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

Do you agree with Trump's decision to strike Syria?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#676
#676
OuterBanksVol said:
Wow. This speaks volumes about the Trump admin's ignorance (not picking on you). A barrel bomb has NOTHING to do with chemical attacks in Syria, nor were they used in the recent attack that prompted our missiles. Barrel bombs are explosives. Now stupid Spicer and company have just made their "policy" that much more confused and patently ignorant.
Click to expand...
Good thing that's not the US policy IRT Syria/Assad at all. Spicer has since corrected his statement. Let me know when we strike Syria for the use of barrel bombs.
 
#677
#677
JFreak said:
Good thing that's not the US policy IRT Syria/Assad at all. Spicer has since corrected his statement. Let me know when we strike Syria for the use of barrel bombs.
Click to expand...

Ummm... I have not seen any such correction by Spicer, nor have I seen a statement from the WH reversing his barrel bomb claims. Link?
 
#679
#679
QUOTE=JFreak;13698971]https://twitter.com/AndrewBeatty/status/851643361807269888
Beatty is a White House Correspondent.[/QUOTE]

I still see no correction from Spicer. Also, if you read the comments from the WH, it actually doesn't walk back or retract anything. The headline is misleading, unless there are further comments from the WH. The likely truth is Donald has no policy at this point.

"The president retains the option to act in Syria against the Assad regime whenever it is in the national interest, as was determined following that government's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens," the White House aide said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whit...stion-us-respond-additional/story?id=46708506
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#680
#680
OuterBanksVol said:
I still see no correction from Spicer. Also, if you read the comments from the WH, it actually doesn't walk back or retract anything. The headline is misleading, unless there are further comments from the WH. The likely truth is Donald has no policy at this point.

"The president retains the option to act in Syria against the Assad regime whenever it is in the national interest, as was determined following that government's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens," the White House aide said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whit...stion-us-respond-additional/story?id=46708506
Click to expand...
It's in black and white right there on the Twitter link I posted. "Nothing has changed in our posture." Which means the White House position remains no removal of Assad by US and use of chemical weapons against civilians will be acted on. Or you can just keep grasping at straws.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#681
#681
Rasputin_Vol said:
Now the few remaining Trump supporters on the right have an interesting take. 60 tomahawks, yet only 20 actually hit anything of significance, but none hit the runway. This is being spun as Trump countering a false flag with a false flag. They intentionally "missed" targets in an effort to simply show force and send a message to people outside the US as well as inside.

If that is true, I'm still not liking that we are using bombings as propaganda tools. Plus, the US was not invited into Syria, no matter if it was a false flag or not.
Click to expand...

Another explanation being thrown out there for why only 20 of 60 even hit the ground but did no significant damage is that we may have just had our first encounter with the superiority of the S300/S400 missile defense system from Russia. Now if that is the case, that makes our bombing strategy obsolete.
 
#682
#682
Rasputin_Vol said:
Another explanation being thrown out there for why only 20 of 60 even hit the ground but did no significant damage is that we may have just had our first encounter with the superiority of the S300/S400 missile defense system from Russia. Now if that is the case, that makes our bombing strategy obsolete.
Click to expand...

lol

And you don't think the Russians would have been parading that fact if indeed their AA system had taken out that many cruise missiles?
 
#683
#683
Rasputin_Vol said:
Another explanation being thrown out there for why only 20 of 60 even hit the ground but did no significant damage is that we may have just had our first encounter with the superiority of the S300/S400 missile defense system from Russia. Now if that is the case, that makes our bombing strategy obsolete.
Click to expand...

That's true, but conspiracy theory. If we take our military's statements at face value, then 58 of the 59 missiles hit the airport. However, given that Tomahawks are accurate to within 10 meters, it's possible that they were close but no cigar hits. I mean those airplane bunkers are pretty small, and could likely resist a near-miss. It's also possible that the bombs hit their targets, but that they did not explode or, possibly, did not penetrate bomb-resistant facilities. One would have to presume that when trying to build a shelter for a fighter pilot that they would expect someone to try to drop a bomb on it, right?
 
#684
#684
what would have Hillary done? draw a red line to warn syria?

where did syria get the chemical weapons?
 
