Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
Thanks Tree18Thanks

Thread: How the U.S. and Allies Attacked Syria

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70,362
    Thanks
    34239

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...attacked-syria

    Bullets:

    • Syrian chemical weapon R&D sites, production plants, and storage facilities were all destroyed, designed to take away Assad's chemical weapon attack capabilities.
    • U.S. guided-missile destroyer USS Winston Churchill were used as a ruse when they turned toward the Mediterranean to join a flotilla of allied warships. They were a distraction to make the real plan defensible. It worked.
    • Trump's tweet was part of the plan to distract Russia and Syria. “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!'"
    • The president was presented with 5 options. The president largely listened as Pentagon chief Jim Mattis, Joint Chiefs Chairman Marine Corps General Joe Dunford and other military leaders did most of the talking.
    • There was unanimity among Trump’s top national security staff about conducting strikes.
    • U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley pused for a robust military response on humanitarian grounds.
    • The U.S. sought targets that would limit any involvement with Russian military forces in Syria and reduce the risk of civilian casualties.
    • As the president addressed the nation, a barrage of 105 U.S., U.K. and French missiles converged on Syria. They came from three directions: the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean to overwhelm missile defenses.
    • Russia’s more advanced air defense system didn’t engage the allied weapons.
    • The allied weaponry included:
      - 19 new “Extended-Range” stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Attack Munitions launched by two B-1B bombers based out of Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar
      - six Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the Virginia-class USS John Warner submarine
      - The cruiser USS Monterey fired 30 Tomahawks from the Red Sea
      - The destroyer USS Higgins fired 23 Tomahawks from the North Arabian Gulf
      - The weapons also included French SCALP-EG cruise missiles and British Storm Shadow standoff missiles launched by Tornado and Typhoon jets.
      - Nine SCALP missiles were fired at what the Pentagon said was a chemical weapons storage complex at Hims-Shinshar, along with two SCALPS, nine Tomahawks and eight Storm Shadows.


    ================================================== ==================

    That is how it happened.

    What that shows us is a competent Commander in Chief that engaged his military and diplomatic leadership to best understand the options. He then went with what his advisors believed was the best option and even participated by aiding the distraction portion with his tweet. It worked to the point of Russia responded to his tweet that they would shoot down the missiles.

    When dealing with Trump, you have to know he will distract and bluff, but at the end of the day. He does what he says he will do. This action will not go unnoticed by the North Koreans and the rest of the despots around the world.
    Interesting. The Russians did not fire their "most advanced air defense system."

  2. #12
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    53,726
    Thanks
    41438

    From
    CA
    For most of accounts I have read - this strike didn't do much. Much like the like the last strike.

    BEIRUT — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad praised Russian weaponry on Sunday as his government celebrated victory over rebels in the town where an alleged chemical attack took place, triggering U.S. airstrikes over the weekend. Assad made the comments during a meeting in Damascus with Russian lawmakers, who later told reporters that he was in a “good mood,” according to Russian news reports. Footage of the meeting broadcast by state television showed an animated Assad smiling and laughing as he met with the Russians.

    Despite claims by President Trump that the operation was an “enormous success,” it is being interpreted in Syria as a win for Assad because the limited scope of the strikes suggested that Western powers do not intend to challenge his rule.

    The extent to which the volleys of cruise missiles set back Assad’s chemical weapons program is also in doubt, because the Pentagon acknowledged that the strikes had not targeted all of the facilities involved in the development and production of such weapons

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.01dbd04d59ad
    Thanks from Blueneck and Sassy

  3. #13
    Shut up and vote Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    49,652
    Thanks
    27730

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    It did cost a lot. We did use some new Lockheed Martin missiles.

    A lot of the time when we hit targets the real cost isn't in the munitions, because those are "sunk costs" and often we use many of our dated missiles (technologically), the costs that are additional are for the fuel, wear and tear on all equipment, and human resource costs. Is hitting Assad and putting the world on notice in regards to chemical attacks worth the cost? That's for each person to answer.
    How many times have we "put the world on notice" with one of these displays since we invented the smart missile technology?

    You can only squawk and ruffle your feathers up so much before people realize you're bluffing. Just about every actual war we've been involved in with troops on the ground since WWII we've either lost or negotiated a settlement because we couldn't win despite having our adversaries outgunned by huge margins.

    Afghanistan! We can't kick their asses after how many years? Nobody's afraid of us, maybe we should use our wits and charm to influence others countries instead waving our dicks in everyone's faces. We don't even have a clear objective here.

  4. #14
    Member a777pilot's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,083
    Thanks
    251

    From
    Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
    This strike had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war or who rules Syria. It has everything to do with sending a stronger mess to NOT use chemical weapons.

    We also learned the S-300 anti-air system sucks. The S-400 system was not challenged. The newest system, the S-500, is to be deployed in 2020.

  5. #15
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    53,726
    Thanks
    41438

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
    This strike had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war or who rules Syria. It has everything to do with sending a stronger mess to NOT use chemical weapons.

    We also learned the S-300 anti-air system sucks. The S-400 system was not challenged. The newest system, the S-500, is to be deployed in 2020.
    Simply "sending a message" is not going to work well for people like Putin and al-Assad

  6. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    26,833
    Thanks
    5057

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    It did cost a lot. We did use some new Lockheed Martin missiles.

    A lot of the time when we hit targets the real cost isn't in the munitions, because those are "sunk costs" and often we use many of our dated missiles (technologically), the costs that are additional are for the fuel, wear and tear on all equipment, and human resource costs. Is hitting Assad and putting the world on notice in regards to chemical attacks worth the cost? That's for each person to answer.
    Aircraft use and fuel are used anyway in training. The personal also are already in the budget.

  7. #17
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    26,833
    Thanks
    5057

    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    It would be worth the cost...if we did not have a enormous deficit and the needs of Americans (taxpayers) were met. France and the UK meet the needs of their citizens and is the reason they call on us to spend our resources. We can't afford to allow other Countries to use the US as their world police anymore...I thought Trump campaigned on that. America First and all that. Instead, he wasted millions of dollars so he can puff out his chest. The only other Country that takes from the needs of their citizens to build a super power military is Russia and I would like to think we are different from that.
    Meeting the needs of our people would be a lot less if we didn't bring in so many poor,uneducated, third world. They have to be added to the needs of Americans with needs.

  8. #18
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    26,833
    Thanks
    5057

    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    I hate thinking about it actually. I am very fiscally conservative when it comes to budgets, whether it is my home budget or work. Every dollar counts if you really want to balance a budget. When I think about what one of those missiles costs...1.4 million, you can't imagine how much that would help a local school. Instead of pride over this event, I felt sickened. Americans work to hard for stupid expenses like this. The UK and France should have went in on this one alone...they have more skin in the game in Syria.
    What's it cost the taxpayer to have a Border Patrol, immigration detention, courts, lawyers, deportation needs jails , prisons . THis goes on 365 days a year , every year. Billions & billions of dollars to deal with a problem brought on by other countries. Where is your outrage?

  9. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    26,833
    Thanks
    5057

    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    For most of accounts I have read - this strike didn't do much. Much like the like the last strike.

    BEIRUT — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad praised Russian weaponry on Sunday as his government celebrated victory over rebels in the town where an alleged chemical attack took place, triggering U.S. airstrikes over the weekend. Assad made the comments during a meeting in Damascus with Russian lawmakers, who later told reporters that he was in a “good mood,” according to Russian news reports. Footage of the meeting broadcast by state television showed an animated Assad smiling and laughing as he met with the Russians.

    Despite claims by President Trump that the operation was an “enormous success,” it is being interpreted in Syria as a win for Assad because the limited scope of the strikes suggested that Western powers do not intend to challenge his rule.

    The extent to which the volleys of cruise missiles set back Assad’s chemical weapons program is also in doubt, because the Pentagon acknowledged that the strikes had not targeted all of the facilities involved in the development and production of such weapons

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.01dbd04d59ad
    Would you of preferred a full scale invasion?

  10. #20
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    22,934
    Thanks
    11938

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    What's it cost the taxpayer to have a Border Patrol, immigration detention, courts, lawyers, deportation needs jails , prisons . THis goes on 365 days a year , every year. Billions & billions of dollars to deal with a problem brought on by other countries. Where is your outrage?
    Why spend more than we have to? Just because we waste money on our own soil...why do we have to waste more of it off shore? For what each of those missiles cost that really accomplished nothing, we might as well have burned millions of dollars in a barrel. At least all of those costs you mentioned are spent in the US dealing with our own issues. What happened to America First? I honestly don't care about the ME right now...I have had the ME stupidity shoved down my throat as long as I can remember and it is the same old cesspool it ever was. No more bullshit in the ME. If they can't live and get along with each other, the US certainly cannot help them.
    Thanks from Blueneck

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 9th May 2017, 05:59 AM
  2. Russians strike US allies in Syria "by mistake"
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2nd March 2017, 03:40 AM
  3. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 8th April 2016, 12:50 PM
  4. Obama allies cite PR missteps in bid for Syria hit
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12th September 2013, 10:05 AM
  5. U.S. just attacked Syria
    By Inkslinger in forum World Politics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 26th October 2008, 06:42 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed