Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40
Thanks Tree18Thanks

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

  1. #1
    Going Nuclear- Daily Yetisports6 - Big Wave Champion, Bezerk Champion, All Ball Champion, Magic Gem Champion, Crystal Clear Champion, Flower Power Champion, Space Thieves TD Champion, X-treme Moto Idiot Cross Champion, Micro Tanks Champion, Race Horse Tycoon Champion, Railway Line Champion, Raju Meter 2 Champion, Metal Slug - Kill the Nazis Champion, Decoder Champion, 1 in 24 Speed v32  Champion Crusher's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    24,507
    Thanks
    7815

    From
    California

    How the U.S. and Allies Attacked Syria

    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.

  2. #2
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,285
    Thanks
    1388

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Could a Tomahawk take off a SCALP?
    Thanks from Paris and a777pilot

  3. #3
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    20,273
    Thanks
    10729

    From
    USA
    It was a well planned surgical strike...but at what expense to the American tax payer? If Tomahawks were used, some are reporting 59 and others are reporting more, at 1.4 million dollars each while millions of Americans are uninsured. It is a slap in the face. I wonder how much the UK spent or France on missiles and this trike? We keep hearing about this trillions of dollar deficit and American needs are going unmet. Trump is not a good steward of using tax payer money. France and the UK could have done this themselves and not dragged the US into it, but they knew we would bring the best toys and we were used....again.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ria-2017-04-07
    Thanks from Blueneck and Sassy

  4. #4
    Going Nuclear- Daily Yetisports6 - Big Wave Champion, Bezerk Champion, All Ball Champion, Magic Gem Champion, Crystal Clear Champion, Flower Power Champion, Space Thieves TD Champion, X-treme Moto Idiot Cross Champion, Micro Tanks Champion, Race Horse Tycoon Champion, Railway Line Champion, Raju Meter 2 Champion, Metal Slug - Kill the Nazis Champion, Decoder Champion, 1 in 24 Speed v32  Champion Crusher's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    24,507
    Thanks
    7815

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    Could a Tomahawk take off a SCALP?
    "Strategic Covert Adversary Located Plant" (SCALP). Apparently many of their chemical weapon facilities were taken out. So .... Yes.

    (I made up the SCALP part.)
    Thanks from Puzzling Evidence

  5. #5
    Going Nuclear- Daily Yetisports6 - Big Wave Champion, Bezerk Champion, All Ball Champion, Magic Gem Champion, Crystal Clear Champion, Flower Power Champion, Space Thieves TD Champion, X-treme Moto Idiot Cross Champion, Micro Tanks Champion, Race Horse Tycoon Champion, Railway Line Champion, Raju Meter 2 Champion, Metal Slug - Kill the Nazis Champion, Decoder Champion, 1 in 24 Speed v32  Champion Crusher's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    24,507
    Thanks
    7815

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    It was a well planned surgical strike...but at what expense to the American tax payer? If Tomahawks were used, some are reporting 59 and others are reporting more, at 1.4 million dollars each while millions of Americans are uninsured. It is a slap in the face. I wonder how much the UK spent or France on missiles and this trike? We keep hearing about this trillions of dollar deficit and American needs are going unmet. Trump is not a good steward of using tax payer money. France and the UK could have done this themselves and not dragged the US into it, but they knew we would bring the best toys and we were used....again.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ria-2017-04-07
    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.
    Thanks from Puzzling Evidence

  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    24,627
    Thanks
    6367

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    Could a Tomahawk take off a SCALP?
    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Good one! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

  7. #7
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    20,273
    Thanks
    10729

    From
    USA
    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.
    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.
    Thanks from Blueneck, Crusher and Sassy

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    24,627
    Thanks
    6367

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    It was a well planned surgical strike...but at what expense to the American tax payer? If Tomahawks were used, some are reporting 59 and others are reporting more, at 1.4 million dollars each while millions of Americans are uninsured. It is a slap in the face. I wonder how much the UK spent or France on missiles and this trike? We keep hearing about this trillions of dollar deficit and American needs are going unmet. Trump is not a good steward of using tax payer money. France and the UK could have done this themselves and not dragged the US into it, but they knew we would bring the best toys and we were used....again.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ria-2017-04-07
    Lots of things are a "slap in the face" when it comes to spending taxpayer money.

    How much aid do we give to how many countries which are not really our friend?

    Think Pakistan as one example, which received $1.5 Billion last year according to one source.

    This military strike is "crumbs" as Pelosi would say, compared to lots of other expenditures.

  9. #9
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    20,273
    Thanks
    10729

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Lots of things are a "slap in the face" when it comes to spending taxpayer money.

    How much aid do we give to how many countries which are not really our friend?

    Think Pakistan as one example, which received $1.5 Billion last year according to one source.

    This military strike is "crumbs" as Pelosi would say, compared to lots of other expenditures.
    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.
    Thanks from Blueneck

  10. #10
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    24,627
    Thanks
    6367

    From
    midwest
    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.
    Well, think about it like this:

    How many $1.4 Million missiles would the $1.5 Billion that we gave to Pakistan last year have bought?

    And that's just one country.

    We give LOTS of money to LOTS of countries.

    Much is humanitarian aid, but much is military aid.

    You just need to put things into context.

    Now, as far as the UK and French are concerned, maybe they would not have acted without us.

    Maybe none of the three countries wanted to act alone.

    A multi-national strike sends a more powerful message.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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