• 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!

Was the missile strike on syria a success

was the attack a success

  • yes

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • no

    Votes: 9 24.3%

  • other

    Votes: 15 40.5%
  • Total voters
    37
Less than 24 hours ago France released its intel report showing Assad's government was the guilty party in the latest gassing. Is France intel lying?

http://thehill.com/policy/internati...-detailing-evidence-of-assad-role-in-chemical

The Pentagon says that no missiles were intercepted by Syrian defenses and that the raids were “precise and overwhelming” while claiming the Syrian air defenses remained “largely ineffective”. Lt Gen Kenneth McKenzie said that Syrian air defenses fired 40 interceptor missiles in an attempt to thwart the barrage but failed to hit any of their targets. He said most were fired after the last incoming missile had struck its target. There was no indication of any involvement by Russian air defenses, he added.

Is Lt. Gen Kenneth McKenzie a liar too?


Syria and Russia are claiming the strike was minor because of their ability to shoot down incoming missiles yet Mattis said it was a heavy hit. Is Mattis lying too?



UN Ambassador Haley addressed Russia's propaganda campaign in full force after the strike, is she lying too?

 
Hawkeye10 said:
We dont know yet.

Trump says he is happy.

Assad is happy.

Putin is happy.

When everyone is happy that is a good deal, right?
Click to expand...
Other. Maybe Trump just wanted to prove to everyone that a red line is to be kept? If this is the reason for the bombing in Damascus, what a dumb reason.

Side note: When a chemical weapons plant or building holding chemical weapons is destroyed, does said chemical weapons get diffused into the atmosphere?
Side note 2: Proves Syria (and Russia) didn't hold up to the UN agreement of 2013 to get rid of all of chemical weapons in Syria. IMO, there is a high probability Syria has used chemical weapons more than once on its own folks from the time of the American bombing in 2017 to before last week's bombing and another high probability Syria and Russia will use chemical weapons again. What will America's strategy be, then, when they use again?
 
Last edited:
Well, according to the news, the strikes were surgical and took out the targets known to produce, store and do R&D for chemical weapons. Did I understand that correctly?

And the propagandists are telling me the strike was a success. Did I understand that correctly as well?

What makes me rub my chin and go "hmmmm???" is........



Because America knew EXACTLY where to strike, and did it so magnificently, doesn't that mean that American's KNEW Syria was storing, researching and developing chemical weapons all along? And they just waited until Syria used them again to do anything about it?

I think it was a staged response, well planned with the coordination and cooperation of Mother Russia, to give the appearance the world actually gives a **** what happens in Syria.

I really don't think anything significant was accomplished really. Except that we now need to replenish the munitions/missiles, etc., materials needed for the exhibition. That's probably good news for the defense industry.

My gut tells me there is more to this simplistic story. I am sensing a false flag operation or, at a minimum, a manipulation of the powers that be by someone(s) pulling the strings behind a curtain. I suspect Iran is complicit. Russia is most likely the puppet-master.
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
was it a success, I have seen varying reports, from the bulk of us and allied missiles shot down by 1950s-60s soviet anti aircraft guns and missiles, to a us general who claims none were shot down, to the pentagon saying targets were hit and refusing to mention them being shot down, and syria and russia claiming around 70% were shot down by syrian air defense alone not mentioning how many missiles and anti aircraft gun rounds it took to do so. There is also debate whether the 3 targets hit were even of value to syria or russia, or if they even did anything other than a symbolic strike.

Russia claims quite a few were struck down by syrian air defense inclusing s-75 s-125 and s-200 missiles, as well as anti aircraft guns. I can believe they did given the us response was to overwhelm air defense with a very large amount of missiles, like they were cinfident even the antique systems would have a high success rate. However the russian s-400 system and s-300 system can link backwards to even 1950's soviet missile systems, allowing them to use modern radar and guidance on older systems. My guess would be if russia was correct on the number, russian s-400 systems used their radar and guidence to compensate for the older systems technological shortcomings by linking them to syrias defence systems.

Russia is also talking about sending the s-300 system to syria amid the attack, which would bring them from 1950s and 1960s tech to 1980s and 1990s tech in terms of missile defense.
Click to expand...

Ask the question again about a year from now and we'll know if it was a success or not.
 
Was the missile strike on Syria a success?

It was a tactical military success, but a strategic failure. Little has changed, and the allied strike was a feeble slap on the wrist.

Assad's chemical weapons program is still intact, and the program's chemists and facilitators are still alive.

Many gassed Syrian children would still be alive if they had as much strike notice as Puitin and Assad received.
 
The only success was "Target has been hit"

We may doubt and discuss Syrian air defense success rate based on low info we have atm, but launching 100+ missiles to hit 3 small targets in square make no sense.
I doubt 3 bunkers would need 100+ missiles.
 
If all they did was blow up a bunch of chlorine, it was all for show. Doubly so when they warn the Russians where they're striking before they strike. We have no idea if it did anything more than blow up a few buildings.

But then, that's classic Trump: all flash, no substance, and thus the dupes are duped.
 
Fledermaus said:
Did they hit the targets? Then, yes, they were successful.

What the post strike observation shows will be interesting as it wasn't only Tomahawks this time.
Click to expand...

We cannot measure success by whether or not the targets were hit. Success is achieved is Assad discontinues use of chemical weapons.
 
Kreton said:
We cannot measure success by whether or not the targets were hit. Success is achieved is Assad discontinues use of chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

You rate a missions success on what the mission goal is.

Political, Strategic or other goals can be separated from the mission goal.

As a mission it was a success.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Funny how showing any sort of spine is always considered a precursor to World War III. American and Russian pilots were actively shooting each other down for three years when ****ing Stalin still ran the USSR and there was no Third World War; there certainly wouldn't be one against a Russia which barely qualifies as a pale shadow of that one.
Click to expand...

Russia is more nuclear capable than ever in its history.
 
Aspasia said:
Russia is more nuclear capable than ever in its history.
Click to expand...

Russia's military is far weaker than the USSR's forces once were.

Stalin was far more evil and vicious than Putin is.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Russia's military is far weaker than the USSR's forces once were.

Stalin was far more evil and vicious than Putin is.
Click to expand...

Agree with both statements. That said, their nuclear deterrent is more capable than ever due to recent upgrades.
 
Aspasia said:
Agree with both statements. That said, their nuclear deterrent is more capable than ever due to recent upgrades.
Click to expand...

The key word is deterrent. Vlad know he can't "win" a nuclear war, even if he did go nuts and launch first. Short of an unprovoked US invasion of Russia, the nuclear genie is in the bottle.
 
Rosie1 said:
Sure, start World War III. That's one of the stupidest things I've seen posted lately, lol.
Click to expand...

Stay tuned there will be more.......
 
Tigerace117 said:
The key word is deterrent. Vlad know he can't "win" a nuclear war, even if he did go nuts and launch first. Short of an unprovoked US invasion of Russia, the nuclear genie is in the bottle.
Click to expand...

Can't agree. There is a chance of error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

Then there is a chance for provocation or escalation as in 1962 or 1973. The nuclear clock has been re-set to two minutes to midnight (closest since 1953). Chomsky and Stephen Cohen, Soviet/Russian expert, have both expressed mounting concern over nuclear war. The margin for error has been degraded by all this RussiaGate hysteria and all the attempts to goad the insecure and impulsive Trump. For example, Howard "The Coward" Dean recently called Trump a wimp in a Twitter war after the latest "gas attack."
 
Aspasia said:
Can't agree. There is a chance of error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

Then there is a chance for provocation or escalation as in 1962 or 1973. The nuclear clock has been re-set to two minutes to midnight (closest since 1953). Chomsky and Stephen Cohen, Soviet/Russian expert, have both expressed mounting concern over nuclear war. The margin for error has been degraded by all this RussiaGate hysteria and all the attempts to goad the insecure and impulsive Trump. For example, Howard "The Coward" Dean recently called Trump a wimp in a Twitter war after the latest "gas attack."
Click to expand...

Chomsky is not credible given the excuses he made for the Khmer Rouge. The Russians did, in fact, succeed in influencing the American electorate during the election.
 
Aspasia said:
Can't agree. There is a chance of error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

Then there is a chance for provocation or escalation as in 1962 or 1973. The nuclear clock has been re-set to two minutes to midnight (closest since 1953). Chomsky and Stephen Cohen, Soviet/Russian expert, have both expressed mounting concern over nuclear war. The margin for error has been degraded by all this RussiaGate hysteria and all the attempts to goad the insecure and impulsive Trump. For example, Howard "The Coward" Dean recently called Trump a wimp in a Twitter war after the latest "gas attack."
Click to expand...

The there's America's first strike capability, even on non-nuclear enemies. Thanks Bush!
 
Tigerace117 said:
Chomsky is not credible given the excuses he made for the Khmer Rouge. The Russians did, in fact, succeed in influencing the American electorate during the election.
Click to expand...

Without evidence, I reject your Chomsky claim. I have seen zero evidence of Russian effects in 2016.
 
Aspasia said:
Without evidence, I reject your Chomsky claim. I have seen zero evidence of Russian effects in 2016.
Click to expand...

The effects of Russian interference was the election of Trump.

Here’s a direct quote from his work: “What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."[17]”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom