes of course bullets and conventional bombs have killed a lot more people. Even dictators know that the use of chemical weapons will lead to multilateral intervention. I fail to see how the kill radius of a weapon is such a hard concept to grasp. 6 lbs of weaponized VX has a kill radius of approximately 1 km. Conversely, a standard 500 lb airburst bomb may have a kill radius somewhere on the order of 150-200m. That is a monumental difference, especially in an urban environment. Also, consider that chemical weapons generally have a stay time as well with their effects being felt minutes or hours after the initial explosion. Not to mention that those most effected by chemical weapons are usually those with no access to CBR protective gear (civilians). Chemical weapons if properly used are an absolutely devastating indiscriminate killer. Bullets, bombs, and shrapnel require much more directed strikes.

Excellent post.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

By the numbers, yes of course bullets and conventional bombs have killed a lot more people. Even dictators know that the use of chemical weapons will lead to multilateral intervention. I fail to see how the kill radius of a weapon is such a hard concept to grasp. 6 lbs of weaponized VX has a kill radius of approximately 1 km. Conversely, a standard 500 lb airburst bomb may have a kill radius somewhere on the order of 150-200m. That is a monumental difference, especially in an urban environment. Also, consider that chemical weapons generally have a stay time as well with their effects being felt minutes or hours after the initial explosion. Not to mention that those most effected by chemical weapons are usually those with no access to CBR protective gear (civilians). Chemical weapons if properly used are an absolutely devastating indiscriminate killer. Bullets, bombs, and shrapnel require much more directed strikes.

VX is nasty ****, no doubt. But we're not talking about VX use in Syria, we're talking about Sarin. And we're talking about Sarin because it's the SOLE REASON we've been drawn into the Syrian conflict. The deaths of around 80 people resulted from Sarin, while 470,000 have died in Syria from the real WMDs.

And, hey, don't forget who the only folks are in the world that have actually EVER killed a really significant number of people with WMDs: Us.

 

[37L1]

VX is nasty ****, no doubt. But we're not talking about VX use in Syria, we're talking about Sarin. And we're talking about Sarin because it's the SOLE REASON we've been drawn into the Syrian conflict. The deaths of around 80 people resulted from Sarin, while 470,000 have died in Syria from the real WMDs.

And, hey, don't forget who the only folks are in the world that have actually EVER killed a really significant number of people with WMDs: Us.

We have had Special Forces on the ground in Syria long before the tomahawks were launched.

So you are going to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
They were not dropped on our own people and were used to end a horrific war. Many more people on both sides would have died and been maimed had they not been dropped and an invasion was done instead.

Your moral equivalency sucks as does your argument.

 

[JFreak]

VX is nasty ****, no doubt. But we're not talking about VX use in Syria, we're talking about Sarin. And we're talking about Sarin because it's the SOLE REASON we've been drawn into the Syrian conflict. The deaths of around 80 people resulted from Sarin, while 470,000 have died in Syria from the real WMDs.

And, hey, don't forget who the only folks are in the world that have actually EVER killed a really significant number of people with WMDs: Us.

VX is some nasty stuff. And so is Sarin. That's why they're both banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Are you really trying to say that it's OK to use one against civilians and not the other because Sarin only killed 80 people in Syria? Like VX crosses some line with you that Sarin does not?

 

[hndog609]

By the numbers, yes of course bullets and conventional bombs have killed a lot more people. Even dictators know that the use of chemical weapons will lead to multilateral intervention. I fail to see how the kill radius of a weapon is such a hard concept to grasp. 6 lbs of weaponized VX has a kill radius of approximately 1 km. Conversely, a standard 500 lb airburst bomb may have a kill radius somewhere on the order of 150-200m. That is a monumental difference, especially in an urban environment. Also, consider that chemical weapons generally have a stay time as well with their effects being felt minutes or hours after the initial explosion. Not to mention that those most effected by chemical weapons are usually those with no access to CBR protective gear (civilians). Chemical weapons if properly used are an absolutely devastating indiscriminate killer. Bullets, bombs, and shrapnel require much more directed strikes.

Yep, the key is in the "Mass" part of WMD. It is specifically the single use damage capability of the weapon that creates the working definition. Hell, in all of history swords/knives/spears/arrows have killed a hell of a lot more people than nukes but how silly is trying to classify those weapons as WMDs look?

Trying to argue bullets, etc have anything to do with WMDs from a cumulative death standpoint is like arguing somebody is a great RB because they got to 2000 yards. That's great until you also include it took them 2000 carries to get there. That's no more a great RB than bullets are WMDs. Pretty simple really.

 

[Hayezb]

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=s3uaf1NFxXc[/YouTube]

Sorry if I'm late to the game with this...

 

[OuterBanksVol]

We have had Special Forces on the ground in Syria long before the tomahawks were launched.

So you are going to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
They were not dropped on our own people and were used to end a horrific war. Many more people on both sides would have died and been maimed had they not been dropped and an invasion was done instead.

Your moral equivalency sucks as does your argument.

And your moral high ground is quicksand. It is what it is, and I agree we made the right choice in 1945. But, the fact remains the same: We are the only country to use WMDs that killed / maimed / irradiated hundreds of thousands of people.

My arguments have yet to be refuted by you or anyone else to date, because they are sound:

* Trump's decision to conduct an illegal, unapproved strike on a sovereign country was based solely on the use of Sarin.

