Tomahawk missiles

[Kiwifruit]

I just heard on breaking news that the States have just fired 50 odd Tomahawk missiles at Syria.
What a stinking mess the Middle East is.
Sadly they aint gonna stop that shitfight in a hurry.
Where the hell is the truth, who dropped the gas, ISIS ??
Very sad.
Wish i hadnt heard this news.

[daveh]

Me too.

[VladTepes]

50 tomahawks makes for a very expensive day.

Even more than getting 50 LED conversions done by ThommoHawk !

[gsxbarmy]

I just heard on breaking news that the States have just fired 50 odd Tomahawk missiles at Syria.
What a stinking mess the Middle East is.
Sadly they aint gonna stop that shitfight in a hurry.
Where the hell is the truth, who dropped the gas, ISIS ??
Very sad.
Wish i hadnt heard this news.

I 150% agree. I always worried that Trump would do something irrational and stupid military-wise similar to the rest of his crazy approaches in the US.

To my mind it should be the UN trying to reach a peace settlement - although they have done very little in the past 7 years - to bring the Syrian /Middle East atrocities to an end. Whoever gave the US the right to make decisions?

I worry at the outcome of this.

[VladTepes]

I don't agree.  I don't think this is either irrational OR stupid.

The UN is a toothless tiger in general and has accomplished very little.  Just look at how the North Korean administration is on it's knees... oh, wait.... no.   All the UN would do anyway is 'sanctions' but Syria is already subject to those so....  They don't have any forces of their own to commit anyway, all they can do is give a theoretical "green light" for others to act on their behalf.

The UN was a noble idea, and once was a noble institution but those days are LONG gone and it's largely populated by left-ist leaning bureaucrats with self-interest as their main driving force.  (Just look at the whinge our former PM put on when he didn't get the top job).

In this particular instance the UN is even less likely to be able to do anything than usual. Russia is a permanent member of the security council and supports Syria.  Up to a point.  That point being when public opinion dictates that "something must be done".

The US administration targeted a single airbase, one at which their are no Russian assets.  They informed the Russians in advance to minimise any possibility of accidental conflict.  (Otherwise 59 missiles flying through the air would have made it "interesting" to any Russian pilots up and about).  Clearly the Russians can't have been too upset at the prospect.

It would also be naïve to think this was ONLY about Syria.

This is the first time the new president (Trump) has officially endorsed the use of force. Rather than debate endlessly with congress and ultimately take no action (the Obama solution following the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons in 2013) he has taken prompt and decisive action.

This send s a message to not just Syria but Iran, North Korea, China, and anyone else who was wondering...   if you are going to wave your dick around, you had better be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

P.S. I wouldn't worry about the outcome barmy, I doubt much will change in the big scheme of things.

[Batkwaka]

"It was definitely Syria", brought to you by the "WMD's in Iraq Foundation".

[Notty]

A sad day - but the UN sits back year after year letting atrocities continue 

[VladTepes]

"It was definitely Syria", brought to you by the "WMD's in Iraq Foundation".

I think that lesson has been well and truly learned.
The facts are:
Syria has used chemical weapons before. (2013, and earlier)
The 'rebels' almost certainly, and ISIS certainly, don't have the delivery systems for the kind of result this attack caused.  From what I have seen if has the hallmarks of an air-delivered attack.

[KiwiCol]

Personally, I think Trump is a dangerous, arrogant, blustering (very rich) buffoon who has no business being the P.O.T.U.S. But that's yanks for ya, they voted him in so they (and us) have to live with the consequences.


Sometimes though, even buffoons get it right, I saw the pic's of what those assholes did to their own citizens,  AGAIN.  They should have taken out a few of the 'top' people as well, IMO.


Rant over, Friday night, time for a beer.

[VladTepes]

Personally, I think Trump is a dangerous, arrogant, blustering (very rich) buffoon who has no business being the P.O.T.U.S.

On the contrary, it's those qualities which makes him similar in many ways to numerous recent incumbents of that position.  Arguably the alternative the American voters were presented with this time would have been worse... but that race has been run and won...

Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Batkwaka]

I think that lesson has been well and truly learned.
The facts are:
Syria has used chemical weapons before. (2013, and earlier)
The 'rebels' almost certainly, and ISIS certainly, don't have the delivery systems for the kind of result this attack caused.  From what I have seen if has the hallmarks of an air-delivered attack.

I disagree Vlad, nothing was learned. Libya the same thing, destruction of a country based on lies to secure Oil transactions based on the US dollar. He only believable reason I've heard we are there is NATO want a gas pipeline through Syria so they don't have to buy gas from Russia giving Western Europe a political advantage. If they were that concerned about an oppressive State they wouldn't be in bed with the Saudis.
Also, given the USA's initial denial of arming and supplying of these people in the first place and the quite obvious events such as Irangate, who knows what they have done this time, they're no more trustworthy than each other.
Let's hope our latest Crusades end soon.

[KiwiCol]

We'll fix it!   Electric cars & electric bikes, stuff the oil & gas.   

[VladTepes]

I disagree Vlad, nothing was learned. Libya the same thing, destruction of a country based on lies to secure Oil transactions based on the US dollar.

No, I meant specifically the WMD thing.  I agree the underlying reasons haven't changed.

He only believable reason I've heard we are there is NATO want a gas pipeline through Syria so they don't have to buy gas from Russia giving Western Europe a political advantage. If they were that concerned about an oppressive State they wouldn't be in bed with the Saudis.

Yes and Russia is there for the same reason.

As for the Saudis well, you nailed that on the head ! You won't find many more oppressive Muslim nations than that one.

There just HAPPEN to be a number of US air bases there but I'm sure that's only a coincidence...

Also, given the USA's initial denial of arming and supplying of these people in the first place and the quite obvious events such as Irangate, who knows what they have done this time, they're no more trustworthy than each other.

Exactly, it's not as if Trump is any worse than any other US administration.
The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory has been disproven by harsh experience MANY times  (Afghanistan in the 1980s 'mujahideen' freedom fighters =  Al Qaeda 21st century terrorists).  And yet they still seem to be arming the wrong people for the wrong reasons....

Let's hope our latest Crusades end soon.

It's clearly NOT that. Indeed that is what ISIS (or whatever we are calling them this week) explicitly claim, and use as a justification for their actions.

We'll fix it!   Electric cars & electric bikes, stuff the oil & gas.   

"Don't think of it as buying a Tesla, think of it as buying the future !"

Wait, could I sell that?

[Rufus]

I work with a Syrian guy, he's here now and he was a lieutenant in the Syrian Army.
He knows that Airbase and knows some people there.
He approves of Trumps actions, says the Assad regime needs to be sorted out, they do have chemical weapons.

Also as a side note the Syrians were working on drone technology with the North Koreans.
When I say the Syrians I mean this guy I work with - straight from the horses mouth! 

[KiwiCol]

That's real interesting Rufus, another perspective - a direct involvement one.  Thx.