Author Topic: Question for GB.com military strategists  (Read 1925 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Question for GB.com military strategists
« on: April 14, 2018, 09:16:17 AM »
Airstrikes last night in Syria didn't hit Syria's air force (~ 250 planes and 80 helicopters)
Why not?

Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people with conventional weapons (and the chemical weapons were delivered by helicopter)

Apparently the Syria chemical production plant hit last night was not the only place where they manufacture these weapons.

So we let him keep some chemical weapons and don't remove the means to deliver them

I always find it interesting that we take issue with how Syria murders people.  As long as they do it with conventional weapons we don't really seem to care

Mission Accomplished?

Trump tweeted this today. 










Irongrip400

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21140
  • Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2018, 10:49:40 AM »
I never really understood the whole thing about chemical weapons being outlawed in war but something like napalm wasn't. The standards are a bit outdated. Either you let people fight a war by any means necessary or you don't. This "civilized war" shit is false. I have more respect for the helicopter pilot who actually flies himself into a combat zone and drops a bomb that some jackass playing a video game with a drone and blowing up people. That person has no skin in the game. At least in real warfare each side has something to lose.

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14984
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2018, 03:05:19 PM »
I don't really understand the ins and outs of civilized warfare. I read some time ago about how the Geneva Convention came to be and how "professional" soldiers on both sides were respected by the opposing army. I can see how agreeing to not use nukes or chemical warfare would be agreeable for countries with similar strengths and capabilities, but if a super power attacks a smaller country, we should probably expect they know they have no chance of winning with conventional weapons, so they will likely fight with all options.
 

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14984
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2018, 03:07:37 PM »
The Mission Accomplished thing can only be one of two things. Donald is truly oblivious to history, and borderline moron, or he is a professional troll. I think it's the latter, but I can't be sure

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57576
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2018, 03:30:56 PM »
Dumb. We need to pull out and FTW.
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Conker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3189
  • looks like you went for the overcooked potato look
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2018, 03:34:24 PM »
Airstrikes last night in Syria didn't hit Syria's air force (~ 250 planes and 80 helicopters)
Why not?

Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people with conventional weapons (and the chemical weapons were delivered by helicopter)

Apparently the Syria chemical production plant hit last night was not the only place where they manufacture these weapons.

So we let him keep some chemical weapons and don't remove the means to deliver them

I always find it interesting that we take issue with how Syria murders people.  As long as they do it with conventional weapons we don't really seem to care

Mission Accomplished?

Trump tweeted this today.  



"syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people"

do you mean hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the syrian civil war?
'

you have to realise that something like 14 or 15 countries have dropped bombs and or are fighting proxy wars in syria. what should the syrian regime have done?  sit back and watch while a dozen or more foreign backed islamist groups carved the country up.

the only way to get the "rebels" out of their strongholds is to bomb them out which inevitably causes civilian casualties. the gulf nations and the west have more  blood on their hands than assad, for funding and supporting the jihadists to stage and prolong the civil war.

and if you have been paying any attention to what's been going on , you have to be very naive to believe that assad committed this latest alleged chemical attack. it's widely accepted that the regime is/was well on it's way to winning. with the US and it's attack dogs champing at the bit to attack the regime. why would assad do the one thing that legitimizes such an attack.


mazrim

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4438
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2018, 03:42:28 PM »




and if you have been paying any attention to what's been going on , you have to be very naive to believe that assad committed this latest alleged chemical attack. it's widely accepted that the regime is/was well on it's way to winning. with the US and it's attack dogs chomping at the bit to attack the regime. why would assad do the one thing that legitimizes such an attack.


They've done it before and Russia is now blaming Great Britain. They could have come up with a more believable excuse then that. Now you can argue the merits of this Syrian issue overall but the chemical attack not so much, imo.

Conker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3189
  • looks like you went for the overcooked potato look
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2018, 04:06:50 PM »
They've done it before and Russia is now blaming Great Britain. They could have come up with a more believable excuse then that. Now you can argue the merits of this Syrian issue overall but the chemical attack not so much, imo.


as i said, it makes no sense. with the help of the russians they've been crushing the last remaining "rebel" groups. why would they risk bringing the west in against them at this stage?

and would the russians with so much now invested sit by while the syrian regime basically commits suicide. if things were going badly for the regime and they were desperate there may be some logic to. but not at this stage.

our governments just know how apathetic and comatose the sheeple are. they can spin out any old shte and the people will buy it...again

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2018, 05:21:04 PM »
Distrust your MSM or perish.

Pray_4_War

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15801
  • Thot Expert
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2018, 06:19:09 PM »
I guess if you are going to kill people you are supposed to kill them quick.  Killing people is still fine though.....apparently.

I don't know what the right thing to do is and I'm sure there is a lot going on that I'm not aware of, but generally speaking I'm against proxy wars and CIA meddling.

Maybe it's worth it in the end but I doubt it.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2018, 08:45:45 PM »
Does Syria have "Central Bank"?  Serious question, don't know.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2018, 09:29:55 PM »
"syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people"

do you mean hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the syrian civil war?
'

you have to realise that something like 14 or 15 countries have dropped bombs and or are fighting proxy wars in syria. what should the syrian regime have done?  sit back and watch while a dozen or more foreign backed islamist groups carved the country up.

the only way to get the "rebels" out of their strongholds is to bomb them out which inevitably causes civilian casualties. the gulf nations and the west have more  blood on their hands than assad, for funding and supporting the jihadists to stage and prolong the civil war.

and if you have been paying any attention to what's been going on , you have to be very naive to believe that assad committed this latest alleged chemical attack. it's widely accepted that the regime is/was well on it's way to winning. with the US and it's attack dogs champing at the bit to attack the regime. why would assad do the one thing that legitimizes such an attack.



yes

and I don't really understand why we pretend to care about the method of their homicide


Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25735
  • GETBIG3.COM!
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2018, 07:51:20 AM »
Airstrikes last night in Syria didn't hit Syria's air force (~ 250 planes and 80 helicopters)
Why not?

Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of people with conventional weapons (and the chemical weapons were delivered by helicopter)

Apparently the Syria chemical production plant hit last night was not the only place where they manufacture these weapons.

So we let him keep some chemical weapons and don't remove the means to deliver them

I always find it interesting that we take issue with how Syria murders people.  As long as they do it with conventional weapons we don't really seem to care

Mission Accomplished?

Trump tweeted this today. 












The strike was to target facilities with chemical weapons which violate the Geneva Convention.   Everything else is accepted under the rules of war as we are not taking any sides nor there is a viable side to even take in the Syrian War....stupid commie bastard
A

Conker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3189
  • looks like you went for the overcooked potato look
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2018, 09:46:50 AM »

The strike was to target facilities with chemical weapons which violate the Geneva Convention.   Everything else is accepted under the rules of war as we are not taking any sides nor there is a viable side to even take in the Syrian War....stupid commie bastard


bit late for not taking sides. the US has been involved pretty much from the off (probably involved in instigating it's outbreak).the goal was always to oust assad. as his regime are a strong iran ally.

"During a White House briefing early last month, the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels. The president swiftly ended the program.

The rebel army was by then a shell, hollowed out by more than a year of bombing by Russian planes and confined to ever-shrinking patches of Syria that government troops had not reconquered. Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs — more than $1 billion over the life of the program — and reports that some of the C.I.A.-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda further sapped political support for the program."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2018, 10:33:03 AM »

The strike was to target facilities with chemical weapons which violate the Geneva Convention.   Everything else is accepted under the rules of war as we are not taking any sides nor there is a viable side to even take in the Syrian War....stupid commie bastard

LOL @ the obese homosexual welfare recipient calling me a commie

Again, why do we even care about the method of homicide

We certainly still have chemical weapons as does Russia and I'm sure China has them as well

Syria still has them

BTW - the claim that we haven't taken a side is moronic


lilhawk1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2018, 11:19:45 AM »
The Mission Accomplished thing can only be one of two things. Donald is truly oblivious to history, and borderline moron, or he is a professional troll. I think it's the latter, but I can't be sure

Trump is an absolute moron, dumbass, idiot, whatever word you want to use.  Saying he is a troll is giving him way too much credit.  He isn't smart enough to troll anything or anyone.  Christ he can't even speak or read fluently, or spell, yet people people think he is trolling.  No, he's just that fuckin stupid. 

Irongrip400

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21140
  • Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2018, 12:27:30 PM »

Fuck off you commie bastard

Fixed it for you.

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57576
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2018, 12:32:56 PM »
Trump is an absolute moron, dumbass, idiot, whatever word you want to use.  Saying he is a troll is giving him way too much credit.  He isn't smart enough to troll anything or anyone.  Christ he can't even speak or read fluently, or spell, yet people people think he is trolling.  No, he's just that fuckin stupid. 
And he's still your mother fucking President. ;D
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

illuminati

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20665
  • The Strongest Shall Survive.- - Lest we Forget.
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2018, 02:52:28 PM »
And he's still your mother fucking President. ;D

Also very wealthy & banging hot chicks ( paid for or otherwise )
And Seems to be happy & enjoying himself

That’s quite a lot more than can be said for a good few on here.

Perhaps a touch of jealousy towards him here & there maybe.

SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15864
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2018, 08:56:40 PM »
Does Syria have "Central Bank"?  Serious question, don't know.


Russia has an alternative the SWIFT system that they could use with Syria and others. Pretty much all war is about money or resources.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2018, 12:45:23 AM »

Russia has an alternative the SWIFT system that they could use with Syria and others. Pretty much all war is about money or resources.

Is it a way to see that no threat exists in another entity offering a fairer system to the world?  As unlikely as it may seem when you look at the nations taken down since 2000, as to who they were and what our media says and has said about them, I believe Libya (for one) may have been positioning to do that.

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2018, 05:23:12 AM »
I need some of you GB.com fagg0ts to interpret this one
a

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19083
  • loco like a fox
Re: Question for GB.com military strategists
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2018, 11:13:19 AM »
The US Navy appears to have fooled Russia and Syria with a warship ruse before the strike

When President Donald Trump threatened to strike Syria, the US Navy only had one destroyer in the region — leading people to assume that it take part in the strike.

But when the attack occurred, that ship didn't fire anything — which may have been a distraction ploy.

Instead, ships in the Red Sea fired a large portion of the missiles, while Syria and its Russian ally apparently failed entirely to defend it.

Russian threats to counter-attack also ultimately came to nothing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-fooled-russia-and-syria-with-a-warship-ruse-before-the-strike-2018-4?r=UK&IR=T