All Forums | Politics

Trump bombs airfield Assad used for chemical attack

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 2644
Posts: 104
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 1399
Posted: #51
Obamas foreign policy was an abject failure.  Just ask any of his foreign deputies, gates, Clinton, panetta, hagel, etc.  Doesn't, however, make him a box or a coward.   Also, have no problem w strong defense.   Have significant problem w us getting involved in the Middle East when there is not a direct threat and/or our so called allies over there aren't pulling their own weight.   As some1 noted Assad is fighting our apparent enemy Isis, so we bomb Assad.   There will never be peace in the Middle East and they all hate each other.   Let them resolve it by themselves.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2012
Posts: 2157
Posted: #52
I suppose it also depends on what Trump and Putin discussed in terms of the future regarding Syria and how much U.S. involvement may occur.  I sincerely doubt Trump acted without consulting the Russians since they have a strong presence and preference as to what happens in Syria.  I'm still waiting for a definitive statement from Trump about Assad's regime and whether he wants Assad in power or not. 

Of course, I've already stated he doesn't really care because he tweeted several times over months in 2013 to stay out of Syria and doesn't want Syrian refugees in this country.  So who told Trump to do this and what is the actual goal in mind?
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #53
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:


Assad is still there and they have more airfields. What did we gain slim for our 1 billion dollar show of force? 


You posted that the below post of mine was wrong.....

"Your are correct Barbarossa.... it was just Thursday morning that Hillary Rodman Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force... Hillary also said.."We should have been more willing to confront Assad."

Well, President Trump did"............
***********************************************************************
Darkhorse you posted I was wrong ..what was I wrong about?

My comment that "President Trump did "confront Assad was to  answer Hillary's last statement ..

..and I will have to challenge you on that billion dollar show of force comment....The missiles used cost between $600,000 to $1 million apiece, depending on the version...only 59 used ..


59 x $1 million = nowheres near one Billion..even in liberal math..

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #54
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

so, what the f*ck are we doing in syria other than wasting money?  50 missiles and we can't hit an airbase?

https://www.businessinsider.com/monitor-syrian-warplanes-take-off-from-airbase-hit-by-us-cruise-missiles-2017-4




The Pentagon says the highly-accurate satellite guided missiles, launched from two ships in the Mediterranean sea, hit every target with pinpoint precision.

The U.S. is still doing a more complete assessment, but estimates 20 Syrian warplanes were destroyed either in bunkers or in the clear.

In addition, a Russian-made surface-to-air missile site and its associated radar was destroyed, essentially rendering the airfield unprotected against a future attack, at least in the short term.

Photos of the remains of regime warplanes in the Shayrat airbase after they were taken out by the #US pic.twitter.com/tQ2kKMBR1q— Thomas van Linge (@arabthomness) April 7, 2017

Syrian media say seven of its troops were killed. The Russians reported no casualties.








 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2005
Posts: 7309
Posted: #55
Without approval from Congress and United Nations, Trump ignored his election warning about the risk of being dragged into questionable foreign conflicts.  Unlike reckless Trump, Obama wisely spent years trying to avoid being dragged into Syria's civil war.  Syria government can still continue to kill its  citizens with non-chemical weapons.

Of course, allies usually support each other even if they dislike Trump policies.  US has a history of questionable meddling in foreign conflicts.  For example, Iraq war based on imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 56862
Posted: #56
I dont get the partisan crap about foreign policy with regards to that region.

There is no such thing as a good foreign policy when you are dealing with unstable, brutal dictators and religious carnage.

So saying "Obama's foreign policy" or "Bush's foreign policy" all of that is just stupid. How can you have a successful foreign policy to that area in any fashion?

My opinion is I would prefer a non-war based foreign policy vs what Trump did and what Bush did..

Wars and strikes to areas that it will not accomplish anything is just more loss of life and waste of money. Bombing Syria does nothing at all, it accomplishes nothing. Removing Assad, Saddam, any dictator there is not solving the problem and potentially opens up a huge pandora's box like what happened when we stupidly killed Saddam.

So the real only winner today is Raytheon and other defense contractors who make money off war, nobody else wins because this is not a solution and there is no plan.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 20652
Posted: #57
It is different. Trump in one day one strike united our old alliance with Saudi Arabia Egypt post Sadat era. Turkey Israeli government and abjectly put on notice our old enemies. Russia Syria Hezbollah Hama's and terrorists .

Raqqa is our objective. Maybe we can now negotiate with strength. 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10738
Posted: #58
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:



You posted that the below post of mine was wrong.....

"Your are correct Barbarossa.... it was just Thursday morning that Hillary Rodman Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force... Hillary also said.."We should have been more willing to confront Assad."

Well, President Trump did"............
***********************************************************************
Darkhorse you posted I was wrong ..what was I wrong about?

My comment that "President Trump did "confront Assad was to  answer Hillary's last statement ..

..and I will have to challenge you on that billion dollar show of force comment....The missiles used cost between $600,000 to $1 million apiece, depending on the version...only 59 used ..


59 x $1 million = nowheres near one Billion..even in liberal math..


Look up the definition of confront, slim. trump did not confront assad.


Cost in 2015 for a tomahawk missile was 1.59 mil. They have been upgraded since 2015 with new guidance systems. Their cost is closer to 2 mill now. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10738
Posted: #59
Oh, and slim, what is the cost of human life? 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 15960
Posted: #60
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

I dont get the partisan crap about foreign policy with regards to that region.

There is no such thing as a good foreign policy when you are dealing with unstable, brutal dictators and religious carnage.

So saying "Obama's foreign policy" or "Bush's foreign policy" all of that is just stupid. How can you have a successful foreign policy to that area in any fashion?

My opinion is I would prefer a non-war based foreign policy vs what Trump did and what Bush did..

Wars and strikes to areas that it will not accomplish anything is just more loss of life and waste of money. Bombing Syria does nothing at all, it accomplishes nothing. Removing Assad, Saddam, any dictator there is not solving the problem and potentially opens up a huge pandora's box like what happened when we stupidly killed Saddam.

So the real only winner today is Raytheon and other defense contractors who make money off war, nobody else wins because this is not a solution and there is no plan.

Agree on most all that except that Trump wins & benefits in 3/4 different ways. 1) it makes him look strong & decisive which for many idiots holds sway somewhat 2) diverts at least the media/public focus away from his & his compadres troubles with the probable Russian ties/involvements & that investigation at a time when his approval ratings were at an all-time low 3) gives the appearance of going against Putin/Russia which is of course, a farce 4) increases his approval from two of the most prominent repubs who had the balls/integrity to stand up to him to some degree in McCain & Graham. The strikes look far more political & wag the doggish on a couple fronts than anything else. He's an empty suit, master gaslighter & con man, pure & simple.  
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 15960
Posted: #61
Also, there was nothing to this attack at all. Doesn't accomplish anything (except possible negatives down the road) & a sudden 180 turn as the investigation of him/his associates is intensifying & Nunes steps aside just as Sessions had to. Like almost everything else of consequence he's done or said & then backtracked or altered, makes little sense. Tragically for the country... distraction, misdirection & manipulation is what Trump seems most adept at. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4579
Posted: #62
A strike against Syria would be a "feckless show of strength" -  Paul Ryan in 2013

This action was appropriate and just  - Paul Ryan in 2017

Trump has been praising Russia since 2016 presidential campaign and surrounded himself with advocates of warmer relations with Russia

in 2013,the same Russian government agreed  with the US to head up the UN effort to remove the WMDs from Syria and reported back to the UN that it was completed.
John Kerry and Susan Rice thought their diplomatic efforts were successful in getting rid of WMD danger in Syria, which  still has WMD's and uses them.

what does that say about Russia ?
Russian government (Putin) is either incompetent or complicit (playing the US)

60 Tomahawk missiles were fired . 59 of them hit the intended targets. Russian S300/S400 could not intercept nor stop any of the 59 Tomahawk missiles

is this  a "feckless show of strength"  ?



 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4579
Posted: #63
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C82nO5AXcAAsw9V.jpg:large
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #64
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:


Look up the definition of confront, slim. trump did not confront assad.


Cost in 2015 for a tomahawk missile was 1.59 mil. They have been upgraded since 2015 with new guidance systems. Their cost is closer to 2 mill now. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost



Cambridge English Dictionary
confront:  to deal with a difficult problem, situation, or person

I would say President Trump confronted Assad and dealt with a  difficult problem or situation...


New Math (your figures ) 59 Tomahawk missiles at $2 million a pop ....59 x $2 million  =  sorry still way short of a BILLION dollars show of force,,,Darkhorse...

Looks like you were doing a little spin of your own
 there Darkone ...||fingershake.gif' border=0>   
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 20652
Posted: #65
Congress. Does not need Trump permission. They can within their 
Authority discuss in committees
. what happens with the current
Potential escalation. And address what
Should happen 90 days and ongoing from
Today. Trump only has 90 days from
First action to secure Congressional approval.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 20652
Posted: #66
Trumps team is fully versed with Congress and the committee debates on cspan cspam 2 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 20652
Posted: #67
Universally celebrated as a good 
Start to negotiations for sustained 
Peace. In the free world nations.
Iran North Korea Russia and Assad are not so favorable in their review.

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #68
Obama's non-war based foreign policy.. "We came ,We saw, he died" ha-ha-ha-ha........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2017
Posts: 334
Posted: #69
Quote Originally Posted by cashin:

Also, there was nothing to this attack at all. Doesn't accomplish anything (except possible negatives down the road) & a sudden 180 turn as the investigation of him/his associates is intensifying & Nunes steps aside just as Sessions had to. Like almost everything else of consequence he's done or said & then backtracked or altered, makes little sense. Tragically for the country... distraction, misdirection & manipulation is what Trump seems most adept at. 


Absolutely false!

1. Shows Assad and Russia, and Iran that WE are not pushover's NOW. (anymore)
2. Shows North Korea the same.
3 Assad lost 20 odd high dollar jet planes.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 20652
Posted: #70
Telling the Russians what was going down might signal why Tillerson is allowed to visit Russia . and possibly a way to start dividing middle east security concerns. Netanyahoo just back from Moscow. Discussion involved Syria Putin may decide that is a pig not worth shearing.
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 56862
Posted: #71
Quote Originally Posted by wordsmyth:



Absolutely false!

1. Shows Assad and Russia, and Iran that WE are not pushover's NOW. (anymore)
2. Shows North Korea the same.
3 Assad lost 20 odd high dollar jet planes.

Yeah I see the same repeating theme from the conservative war buddies on this forum...all the "benefit" are posturing based and defensive with the purpose of making an impression on others and diverting from Trump's lack of experience and pathetic display so far.

What I do not see and have not seen is what the plan is for this situation, not a single person in this 70 plus reply thread has expressed anything with regards to how this is not an Iraq retread where we go and act tough, take action and "show the world" we are some super power blah blah blah....but the plan isnt there, the implementation of anything positive for longer than the tv sound bite is non-existent. 

So clap clap clap, it is obvious Trump and his corporate buddies watched Wag the Dog a few times and knows about the art of diversion...but what is the plan on actually doing something long term that has a POSITIVE impact on people, theirs and ours?

These pathetic shows of strength come at a cost of life and money and accomplish nothing...diversions fade, the issues still remain.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10738
Posted: #72
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:



Cambridge English Dictionary
confront:  to deal with a difficult problem, situation, or person

I would say President Trump confronted Assad and dealt with a  difficult problem or situation...


New Math (your figures ) 59 Tomahawk missiles at $2 million a pop ....59 x $2 million  =  sorry still way short of a BILLION dollars show of force,,,Darkhorse...

Looks like you were doing a little spin of your own
 there Darkone ...||fingershake.gif' border=0>   

He confronted assad's action not assad

that is only the capital cost slim, now include the labor costs. I'm sure these missiles don't run themselves nor do the ships they came from nor all the labor that went into the mission. 
And since the syrians were using the airstrip the next day it must have really been worth it.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2011
Posts: 4485
Posted: #73
Quote Originally Posted by wordsmyth:



Absolutely false!

1. Shows Assad and Russia, and Iran that WE are not pushover's NOW. (anymore)
To most of us it appears that Putin let Trump strike the airbase hence no real defensive measures taken during the attack and no retaliation afterwards other then the usual political speak. Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle and letting him bomb the base to stroke his ego. If anything Trump is looking the fool as the Syrians had the airbase up and running within a couple days
2. Shows North Korea the same.
Do you really think China is going to let Trump bully their little brother around? Do you really think North Korea feels intimidated
by Trumps empty bravado?
3 Assad lost 20 odd high dollar jet planes.
It's common practice that when a nation has advance warning of an imminent attack they will roll out their derelict equipment to be bombed to give the attackers the sense that they had a successful mission 
Once again your Words are Myth
Gotta go pee!
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #74
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:


He confronted assad's action not assad

that is only the capital cost slim, now include the labor costs. I'm sure these missiles don't run themselves nor do the ships they came from nor all the labor that went into the mission. 
And since the syrians were using the airstrip the next day it must have really been worth it.


Assad only had 390 fixed-wing attack/fighter aircraft (2016)... I would think if someone took out 5% of my air force ,,that I would call it confronting me...

Syria could use the runway the next day ,because the targets were air defenses, aircraft, hangars and fuel....and severely damaging or destroying Syrian aircraft ...

Ok!..now with the math to validate your comment of a" Billion dollar show of force "

59 tomahawk missiles :  59  x 2 million each  = 118  million

Labor to run the ships and the mission : Lets say another 118 mililon ( a real stretch) but I'll give you that..So what do we have now ?

$118 million cost of missiles

$118 million cost of labor to run ships ..etc..etc.
********

$236 million total.

You are still about $764 Million short......looks to me like you were spinning the facts again Darkhorse.. exaggerating just to attack the President.
 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10738
Posted: #75
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:



Assad only had 390 fixed-wing attack/fighter aircraft (2016)... I would think if someone took out 5% of my air force ,,that I would call it confronting me...

Syria could use the runway the next day ,because the targets were air defenses, aircraft, hangars and fuel....and severely damaging or destroying Syrian aircraft ...

Ok!..now with the math to validate your comment of a" Billion dollar show of force "

59 tomahawk missiles :  59  x 2 million each  = 118  million

Labor to run the ships and the mission : Lets say another 118 mililon ( a real stretch) but I'll give you that..So what do we have now ?

$118 million cost of missiles

$118 million cost of labor to run ships ..etc..etc.
********

$236 million total.

You are still about $764 Million short......looks to me like you were spinning the facts again Darkhorse.. exaggerating just to attack the President.

So the cost of a ton of steel is 2 times the cost of materials, appears to me you don't have a clue.


All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.