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

[Grand Vol]

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.

Here's the thing. Obama could have unilaterally used military action after the red line comments without the consent of Congress. He had that authority.

He did not.

Now the question you have to be asking yourself is "why". He already did it in Libya, why not Syria as well?

 

[Velo Vol]

How dare him have an educated female he trusts giving him advice.

She sells handbags.

 

[Velo Vol]

Here's the thing. Obama could have unilaterally used military action after the red line comments without the consent of Congress. He had that authority.

Clearly Obama made mistakes. What I'm pointing out is those who were opposed to doing anything four years ago, in response to even worse atrocities, but now are in favor of it, simply because of the president's party ID.

 

[hog88]

Clearly Obama made mistakes. What I'm pointing out is those who were opposed to doing anything four years ago, in response to even worse atrocities, but now are in favor of it, simply because of the president's party ID.

Maybe it's confidence?

 

[Grand Vol]

Clearly Obama made mistakes. What I'm pointing out is those who were opposed to doing anything four years ago, in response to even worse atrocities, but now are in favor of it, simply because of the president's party ID.

So, what you're saying is Trump helped fix an Obama mistake from 4 years ago.

Got it.

 

[hog88]

She sells handbags.

Feeling sexist this morning are we?

 

[Pacer92]

She sells handbags.

And yet it seems she's intelligently superior of Assad...who supposedly dropped chemical weapons on his own people...serving no strategical or political purpose whatsoever...

 

[BearCat204]

Not sure if these have been posted yet, if they have, then the links were blocked here at work

 

[carlos86]

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.

The Assad forces use Chlorine in there barrel bombs.A little trick they learned from Iran.

 

[lawgator1]

Anybody buying into the speculation that the attack by Trump was motivated at least in part by desire to appear to be at odds with Putin on something? And that the severity of the attack was intentionally dumbed down to be just some empty hangars, did not hit chemical storage areas, did not hit the runway, etc. Basically a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing...

 

[hog88]

Anybody buying into the speculation that the attack by Trump was motivated at least in part by desire to appear to be at odds with Putin on something? And that the severity of the attack was intentionally dumbed down to be just some empty hangars, did not hit chemical storage areas, did not hit the runway, etc. Basically a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing...

No, but I'm not a big dummy either.

 

[BearCat204]

Anybody buying into the speculation that the attack by Trump was motivated at least in part by desire to appear to be at odds with Putin on something? And that the severity of the attack was intentionally dumbed down to be just some empty hangars, did not hit chemical storage areas, did not hit the runway, etc. Basically a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing...

Only if you are a regular tv viewer of Jerry and Maury.


The strike, IMO, was only to show force, that's it. If they US had wanted to take out Assad, they would have done it. This was a warning shot to what is to come if change doesn't come. Just my unprofessional opinion.

 

[Grand Vol]

Anybody buying into the speculation that the attack by Trump was motivated at least in part by desire to appear to be at odds with Putin on something? And that the severity of the attack was intentionally dumbed down to be just some empty hangars, did not hit chemical storage areas, did not hit the runway, etc. Basically a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing...

Yeah, bad idea to hit storage areas especially if population centers are somewhat close downwind. (not sure how far away they are)

 

[carlos86]

Anybody buying into the speculation that the attack by Trump was motivated at least in part by desire to appear to be at odds with Putin on something? And that the severity of the attack was intentionally dumbed down to be just some empty hangars, did not hit chemical storage areas, did not hit the runway, etc. Basically a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing...

How about no. You don't strike the chemical storage areas because you don't want a big ass Sarin gas cloud plume.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

Here's the thing. Obama could have unilaterally used military action after the red line comments without the consent of Congress. He had that authority.

He did not.

Now the question you have to be asking yourself is "why". He already did it in Libya, why not Syria as well?

He's a Syrian stooge/agent.

 

[lawgator1]

Yeah, bad idea to hit storage areas especially if population centers are somewhat close downwind. (not sure how far away they are)

How about no. You don't strike the chemical storage areas because you don't want a big ass Sarin gas cloud plume.

Saw discussed last night and military guy was saying we have munitions that are capable of striking such supplies, and consuming the gas in the process, so no risk of release. I'd not heard that before, but perhaps you guys know more about that?

 

[hog88]

Saw discussed last night and military guy was saying we have munitions that are capable of striking such supplies, and consuming the gas in the process, so no risk of release. I'd not heard that before, but perhaps you guys know more about that?

If they exist I'm thinking a fuel/air bomb which would require manned aircraft. And there would still be a huge risk of release, now wouldn't that make for great headlines?

 

[BearCat204]

Saw discussed last night and military guy was saying we have munitions that are capable of striking such supplies, and consuming the gas in the process, so no risk of release. I'd not heard that before, but perhaps you guys know more about that?

Outside of Intermediate to high altitude situations, we don't currently have a good weapon to hit a ground target and neutralize the chemical threat. We have been testing and researching Agent Defeat Weapons ever since 9/11, but to my knowledge, we don't have anything that has been successfully fielded.

 

[Grand Vol]

Saw discussed last night and military guy was saying we have munitions that are capable of striking such supplies, and consuming the gas in the process, so no risk of release. I'd not heard that before, but perhaps you guys know more about that?

What BC said. Also, whether or not a Tomahawk is fitted with such a warhead is another matter entirely. And whether or not it happens to be on that specific ship off the coast.

Lots of details on that end that would have to be answered. But I do know of one munition that would effectively contain any chance of release of that toxin.

 

[BearCat204]

Let me correct myself a little...... we don't have anything that could be launched from the Destroyer platform. I do think the USAF has a passive attack bomb that is designed to do this.

 

[Grand Vol]

Let me correct myself a little...... we don't have anything that could be launched from the Destroyer platform. I do think the USAF has a passive attack bomb that is designed to do this.

"Passive attack bomb."

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Since they would most likely be in a hardened bunker you'd have to use penetrating munitions to destroy them and some sort of fuel air to vaporize anything above the target. Way too many risks and the damage radius would be large.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

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?

Forget about the reinforced bunkers or 10 meters of accuracy nonsense for a moment. Why bomb an airfield, but not the runway? You telling me that the US can't even hit or damage a runway with 59 missiles? The Syrians used the same airport the next day to carry out missions.

 

[carlos86]

If they exist I'm thinking a fuel/air bomb which would require manned aircraft. And there would still be a huge risk of release, now wouldn't that make for great headlines?

Their called Passive Attack Weapons and Crash Pads. They can only be delivered to the target by F-15's, F-22's, B-2's and B-1's

"The CrashPad, or BLU-119/B weapon is a high-heat explosive bomb designed to incinerate chemical agents before they can be harmful. The weapon is a 420-pound, high-heat incendiary weapon with what’s called a “blast-fragmentation” warhead. The Crash Pad is built from an existing standard MK 84 bomb body. The “PAD” in CrashPad stands for “Prompt Agent Defeat,” referring to the weapon’s ability to destroy chemical and biological agents without causing contamination, official documents describe. The Passive Attack Weapon, or PAW, involves firing a host of steel and tungsten penetrator rods to create a “kinetic energy” battlefield effect without using an explosive. The weapon, first used to knock out antennas in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, is among the weapons used to advance what strategists call “effects based warfare." One analyst said if the PAW were to be fired from a high enough altitude and was able to travel with enough terminal velocity – it could destroy chemical weapons stockpiles without releasing contaminants."

 

[volinbham]

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.

Clearly there's partisanship - there always is.

There's also good reason to be skeptical given the very public waffling, gaffes and general lack of conviction exhibited by Obama. Hard to get behind a guy's military action when you have zero confidence he's behind it himself.

I guarantee if he acted decisively and immediately after the CE usage many R's would have backed him; probably more than D's.