#686
#686
OuterBanksVol said:
That's true, but conspiracy theory. If we take our military's statements at face value, then 58 of the 59 missiles hit the airport. However, given that Tomahawks are accurate to within 10 meters, it's possible that they were close but no cigar hits. I mean those airplane bunkers are pretty small, and could likely resist a near-miss. It's also possible that the bombs hit their targets, but that they did not explode or, possibly, did not penetrate bomb-resistant facilities. One would have to presume that when trying to build a shelter for a fighter pilot that they would expect someone to try to drop a bomb on it, right?
Click to expand...

I read that the bunkers and hangars were reinforced structures. Concrete and whatnot to resist attack. If we felt putting pilots in harms way we're warranted, or were really worried about it, we could have dropped bunker busters or even MOAB. Naysayers can rest assured: if uncle Sam was intent on it being destroyed it would be a smoking hole. Stealth aircraft would take out radar leaving Syria blind, then all hell would be unleashed like we did Baghdad. While our infantry hasn't been really put to the ultimate test since Vietnam, our air superiority is without question. We rule the skies, and as long as we aren't toe to toe with Russia that will never even be challenged.
 
#688
#688
Shocking, the only principle GOP voters have is party ID

C9IutB1VoAEOckg.jpg:large
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#689
#689
Velo Vol said:
Shocking, the only principle GOP voters have is party ID

C9IutB1VoAEOckg.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Now *that* is pretty amazing.

Democrats Support for Missile Strike due to Gas Use:

2013: 38%
2017: 37%

Republicans Support for Missile Strike due to Gas Use:

2013: 22%
2017: 86%

On its face, these stats sure seem to indicate that Republicans are far more partisan when it comes to war, i.e. "Obama dumb, Trump smart". :crazy::crazy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#691
#691
JFreak said:
It's in black and white right there on the Twitter link I posted. "Nothing has changed in our posture." Which means the White House position remains no removal of Assad by US and use of chemical weapons against civilians will be acted on. Or you can just keep grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

I suspect continued grasping
 
#692
#692
OuterBanksVol said:
On its face, these stats sure seem to indicate that Republicans are far more partisan when it comes to war, i.e. "Obama dumb, Trump smart". :crazy::crazy:
Click to expand...

Perhaps Americans feel more confident in Trump's ability to use military action than Obama's.

I sure as hell feel more confident in Mattis' advice to the President than I did Hagel or Panetta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#693
#693
Velo Vol said:
Shocking, the only principle GOP voters have is party ID

C9IutB1VoAEOckg.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Shocking - another GOP bad, Dems good post.

Let's remember our history. Obama got off script and made the red line comment. Syria crossed it. First Team Obama took quite a while to "confirm" CE was actually used and attributable to Assad. Then they took quite a while to figure out what they should do. When they finally decided we better do something John Kerry described the operation as an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

The result was people had limited confidence in Obama's shifting plans WRT Syria.

As another poster suggested (one friendly to Obama), Obama was shamed into asking Congress for permission. In short, it's no surprise people wouldn't support a military action when the user was reluctant and apparently doing it to save his own face rather than as some strategic response.

Also, we have some apples and oranges in that one question is about "would you support the use of" (a use that didn't happen) vs. "do you support the use of" (an after the fact reaction to something that happened).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administrations-message-on-syria-is-muddled/2013/09/09/d4319fe6-196b-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html?utm_term=.7f3706d67fb1
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#698
#698
Grand Vol said:
Perhaps Americans feel more confident in Trump's ability to use military action than Obama's.

I sure as hell feel more confident in Mattis' advice to the President than I did Hagel or Panetta.
Click to expand...

Well you're far more educated than the average American. I suspect maybe 5% MAX of all American adults could name Matthis as Def. Secy. much less cite anything about what the man stands for. So not buying this theory.
 
#700
#700
volinbham said:
Let's remember our history. Obama got off script and made the red line comment.
Click to expand...

I think he made the assumption, wrongly, that since Republicans had been so gung ho against WMDs in the Iraq war, they would naturally be aghast at their usage in Syria.

Since he wasn't a Republican, they didn't care.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top