• 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!

Russia Says It Told U.S. Where In Syria It Was Allowed To Bomb

Fledermaus said:
Were the research, production and storage of chemical weapons impacted?
Click to expand...

Certainly. But the ROI on this strike was, at best, minimal. At worse, makes us look like we talk big but don't really back it up.

If we were trying to make a foreign policy statement that puts Assad on notice that we will not allow him to continue to use chemical weapons, we failed when we warned them it was coming. We had already tried that, it didn't work. So we doubled down on that strategy, drawing in the UK and France, in the hopes that a unified western punitive strike would carry a lot more weight. It did not work. Syria and Russian took the opportunity to laugh at the U.S. on the world stage. Not very effective as Assad now believes we aren't really that serious, or that as long as he has the Russians on the ground we won't make much of an effort to get the job done.

If we were trying to actually knock out his chemical weapons capability we failed there as well. By telegraphing our attack not striking all known chemical weapons storage and manufacturing facilities we simply blew a bunch of empty buildings, some SAM sites, and few older aircraft. None of which puts a serious dent in his ability to continue doing whatever it wants. If we were serious, we would not have announced our intentions, we would have every known target, and used everything at our disposal to get the job done. But we didn't.

If we were trying to do both, well we just failed all the way around. We wasted a few hundred million dollars and will likely have to do this all over again until we decided to either A; stay out of it, or B; fully engage and call the Russian's bluff.
 
Lerxst said:
Certainly. But the ROI on this strike was, at best, minimal. At worse, makes us look like we talk big but don't really back it up.

If we were trying to make a foreign policy statement that puts Assad on notice that we will not allow him to continue to use chemical weapons, we failed when we warned them it was coming. We had already tried that, it didn't work. So we doubled down on that strategy, drawing in the UK and France, in the hopes that a unified western punitive strike would carry a lot more weight. It did not work. Syria and Russian took the opportunity to laugh at the U.S. on the world stage. Not very effective as Assad now believes we aren't really that serious, or that as long as he has the Russians on the ground we won't make much of an effort to get the job done.

If we were trying to actually knock out his chemical weapons capability we failed there as well. By telegraphing our attack not striking all known chemical weapons storage and manufacturing facilities we simply blew a bunch of empty buildings, some SAM sites, and few older aircraft. None of which puts a serious dent in his ability to continue doing whatever it wants. If we were serious, we would not have announced our intentions, we would have every known target, and used everything at our disposal to get the job done. But we didn't.

If we were trying to do both, well we just failed all the way around. We wasted a few hundred million dollars and will likely have to do this all over again until we decided to either A; stay out of it, or B; fully engage and call the Russian's bluff.
Click to expand...

Again, success or failure will be determined not by the buildings hit but by the response of the Assad regime.

Take the Doolittle raid. It could have been called the Do-Little raid for the physical damage it did but the overall effect was much more profound. Both physical and psychological.

We also sent a signal in that the Syrians did not have the full force of Russian backing them. IIRC no Russian AA missiles were used. Add to that we exposed the Syrian AA capabilities to be a paper tiger (at this point).

And we did it with zero loses.
 
Fledermaus said:
Again, success or failure will be determined not by the buildings hit but by the response of the Assad regime.

Take the Doolittle raid. It could have been called the Do-Little raid for the physical damage it did but the overall effect was much more profound. Both physical and psychological.
Click to expand...

Well, Assad and Russia laughed it off. It didn't work the first time obviously, and it doesn't appear to have worked this time since he is still operating his chemical weapons program. And we know this is true because the Pentagon admitted it.

We also sent a signal in that the Syrians did not have the full force of Russian backing them. IIRC no Russian AA missiles were used. Add to that we exposed the Syrian AA capabilities to be a paper tiger (at this point)
Click to expand...
.

Well it depends on who you believe. According to the other side, several missiles were intercepted. Our word against theirs. But nobody is making the case that Assad's military capabilities are even close to ours.

There is also information coming out that the Russians told us where it was okay to hit without risking Russian casualties. They don't need the full weight of the Russians when we are signaling our intent and then negotiating what we can strike and what we can't.

And we did it with zero loses.
Click to expand...

Well that is usually the case when employing stand-off weapons. Our launch platforms were never in range of operational SAM sites. If you're referring to losses in terms of cruise missiles being shot down, again, it's our words against theirs. They claim many were shot down before they reached their targets. The BDA photos that are available don't serve to really confirm either side's stories.

And the real point there is the fact that Syria and Russia can actually make people question the U.S. version of events.
 
Lerxst said:
Well, Assad and Russia laughed it off. It didn't work the first time obviously, and it doesn't appear to have worked this time since he is still operating his chemical weapons program. And we know this is true because the Pentagon admitted it.

.

Well it depends on who you believe. According to the other side, several missiles were intercepted. Our word against theirs. But nobody is making the case that Assad's military capabilities are even close to ours.

There is also information coming out that the Russians told us where it was okay to hit without risking Russian casualties. They don't need the full weight of the Russians when we are signaling our intent and then negotiating what we can strike and what we can't.



Well that is usually the case when employing stand-off weapons. Our launch platforms were never in range of operational SAM sites. If you're referring to losses in terms of cruise missiles being shot down, again, it's our words against theirs. They claim many were shot down before they reached their targets. The BDA photos that are available don't serve to really confirm either side's stories.

And the real point there is the fact that Syria and Russia can actually make people question the U.S. version of events.
Click to expand...

Since I agree in whole or in part with most of the post I'll address the final paragraph...

There are people who will immediately question the US version of events even when they are backed up by photos, video, written confession and forensic evidence.

Some of this is fallout from Vietnam and the social upheaval since. The Pentagon papers come to mind.

There has been an uptick since Trump took office. Definitely.


Then there are the Russian Disinformation Trolls...
 
Fledermaus said:
We blew up a lab and storage facilities.

While they may rebuild they wont be doing so right away.

CLUE: Many bombing runs in WWII did nothing but temporarily interrupt or decrease production. Guess they were all failures as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not a history expert, but I never learned about the Axis powers telling the Allied powers where they were allowed to bomb.
 
Fledermaus said:
Indeed... And it shows plenty of paper and combustibles in and around the detonation site.
Click to expand...

Umm, there was no detonation of any bomb in the Murrah Federal Building.

It is, at best, extremely misleading to compare that bombing with what happened in Syria.
 
Fearandloathing said:
You say this "lab" was underground. If so, this photo is definitely not it.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did say that. Thing is, while the storage facility was underground, the research facility was above ground. In fact, Fledermaus posted a pic of the above ground research facility.

He also tried to pass off a pic of the Murrah Fed Bldg in OKC as one of the syrian sites that was attacked, so his honesty is questionable, at best
 
Rogue Valley said:
Russia Says It Told U.S. Where In Syria It Was Allowed To Bomb

now-vladimir-putin-is-angry-with-donald-trump.jpg




I wonder if Trump had to say 'Please'.

The Kremlin is slapping the US around in public with all manner of propaganda and disinformation, but the only sound from Washington is crickets.
Click to expand...

It was "Please", just after Trump gave Putin a BJ.
 
sangha said:
Yes, he did say that. Thing is, while the storage facility was underground, the research facility was above ground. In fact, Fledermaus posted a pic of the above ground research facility.

He also tried to pass off a pic of the Murrah Fed Bldg in OKC as one of the syrian sites that was attacked, so his honesty is questionable, at best
Click to expand...

Second paragraph.

Incorrect.

I used those to show explosions that left undamaged paper in their wake.
 
Fledermaus said:
Since I agree in whole or in part with most of the post I'll address the final paragraph...

There are people who will immediately question the US version of events even when they are backed up by photos, video, written confession and forensic evidence.

Some of this is fallout from Vietnam and the social upheaval since. The Pentagon papers come to mind.

There has been an uptick since Trump took office. Definitely.


Then there are the Russian Disinformation Trolls...
Click to expand...

And so what group do you place Israeli intelligence? Russian trolls?

Trump's Syria strike failed, Israeli intelligence reportedly says - Business Insider
 
sangha said:
Now you are being clearly dishonest. I did not say no bomb, period. I said


Added emphasis in the hopes it will stop your dishonesty
Click to expand...

Ah, The explosion that ripped the front off the building did not originate INSIDE the building... Must not have done much damage, eh?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
It's a pretty sad statement, but I put more trust in the Israeli Intelligence assessment than anything out of the Kremlin or the Trump admin. The words of the latter 2 are worthless by themselves. And I don't really trust Israel much, either.
Click to expand...

That is a good thing, but if Israel is lying, they would have a reason for doing so. Cannot say for sure what that reason is but the obvious would be that they wanted to see stronger action taken, which would not be the case if we had actually done some serious damage to Syrian chemical weapons program.
 
Fledermaus said:
Was or was not the explosion rather huge?
Click to expand...

Did I characterize the size or the impact of the explosion in any way?

If not, why did you dishonestly imply that my words did?

Now, do you see the nice white papers and combustibles around?

That is the effing point of the pictures.
Click to expand...

And the bombings are in no way comparable. Comparing them is dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom