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

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

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#726
#726
DancingOutlaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

They would have had to use the Block IV Tomahawk missiles to hit the bunkers. But the issue of the gas would still remain.
 
#727
#727
Rasputin_Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've watched enough video of modern precision weapons, I'd assume. Do you honestly think they couldn't hit the runway if they really wanted to?

Good grief, Ras. You're starting to get all kinds of Alex Jones-esque unhinged here.
 
#728
#728
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

putin-obama-phone-call-2.jpg
 
#730
#730
Rasputin_Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

The tomahawks would have just created simple craters in the runway that would have just been filled within maybe 24-48 hours. Tomahawks are a good inexpensive way to blow up aircraft, anti-aircraft batteries and radar systems or igniting petroleum tanks. Not runways. My best guess is that the ordinance to destroy the runway wasn't available or they just chose not to. They also would have had to be flown by manned aircraft and that would be a risk with Syrian using Russian S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missile systems.


IDK if the Air Force still uses these or not or maybe have a modern variant.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-buvo3dj4[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
#731
#731
Grand Vol said:
You've watched enough video of modern precision weapons, I'd assume. Do you honestly think they couldn't hit the runway if they really wanted to?

Good grief, Ras. You're starting to get all kinds of Alex Jones-esque unhinged here.
Click to expand...

My question to you would be why didn't they hit the runway? Or at least damage it enough significantly enough to prevent the Syrian planes from being able to reuse it the next day?
 
#732
#732
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...


Oh, please. Of all the ridiculous partisan things you have said over the years, this takes the cake.

There is NO WAY ON EARTH that had Obama taken action, that he'd have gotten an iota of support from the GOP in Congress. They spent the entire 8 years knee jerk criticizing him for literally everything he did.

It was their one and only game plan, as witnessed by the fact that despite their screaming about Obamacare for seven years, holding countless votes to repeal it, that when it came time to actually do it, they fell apart.

Give me a break with that nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#733
#733
Rasputin_Vol said:
My question to you would be why didn't they hit the runway? Or at least damage it enough significantly enough to prevent the Syrian planes from being able to reuse it the next day?
Click to expand...

As someone stated before, it's easy to repair runways. Especially if the Syrians are using Russian/Soviet designs that are rough field capable (which they are). Easy to push in dirt/gravel, level it off or add in runway repair material and they are back in business. It doesn't have to be pool table smooth.

Our own units practice rapid runway repair and can have a cratered runway back up and running in minimal time. I wouldn't imagine the Syrians or their Russian advisers are any different in that regard. So, lobbing a bunch of Tomahawk missiles at something that can be fixed in no time at all is really a waste of said missile.
 
#734
#734
lawgator1 said:
Oh, please. Of all the ridiculous partisan things you have said over the years, this takes the cake.

There is NO WAY ON EARTH that had Obama taken action, that he'd have gotten an iota of support from the GOP in Congress. They spent the entire 8 years knee jerk criticizing him for literally everything he did.

It was their one and only game plan, as witnessed by the fact that despite their screaming about Obamacare for seven years, holding countless votes to repeal it, that when it came time to actually do it, they fell apart.

Give me a break with that nonsense.
Click to expand...

More GOP supported him on this issue when he decided to take it to Congress than his own damn party.
 
#735
#735
OuterBanksVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, you got a little knowledge, eh; but with your knowledge you have no understanding.

Weaponized mustard, chlorine, sarin, etc. are totally, absolutely indescriminate. Covering MANY MAGNITUDES of target radius over conventional weapons. Which accuracy is becoming incredibly precise in my lifetime.
But gas and biologicals seep into the hiding places of noncombatant innocents horrifically killing or infecting those who become infectous then spread disease, then killing . More horrific still are nuclear WMD. With the Geneva conventions and nuclear non-proliferation; in the last century mankind has for the first time sought to limit the methods and means of war to recognized combatants only. The killing of civilians cannot be and is not condoned. So for nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was implemented along with non-proliferation to forego another use of nuclear weapons. Treatys banning gas and biologicals were signed.

So OF COURSE the numbers for Sarin are veeery leeetle.

1st Image: Reality

2nd Image: How OuterBanksVol sees himself
 

Attachments

  • 46444444444444.png
    46444444444444.png
    91.8 KB · Views: 68
  • dark-helmet-spaceballs-my-helment-catches-all-my-farts-and-you-say-gas-is-a-wmd.jpg
    dark-helmet-spaceballs-my-helment-catches-all-my-farts-and-you-say-gas-is-a-wmd.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 0
#737
#737
lawgator1 said:
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...
Click to expand...

The absolute stupidest thing they could have done. Thank God they didn't. You are advocating for the very action we hit them for.

At the very least you have a chemical fire. At the worst you just dispersed their entire arsenal of chemicals.

pretty sure getting rid of the chemicals effectively and safely takes a little more than lighting a match

SIAP
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#738
#738
Orangedogsrule said:
So, you got a little knowledge, eh; but with your knowledge you have no understanding.

Weaponized mustard, chlorine, sarin, etc. are totally, absolutely indescriminate. Covering MANY MAGNITUDES of target radius over conventional weapons. Which accuracy is becoming incredibly precise in my lifetime.
But gas and biologicals seep into the hiding places of noncombatant innocents horrifically killing or infecting those who become infectous then spread disease, then killing . More horrific still are nuclear WMD. With the Geneva conventions and nuclear non-proliferation; in the last century mankind has for the first time sought to limit the methods and means of war to recognized combatants only. The killing of civilians cannot be and is not condoned. So for nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was implemented along with non-proliferation to forego another use of nuclear weapons. Treatys banning gas and biologicals were signed.

So OF COURSE the numbers for Sarin are veeery leeetle.

1st Image: Reality

2nd Image: How OuterBanksVol sees himself
Click to expand...

Please give up on making memes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#740
#740
Watched some of the Mattis/Votel press conference. Glad these guys are at the helm.

Mattis said in no uncertain terms that they know exactly who planned and executed the CE attack (Syria/Assad). So for all you false flaggers I assume you believe Mattis is lying?
 
#743
#743
Rasputin_Vol said:
My question to you would be why didn't they hit the runway? Or at least damage it enough significantly enough to prevent the Syrian planes from being able to reuse it the next day?
Click to expand...

The only way to keep an opposing force from launching their planes is to destroy the planes and their requisite logistics chain. Cratering a runway is, at best, a temporary inconvenience.
 
#746
#746
volinbham said:
I guarantee if he acted decisively and immediately after the CE usage many R's would have backed him; probably more than D's.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but you can't say that Trump has demonstrated that he has any more of a plan than Obama did.

The only main thing this illustrates (in addition to the partisan support) is that it's easier to seek forgiveness rather than ask permission.
 
#748
#748
volinbham said:
Watched some of the Mattis/Votel press conference. Glad these guys are at the helm.

Mattis said in no uncertain terms that they know exactly who planned and executed the CE attack (Syria/Assad). So for all you false flaggers I assume you believe Mattis is lying?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Anyone who is part of a presidential administration lies.
 
#749
#749
Well we now know why Assad used chemical weapons.

"Assad used CW in Khan Shaykhun to counter Hama offensive and protect vital airbase. Reason CW used in Latamneh/Khan Shaykhun because "regime calculated that CW were necessary to make up for manpower deficiency. CW attacks in civilian areas behind front lines such as Latamneh/Khan Shaykhun likely intended to create pressure. The CW attacks fit into a "punch-counterpunch" scenario between regime and opposition forces in Hama."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top