* A dead person killed by Sarin is no different than a dead person killed by "non-WMD" weapons.

* Trump is a hypocrite, because he has "always been" against intervention in Syria, and his campaign platform was based upon this and anti-globalism.

* Trump has now antagonized and broken yet another campaign promise to his alt-right political base.

* Trump's opinion on Syria changed 180 degrees in less than three days based solely on the use of Sarin.

* Over 470,000 deaths in Syria have resulted from "non-WMD" weapons.

* Somehow Trump was completely indifferent to the plight of these 470,000 dead Syrians, millions of refugees (except when they try to enter the US, of course), and the fact that thousands of Syrian babies have been killed by non-WMD weapons in the past 6 years... until 80 people were killed by Sarin last week.

So, by all means, juicebox, counter my arguments.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

Yep, the key is in the "Mass" part of WMD. It is specifically the single use damage capability of the weapon that creates the working definition. Hell, in all of history swords/knives/spears/arrows have killed a hell of a lot more people than nukes but how silly is trying to classify those weapons as WMDs look?

Trying to argue bullets, etc have anything to do with WMDs from a cumulative death standpoint is like arguing somebody is a great RB because they got to 2000 yards. That's great until you also include it took them 2000 carries to get there. That's no more a great RB than bullets are WMDs. Pretty simple really.

Agreed. But, Khan Sheikhoun has a population of 48,975. If Assad was really trying to kill a bunch of people with Sarin, a death toll of 80 doesn't seem like much "mass".

 

[JFreak]

* Trump's decision to conduct an illegal, unapproved strike on a sovereign country was based solely on the use of Sarin.
* A dead person killed by Sarin is no different than a dead person killed by "non-WMD" weapons.
* Trump is a hypocrite, because he has "always been" against intervention in Syria, and his campaign platform was based upon this and anti-globalism.
* Trump has now antagonized and broken yet another campaign promise to his alt-right political base.
* Trump's opinion on Syria changed 180 degrees in less than three days based solely on the use of Sarin.
* Over 470,000 deaths in Syria have resulted from "non-WMD" weapons.
* Somehow Trump was completely indifferent to the plight of these 470,000 dead Syrians, millions of refugees (except when they try to enter the US, of course), and the fact that thousands of Syrian babies have been killed by non-WMD weapons in the past 6 years... until 80 people were killed by Sarin last week.

So, by all means, juicebox, counter my arguments.

I'm your Huckleberry.
-The directed strike in Syria was due to the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by Assad.
-They're only the same in that they're both dead. On average in the Vietnam War, it took about 50,000 rounds of ammunition to kill 1 enemy soldier. The numbers were similar for OIF/OEF. Conversely, 1 warhead of chemical weapons can rapidly kill multiple city blocks in an urban environment.
-You have 3 Trump arguments here which are pretty much all the same. However, this was the first time chemical weapons were used against innocent civilians since he has been in the seat and the most blatant use I can think of in quite a while. He acted accordingly. Trump remains opposed to a long protracted involvement in Syria and a quick, limited strike does nothing to change that.
-Trump is not completely indifferent to the plight of civilians in Syria. He does, however, put the safety of the American people above aimlessly letting in unscreened refugees.

 

[JFreak]

Agreed. But, Khan Sheikhoun has a population of 48,975. If Assad was really trying to kill a bunch of people with Sarin, a death toll of 80 doesn't seem like much "mass".

Give Assad a break. He's kind of out of practice in regards to the use of chemical weapons. Maybe we should give him a few more tries to see if he can get those numbers up.

 

[hndog609]

Agreed. But, Khan Sheikhoun has a population of 48,975. If Assad was really trying to kill a bunch of people with Sarin, a death toll of 80 doesn't seem like much "mass".

WMD use isn't qualified by deaths but by the weapon itself. If we took out Dr Evil's secret lair with a nuke and there were only 80 people at the base would that change the fact a WMD was used? The "death toll criteria" really needs to be removed from this conversation. There absolutely are certain classes of weapons considered above and beyond the "conventional" and their usage, regardless of outcome, is not viewed the same. That's simple a fact. I understand the "10 dead people by X cause is the same number of dead by Y cause if it's 10" thing but they are different arguments.

An honest question (to anyone). If it's pretty much all the same to use guns and bombs vs poison gas then why was the latter used in the first place? What considerations, beyond the simple lethality of a singular attack, can be drawn from resorting to that method vs more conventional weapons?

 

[Weezer]

At the end of the day, whether I agree with the decision, politics should be put aside. The true question is, do you feel we had a moral obligation to act? If so, Trump did the right thing, and he did it without putting American soldiers at risk.

 

[n_huffhines]

Trump owns stock in Raytheon

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-stock-portfolio-2015-7

Raytheon's stocks surged after the bombing

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RTN

Wonder who was buying stock the day before the strikes?

 

[Velo Vol]

The true question is, do you feel we had a moral obligation to act?

There's more to it than that. Bad things happen all over the globe every day. Do we have an obligation to act?

 

[JFreak]

At the end of the day, whether I agree with the decision, politics should be put aside. The true question is, do you feel we had a moral obligation to act? If so, Trump did the right thing, and he did it without putting American soldiers at risk.

Spot on mah dude.