• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What was accomplished in attacking Al Shayrat airbase?

Definitely not in the Roosevelt, Truman mold.

This is more like implied malice to come.....

Eisenhower, too. The more I learn about his presidency, the better I like him. He had had to make one tough decision after another in World War Two, and he knew what he was doing. He meant exactly what he said, and Khrushchev & Co. knew it. So did the Red Chinese, who seem to have been intimidated by a rumor--probably floated intentionally--that Ike had not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons on their troops in the Korean War.

Apparently he read then-new President Kennedy blue hell as they took a long walk alone after the Bay of Pigs mess. The lesson Ike was driving home, it's said, was that a President never should commit to a military action and then back out in the middle of it. The invasion had been planned under Ike, and he was sore about how Kennedy had dithered. I think Kennedy took the tongue-lashing to heart, and it helped him.
 
Last edited:
And this shows that President Trump and the nation are willing to make fairly safe pinpricks. Not exactly the will demonstrated by President Kennedy and most Americans in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
This is nowhere nea the leve of gravity, thank god, of a CMC.

I say death by a thousand, well 960 more or so now, such pinpricks is preferable to avoid even the approach of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. The message sent, and such a gift can not be magnified by putting it into a bigger box than necessary, is that yes we have the power, this President doesn't just idly draw red lines in his sand box then walk away when the other side calls the bluff.

Everybody knew it to be an empty bluff. With Trump they already, this early, know its likely not. Great, compassonate from almost any vantage point, signal to all watching...except the clueless of course.
 
Who are you kidding HD. It's pretty well known that you believe anything RT says. Hell you have demonstrated quite thoroughly that you believe anything without question that you feel is anti US.

The better question, Drained, is who is kidding you, and are you really that credulous that you believe purveyors of fake news, day after day?
 
One thing this clearly did is to send a message. And not just to Syria, but to Iran and North Korea as well (and to China to a lesser effect).

Remember, this was one of the most important Air Bases in Syria. And it had some rather impressive air defense capabilities, including the S-300 as well as some of the best RADAR systems that Russia exports.

And of the 60 missiles launched, at least 23 of them struck their targets, which in addition to the air base support facilities were the air defense systems protecting the base.

And those 60 missiles came from only 2 Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

That is a message of force projection capabilities that should have a great many nations questioning how safe their bases are if the US is pushed. 2 destroyers striking with that much force so far inland is a clear message, in addition to showing that this President is not the last one, and that he will act when a "red line" is crossed and not simply draw another line.

What I am finding interesting in trying to analyze this is the lack of real information from Syria other than how fast they got aircraft up again. And by taking their own claims that "only 23" missile hit their targets, that is still a greater than 1/3 hit rate. And I bet if the data was ever released, a lot of the earlier missiles were intercepted, allowing the latter ones to penetrate due to either air defenses running out of ordinance ready to use, or as leakers took out more and more of their capabilities.

This was one of the scenarios that we absolutely dreaded the most, the "missile swarm". Having the opponent simply fire more missiles than the air defense units on the ground can handle in a short amount of time. In all of the simulated battles I took part in where similar tactics were used, we relied on the anti-missile capabilities of our own aircraft to help reduce the numbers to what we could handle before they got within range (a cruise missile is essentially a stupid pre-programmed drone).
 
This also sent a message loud and clear to ISIS--your enemy is our enemy, and we will provide this type of air attack in the future. We have your back.

I had no idea our Tomahawk SLCM had such a low efficacy. 24 out of 59 is something less than half.
 
One thing this clearly did is to send a message. And not just to Syria, but to Iran and North Korea as well (and to China to a lesser effect).

Remember, this was one of the most important Air Bases in Syria. And it had some rather impressive air defense capabilities, including the S-300 as well as some of the best RADAR systems that Russia exports.

And of the 60 missiles launched, at least 23 of them struck their targets, which in addition to the air base support facilities were the air defense systems protecting the base.

An S-300 wouldn't be the best defense against subsonic missiles like the Tomohawk. A more effective defense would involve SPAAGs like the Shilka. Granted them all together in a IADS would be the best.
 
This also sent a message loud and clear to ISIS--your enemy is our enemy, and we will provide this type of air attack in the future. We have your back.

I had no idea our Tomahawk SLCM had such a low efficacy. 24 out of 59 is something less than half.
I know that you believe everything that comes from RT without question but do you have any actual evidence to back up this claim of yours.
 
I know that you believe everything that comes from RT without question but do you have any actual evidence to back up this claim of yours.

Bad news this morning, Drained.

RT has far more credibility in one single paragraph than NYT and WaPo have in an entire edition. You will never understand that, and that's OK by me.
 
An S-300 wouldn't be the best defense against subsonic missiles like the Tomohawk. A more effective defense would involve SPAAGs like the Shilka. Granted them all together in a IADS would be the best.

I never said it was. However, it is one of their most impressive air defense weapons, and shows that they are not simply buying old Vietnam era surplus like so many nations have done over the years.
 
I'm putting this in the military subforum because I have zero military knowledge myself (aside from whatever I learned reading Tom Clancy in high school) and want someone in the know to answer a question regarding the missile strike on Syria's airbase. I'm seeing multiple conflicting reports and viewpoints on the aftermath of the strike:

1)We completely annihilated that airbase's ability to repair and refuel jets, thus rendering it ineffective for future strikes.
2)No. A cafeteria, 6 already-broken planes, some fuel units, and a training room were destroyed. Planes are taking off from that airfield just fine and are currently still attacking civilians.
3)We didn't crater their runways because why bother? Runways are easy to repair.
4)What's the point in attacking the airfield if you can't even crater the runways, thus interrupting the takeoff of planes? As one twitter person said: "[FONT="]I really wonder what the Navy folks launching those missiles thought about the targeting instructions they were given."

I'd like a consolidated tactical military perspective on the strike, and not a discussion on the "symbolic message" that may have been communicated. In fact, I'd like to avoid politics altogether for this topic. [/FONT]

I don't think you can ignore all aspects. Personally, I find the attack as waste of good missiles which cost around a million and a half a piece. It sure wasn't an attack in which Assad would hunker down in fear. It seemed kind of a publicity stunt. Trump doing what was expected of him after the chemical attack because most people expected him to do something.

From looking at the picture of the device used, it looked more like a pipe bomb. Not something dropped from a plane, certainly not a bomb, perhaps a rocket, maybe. If that picture of the spent device was accurate, anyone could have planted it and detonated it. But who knows these days what is real and what isn't.
 
I don't think you can ignore all aspects. Personally, I find the attack as waste of good missiles which cost around a million and a half a piece. It sure wasn't an attack in which Assad would hunker down in fear. It seemed kind of a publicity stunt. Trump doing what was expected of him after the chemical attack because most people expected him to do something.

From looking at the picture of the device used, it looked more like a pipe bomb. Not something dropped from a plane, certainly not a bomb, perhaps a rocket, maybe. If that picture of the spent device was accurate, anyone could have planted it and detonated it. But who knows these days what is real and what isn't.

This is the most detailed examination I have read regarding the attack. No, it's not from NYT, WaPo or RT, but it seems quite meticulous. What do you think?

Khan Sheikhoun, Syria: The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
 
This is the most detailed examination I have read regarding the attack. No, it's not from NYT, WaPo or RT, but it seems quite meticulous. What do you think?

Khan Sheikhoun, Syria: The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

If you are only willing to accept stories from non-mainstream news sources, that makes you just as non-credible as those that are only willing to accept stories from mainstream news sources.

Who the **** would seriously buy the **** this guy is trying to peddle (whomever it is that runs CRG, that is)?
 
This is the most detailed examination I have read regarding the attack. No, it's not from NYT, WaPo or RT, but it seems quite meticulous. What do you think?

Khan Sheikhoun, Syria: The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

That goes into quite a lot of detail. I would say this Dr. Theodore Postol knows his stuff. At one time while in the military, I was a CBR, Chemical, Biological, radiogical NCO. That was before it was renamed NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. That guy covers it all. A heck of a lot more than I or possibly most professional or military NBC folks.

I'm impressed. But keep in mind, the stuff I learned was back in the late 70's. Lots have changed, but the basics remain the same. When I first heard of or read of the attack, I wondered why Assad would do such a thing. He had no need to, all he would do is peeved a bunch of western countries off at him. He would also embarrass the Russians which verified Assad had gotten rid of all his chemical weapons. It is possible that the attack didn't take place or ISIS or the rebels we back made it look like one did, fault of Assad.

Very good article, thanks.
 
If you are only willing to accept stories from non-mainstream news sources, that makes you just as non-credible as those that are only willing to accept stories from mainstream news sources.

Who the **** would seriously buy the **** this guy is trying to peddle (whomever it is that runs CRG, that is)?

FYI, I read stories on the internet, and watch and read stories from much of the mainstream media, including NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, Common Dreams, ABC and CBS and others.

Your jumping on me for not reading MSM stories makes you suddenly look quite incredible yourself. :peace Open mouth Abba, and insert foot. :lol:

Global Research covers angles and details simply not found elsewhere, in case you ever decide to read what you automatically reject. It certainly is, I must admit, very much the UN-msm, if you know what I mean.

The man from MIT does a very detailed examination showing that the White House report on this matter is intellectually bankrupt.

But go ahead on my man, and demonstrate your bias for MSM.
 
Other than getting the date correct, practically everything about 9/11.

I wasn't reading RT in those days, if it even existed.

