Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-blasts-syria-airbase-with-dozens-of-cruise-missiles-1.4059761




---------------------------------------------------------------------------


The United States fired a barrage of cruise missiles into Syria Thursday night in retaliation for this week's gruesome chemical weapons attack against civilians, U.S. officials said. It was the first direct U.S. assault on the Syrian government and Donald Trump's most dramatic military order since becoming president.

The strikes hit the government-controlled Shayrat airbase in central Syria, from where U.S. officials say the Syrian military planes that dropped the sarin gas had taken off. The U.S. missiles hit at 8:45 p.m.ET Thursday — early Friday morning in Syria.

The Tomahawk missiles were fired from two warships in the Mediterranean Sea, U.S. officials say.

Speaking Thursday night, Trump said Assad "launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians using a deadly nerve agent."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




Why bomb the people fighting isis? This makes no sense. Trump just made a massive error in judgement.

We are posting about it in the US politics thread already

 Ustrello wrote:
We are posting about it in the US politics thread already

True but "launching ze mizzles" is a bit more than politics. It may yet be that we'll need a dedicated Syria thread, depending on the fallout. Let the mods decide.

Damn that Hillary warmonger.

Cruise missiles still one million dollar a pop nowdays?

 Korinov wrote:
Damn that Hillary warmonger.

..... but her E-mails!

 Easy E wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
Damn that Hillary warmonger.

..... but her E-mails!

..... but Democrats nominating her!

 Freakazoitt wrote:

I'm not sure what this is trying to show us.

And the Donald has lost my support.

I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...

 Crablezworth wrote:



Why bomb the people fighting isis? This makes no sense. Trump just made a massive error in judgement.

Because they used (not for the first time) illegal chemical weapons on a civilian population center.

I'm not sure why this needs to be spelled out. ISIS is not the only "bad" out there.

If you need to, I can paint the picture a little bit for you. Its 2 am. You're awoken by explosions. Your home is shaking, and you gather your baby up in your arms hoping the bombs don't directly hit you. The explosions end, and you breath a sigh of relief. A few minutes later though, your baby starts to shake. You turn the lights on, and notice that his nose is running, he's spasming, and starting to choke. While you're panicking, you start to lose control of your own body. Your eyes begin to hurt, and you've started sweating, despite the cool desert night. All of a sudden you drop your child as your body locks up, and you fall to the ground with seizures. Eventually, you lose consciousness before you suffocate to death.


But hey, the Syrian's fight ISIS on occasion, so there shouldn't be a response to that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And the Donald has lost my support.

I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Its strange that no other major power is launching strikes. Evidently only the US is supposed to go to war for this.

1. Tex Mex.
2. More territory. That empire isn't going to build itself.
3. Actual attacks on the US or US persons, not foreign persons.

I really can't believe that some people are so clouded with hatred for a man, that they can't acknowledge that sometimes you have to stand up to someone doing the wrong thing.

I dont think th US has 'gone to war', the attacks are not ongoing and assad is smart enough not to try and retaliate.

It has got Assads attention, and Moscows too, this is a good thing. Assad has played his hands smart, it is very likely that the sarin attack was organised by someone unilaterally in the Syrian army. It wasn't necessary tactically and Assad is not the type to launch attacks like that in a pique or for lulz as Saddam was wont to do.

Loss of materiel from the cruise missile strike - 60 missiles will take out quite a bit - will encourage Assad to keep his commanders on a tighter leash.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And the Donald has lost my support.

I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...

The Donald lying about a promise? Shocking!

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

I'm not sure what this is trying to show us.

Exactly as the title of the video says: Russian military footage of the US strikes on the Syrian Shairat base. That said, I am not sure this is Russian footage. The text on the screen is in english.


Anyways, the US has once again shown its true colours: The biggest supporter of radical jihadist and terrorist organisations the world over.
Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?

 djones520 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And the Donald has lost my support.

I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

The Syrian Government may* have used chemical weapons. It's not like the rebels didn't have anything to gain from using them. Also notice how we (the US) are the only ones rushing to go fight in Syria not a day after the claim of a violation of "muh Geneva Convention." We don't even had solid evidence that Assad did it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

I'm not sure what this is trying to show us.

Exactly as the title of the video says: Russian military footage of the US strikes on the Syrian Shairat base. That said, I am not sure this is Russian footage. The text on the screen is in english.


Anyways, the US has once again shown its true colours: The biggest supporter of radical jihadist and terrorist organisations the world over.
Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?

ISIS? How about most terrorist groups since the 60's? How about most of the population is tired of being world police?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
And the Donald has lost my support.

I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

The Syrian Government may* have used chemical weapons. It's not like the rebels didn't have anything to gain from using them. Also notice how we (the US) are the only ones rushing to go fight in Syria not a day after the claim of a violation of "muh Geneva Convention." We don't even had solid evidence that Assad did it.

You, nor I, nor anyone on this board has any idea what evidence exists or how solid it is.

IF the sarin was dropped by air, as bomb fragments at the site seem to indicate, it is entirely plausible we could trace the strike back to its point of origin (the airfield we hit according to reports). We definitely have the capability to do so deployed in that theater. Just because you and I have not seen the evidence does not mean that evidence does not exist.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?

I feel great. Don't worry we are still bombing ISIS, while all Russia was doing was bombing opposition forces.

How do you feel that your country supports a war criminal who gasses his own people?

Oh wait I forgot you live under a different standard since Putin gassed his own people once too.

BTW, the missiles may seem expensive by Russian standards, but a million a pop is nothing by American.

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

If this were a game changer event in an otherwise "civilized" war like the Falklands war, sure, it would be cause for indignation. When it's a random, low frequency event in a very ugly and brutal civil war thats been going on for half a decade and with no end in sight, well, it's a rather arbitrary line no better than any other, that comes off as an excuse to do something one wanted to already do anyway.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?

I didn't vote for Trump nor do I support this strike. My only response is to throw up my arms and says, "Oh, Donald, Donald, Donald".

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?

I feel great. Don't worry we are still bombing ISIS, while all Russia was doing was bombing opposition forces.

Which includes ISIS. Russia has done a lot to fight ISIS, especially around Palmyra.
But you feel great about supporting terrorists? Isn't that a bit weird? Then again, the US policy of simultaneously fighting and aiding radical islamists is kinda weird I suppose...

KTG17 wrote:
How do you feel that your country supports a war criminal who gasses his own people?

Conflicted. I feel bad about Assad's forces gassing innocent people. But I also know that those people gassing innocent kids are the same people that protect the majority of Syrian kids from guys like ISIS and others that are even more murderous than the Assad regime. I do not view Assad and his men as 'the good guys', but rather as the least bad of 'the bad guys'. Like most civil wars, there are no good guys in this conflict.

KTG17 wrote:
Oh wait I forgot you live under a different standard since Putin gassed his own people once too.

Dude... That one is below the belt.

KTG17 wrote:
BTW, the missiles may seem expensive by Russian standards, but a million a pop is nothing by American.

Awesome! Can you give me a million or two then? It is nothing to you after all, and I could really make use of it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact. They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse. For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact. They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse. For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.

For those who are asking if it's worse, look up Mustard Gas. I'd rather be shot, stabbed, or bombed then hit with Mustard Gas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

If this were a game changer event in an otherwise "civilized" war like the Falklands war, sure, it would be cause for indignation. When it's a random, low frequency event in a very ugly and brutal civil war thats been going on for half a decade and with no end in sight, well, it's a rather arbitrary line no better than any other, that comes off as an excuse to do something one wanted to already do anyway.

The way I see things here.

Chemical weapons and Conventional weapons, and stuff like flamethrowers etc... are equal if used on enemy military forces. All's fair in war as the saying goes.

Accidentally hitting civilian targets with conventional weapons is of course bad, but its unavoidable sometimes.

Accidentally hitting civilian targets with chemical weapons, or any sort of deliberate targeting of civilians with any kind of weapon, are all equally abhorrent.

Chemical weapons by their nature are indiscriminate and difficult to control, so you cannot in good conscience use them if there is any chance of them hitting civilians.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.

same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.

They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.

For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.

and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.

same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.

They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.

For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.

and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?

Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.

same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.

They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.

For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.

and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?

Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?

Does sarin?

The answer to both would be no.

In fact, you probably do better with the AK, because you can go by and cap the wounded, dig out those you missed and cap them. With sarin, they either die or don't unless you go in with the AKs to finish off survivors.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.

same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.

They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.

For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.

and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?

Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?

since when is that a criteria for judging any of these things, and since when does gas in an uncontrolled environment have such a kill rate?

Gas certainly does not, we can look at the Tokyo sarin sttacks as an example.