But in the last 10 years or so, I cannot recall RT publishing anything at all about what really happened at 911, either pro or con.

Can you provide a reference to any particular article, or shall I just consider your post to be a bluff, like most everything else you post?
 
I wasn't reading RT in those days, if it even existed.

But in the last 10 years or so, I cannot recall RT publishing anything at all about what really happened at 911, either pro or con.

Can you provide a reference to any particular article, or shall I just consider your post to be a bluff, like most everything else you post?

I believe you were not reading RT back in 2001. No one suggested that.

And you can do your own research. [Snicker]
 
FYI, I read stories on the internet, and watch and read stories from much of the mainstream media, including NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, Common Dreams, ABC and CBS and others.

Your jumping on me for not reading MSM stories makes you suddenly look quite incredible yourself. :peace Open mouth Abba, and insert foot. :lol:

Global Research covers angles and details simply not found elsewhere, in case you ever decide to read what you automatically reject. It certainly is, I must admit, very much the UN-msm, if you know what I mean.

The man from MIT does a very detailed examination showing that the White House report on this matter is intellectually bankrupt.

But go ahead on my man, and demonstrate your bias for MSM.

WOW, you REALLY need to go back and re-read the first sentence of my post.

"Open mouth insert foot" my ass...
 
Bad news this morning, Drained.

RT has far more credibility in one single paragraph than NYT and WaPo have in an entire edition. You will never understand that, and that's OK by me.
Just because you believe that does not make it true. And the fact that you have such faith in a state run publication does a very good job of demonstrating you lack of critical thinking ability. But hey we all already know you will believe anything 100% as long as it goes along with your fairytale version of reality.
 
I never said it was. However, it is one of their most impressive air defense weapons, and shows that they are not simply buying old Vietnam era surplus like so many nations have done over the years.

The Russians have been stepping up their arms deals. The Algerians are running around with T-90s and Kilo-class subs, and now Turkey is on the list to get the S-400, and the Iranians want in too. This isn't the Cold War when the Soviets handed out monkey models to whatever third world ****hole asked for them.
 
Last edited:
The Russians have been stepping up their arms deals. The Algerians are running around with T-90s and Kilo-class subs, and now Turkey is on the list to get the S-400, and the Iranians want in too. This isn't the Cold War when the Soviets handed out monkey models to whatever third world ****hole asked for them.

Actually, when it comes to International Arms sales, both the US and Russians have several tiers they are willing to sell, provided the buyer is willing to pay the price.

Most nations buy the lower level of equipment. Mostly it is simply up to the buying nation what they think they need.

For example, the Russians stopped using the T-64 over 20 years ago. Yet they still sell and maintain-upgrade them for other nations.

The same with the SA-3 Goa missile. That was was removed from service by the Soviet Union, which is well over 25 years ago. Yet Russia still manufactures and sells them to nations all over the world.

But a lot of nations do not bother to buy the newer equipment, since their main threats are generally their neighbors, which have threats that are generally on par with their own equipment. But Syria is not one of those, they (as well as Iran) has been buying the best of the export level equipment that Russia sells on the open market.

But yea, Russia will still sell the "older junk" if asked. Just 5 years ago they sold a bunch of brand new upgraded SA-3 systems to Venezuela. And granted, the newer upgraded SA-3 systems are better than the original versions from 50 years ago, they are still not impressive when compared to the newer systems developed since then.
 
Actually, when it comes to International Arms sales, both the US and Russians have several tiers they are willing to sell, provided the buyer is willing to pay the price.

Most nations buy the lower level of equipment. Mostly it is simply up to the buying nation what they think they need.

For example, the Russians stopped using the T-64 over 20 years ago. Yet they still sell and maintain-upgrade them for other nations.

The same with the SA-3 Goa missile. That was was removed from service by the Soviet Union, which is well over 25 years ago. Yet Russia still manufactures and sells them to nations all over the world.

But a lot of nations do not bother to buy the newer equipment, since their main threats are generally their neighbors, which have threats that are generally on par with their own equipment. But Syria is not one of those, they (as well as Iran) has been buying the best of the export level equipment that Russia sells on the open market.

But yea, Russia will still sell the "older junk" if asked. Just 5 years ago they sold a bunch of brand new upgraded SA-3 systems to Venezuela. And granted, the newer upgraded SA-3 systems are better than the original versions from 50 years ago, they are still not impressive when compared to the newer systems developed since then.

You said it yourself; all this gear they're selling is modernized. It's not the monkey models they were handing out like candy during the Cold War.

The modern Pechora ain't bad either. Neither are the upgraded 64s since the modernized 125mm and ERA make it a capable tank of it's own right. That's the cool thing about Russian/Soviet tech, you can replace a lot of bits and pieces and still have 40+ year old **** remain a threat on the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom