What would you do in Syria

[Benton]

(04-10-2017, 03:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

A cloud of vapor the size of Nebraska.

[fredtoast]

What would I do in Syria?

Probably drop acid and hang out in Raqqa.

That would be intense, man.

[*bfine32*]

(04-10-2017, 01:58 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Trump is that you?!

Well you did see what happened as soon as I asked the question.

[GMDino]

Oh, there's a prick involved....

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/10/fact-check-mcconnell-revises-history-syria/100278410/

Quote:Fact check: McConnell revises history on Syria





Sen. Mitch McConnell revised history when explaining why he supported President Trump’s missile strike on Syria but opposed President Obama’s call for a targeted strike against Syria after a chemical weapons incident in 2013.

McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said Trump’s strike was “well-executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons. So, had I seen that — that kind of approach by President Obama, I’m sure I would’ve signed up.” By contrast, McConnell recalled then-secretary of State John Kerry describing Obama’s proposed military strike as “like a pinprick” that would not have “any great consequence.”

In fact, what Obama proposed to Congress back in 2013 was very similar in scope to the attack on Syria undertaken by Trump. In a televised address, Obama called for “a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capabilities.” Obama said, “The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.”

McConnell isn’t the only Republican who has changed his tune, as Politico documented in its story on Trump’s own change of heart. As we wrote recently, President Trump repeatedly tweeted in 2013 that Obama should not launch a military strike against Syria.
McConnell argued several times in a press conference on April 7 that what was proposed back in 2013 was a “pinprick,” as opposed to the strike Trump ordered on April 6.

Quote:Reporter, April 7: "Senator, you have opposed military intervention in Syria in the past, as recently as 2013. What — what makes last night different and why do you support this?"
McConnell: "Yeah, let me tell you the difference.
"Secretary Kerry, I guess in order to reassure the left-leaning members of his own party, said it would sort of be like a pinprick. You know, really would not be of any great consequence. I don’t know whether he had in mind knocking out a tent and a couple of camels or what.
"But this — this was a strike that was well-planned, well- executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons.
"So, had I seen that — that kind of approach by President Obama, I’m sure I would’ve signed up."

McConnell used the term “pinprick” twice more in the press conference to contrast Trump’s strike to what was proposed by the Obama administration in 2013.

Quote:McConnell: "I think the strike [ordered by Trump] was well-planned, well-executed, was certainly more than a pinprick and sends a message not only to Assad that using chemical weapons again is something he cannot do with impunity, but I think it also reassures our Sunni Arab allies that America is back in terms of playing a leadership role and trying to be constructive in a variety of different places around the world, as well as a message to Iran and North Korea and the Russians that America intends to lead again. So I commend the president for this decision. I think it’s entirely correct."
"… The vice president called me last night … explained the rationale, how they were doing it and I thought it made a lot of sense and would be a strike that would be noticed, not some kind of pinprick and be directly related to the reason the tomahawks were sent in the first place, the use of chemical weapons."

Let’s revisit how things unfolded in 2013. In August of that year, a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs killed more than 1,400 people, an act the U.S. determined with “high confidence” was conducted by the Assad government.

Obama considered a unilateral strike against Syria but ultimately decided to seek approval from Congress.

McConnell was among those who voiced opposition to a military strike.

“The president’s delayed response was to call for a show of force, for targeted, limited strikes against the regime,” McConnell said then. “We have been told that the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons … But let’s be very clear about something. These attacks, monstrous as they are, were not a direct attack against the United States or one of its treaty allies.”

McConnell said such a strike would not deter Assad from using conventional weapons against his own people. He expressed a concern that “degrading Assad’s control of these weapons” might make it easier for groups like al Qaeda to get hold of them. McConnell further warned that “the unintended consequences of this strike could very well be a new cycle of escalation, which then drags us into a larger war that we’re all seeking to avoid.”

So what exactly was Obama proposing? At his press conference, McConnell said he recalled Kerry assuring wary Democrats that “it would sort of be like a pinprick.” That’s not exactly accurate.

During a press conference in London on Sept. 9, 2013, Kerry did outline what he called an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort” that would “hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort.”

Quote:Kerry, Sept. 9, 2013: "We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

Obama specifically assured that a strike would not be a “pinprick.”

“The U.S. does not do pinpricks,” Obama said in a Sept. 9, 2013, interview with NBC News. “Our military is the greatest the world has ever known. And when we take even limited strikes, it has an impact on a country like Syria.”

That sentiment was echoed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 4, 2013. “The president has said … this would not be a pinprick. Those were his words. This would be a significant strike that would, in fact, degrade his [Assad’s] capability.”

When it appeared the measure seeking military authorization did not have enough votes to pass, Obama asked then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid to postpone the vote. The following day, in televised remarks to the nation, Obama reiterated his case for a “limited strike” that would not include ground troops nor “a prolonged air campaign.”

Quote:Obama, Sept. 10, 2013: "I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capabilities.
"Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.
"Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.
"Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons."

But Obama said he had decided to postpone the vote to pursue — with assistance from Syria’s ally, Russia — a “diplomatic path.” That later resulted in an agreement between the United States and Russia to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons to international inspectors.

So what’s different about what Obama was proposing to Congress — and McConnell opposed — and the strike that Trump authorized?

“I don’t think it was much different at all,” Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert in the use of military force, told us via email. “The war however is at a much different place. I think both U.S. presidents have found reasonable ways to address the chemical threat — and, gradually, the ISIS threat — and, to date, no good way to address the broader challenge of the war.”

At a United Nations Security Council meeting on April 7, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the U.S. took what she called “a very measured step ” in the airstrike. “We are prepared to do more,” Haley said. “but we hope that will not be necessary.”

At his press conference on April 7, McConnell was asked whether he anticipated there would be further military action “or did you get the sense that this was a one-time event?”

“No, I think this … strike was related to the use of chemical weapons only,” McConnell said. “So I don’t — I don’t interpret this as a first step toward anything else in particular other than trying to eliminate or at least to make sure there are — that he knows there are consequences for doing this again.”

Later, McConnell reiterated that he thought the intent and scope of the strike was clear, to send the message.

“You don’t use chemical weapons without consequences,” he said. “I think that’s a pretty clear message and I don’t necessarily read into that a larger strategy in the area, but they certainly want to try to prevent the mass killing of innocent people by the use of chemical weapons.”

In other words, McConnell was praising a strike that was limited, did not commit ground troops, and with the expectation that further military action would not be necessary. McConnell now says he didn’t support Obama’s plan for a military strike in 2013 because Kerry said it “would sort of be like a pinprick.”

But what Kerry and Obama were proposing was similar to the kind of limited strike that Trump ordered, and that McConnell now supports.

[Belsnickel]

Revisionist history is so popular in DC, I'm surprised it isn't a major at Georgetown and GMU.

[GMDino]

(04-10-2017, 02:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Revisionist history is so popular in DC, I'm surprised it isn't a major at Georgetown and GMU.

But let us not allow it to become so common place that it is accepted without notice.

Screw this Turtle Faced dbag.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Trump's missile strike amounted to a flight delay of a few hours essentially. A god damn snow storm over O'Hare International Airport results in more cancelled flights.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-10-2017, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you did see what happened as soon as I asked the question.

Yeah, you started praising the guy with the twitter account with a "bunch of clueless followers" (read deplorable) for attacking Syria for violating a UN resolution by violating the same UN resolution himself.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-15-2017, 02:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As do I and the reasons are many. Just a couple:

First of all collateral damage and the problems it causes to ground forces who may have to move occupy after such a indiscriminate attack

It "cheapens' war. Anyone can strap an explosives devise on a $50 drone and crash it into innocent folks. They can then point to us as their example. 

It's nothing more than an aerial IED and that's how cowards engage in combat. 

What is a cruise missile, but a bottle rocket with a cellphone GPS anyone can strap explosives to and crash into innocent folks? It cheapens war. Especially for the Syrians when you don't hit the airstrip and flights resume within hours.

Except at $1.8 million each for 59 tomahawk missiles, we could have relocated all of the victims of the chemical attack, put $1 million each in their pockets, and stimulated our economy via the trickle down effect of voodoo economics.

First of all, consider all the collateral damage and the problems missiles cause to our ground forces in Syria who may have to move occupy after such an indiscriminate attack.

Secondly, a cruise missile is nothing more than an aerial IED and that's how cowards engage in combat.

[Benton]

(04-10-2017, 04:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is a cruise missile, but a bottle rocket with a cellphone GPS anyone can strap explosives to and crash into innocent folks?  It cheapens war. Especially for the Syrians when you don't hit the airstrip and flights resume within hours.

Except at $1.8 million each for 59 tomahawk missiles, we could have relocated all of the victims of the chemical attack, put $1 million each in their pockets, and stimulated our economy via the trickle down effect of voodoo economics.

First of all, consider all the collateral damage and the problems missiles cause to our ground forces in Syria who may have to move occupy after such an indiscriminate attack.

Secondly, a cruise missile is nothing more than an aerial IED and that's how cowards engage in combat.

Where do people keep coming up with these numbers? I've seen it go from $500,000 to $1 million to the expected replacement cost of $1.5 million. At this rate, in another week, this will have been a $50 billion attack. In a month we could've just bought Assad out of his time share at a cheaper rate than attacking him with our $1 trillion (each) tomahawk missiles.

[GMDino]

(04-10-2017, 04:40 PM)Benton Wrote: Where do people keep coming up with these numbers? I've seen it go from $500,000 to $1 million to the expected replacement cost of $1.5 million. At this rate, in another week, this will have been a $50 billion attack. In a month we could've just bought Assad out of his time share at a cheaper rate than attacking him with our $1 trillion (each) tomahawk missiles.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-it-will-cost-to-replace-the-tomahawks-used-in-syria-2017-04-07

Quote:It could cost about $60 million to replace the cruise missiles that the U.S. military rained on Syrian targets Thursday night.

Each Tomahawk missile, made by Raytheon Co. RTN, -0.54% likely cost $1 million, according to experts.


The U.S. used 59 of them on a Syrian air base in response to the Syrian government’s chemical-weapons attack that killed scores of civilians earlier this week.

Raytheon referred questions around costs to the U.S. Navy’s unmanned aviation and strike weapons program, which did not immediately return a request for comment.

The missiles used on Thursday likely cost the U.S. military around $1 million, but the latest versions of the missile that would replace those could be more costly, depending on size of the order and other factors, said Loren Thompson, a consultant and chief operating officer of nonprofit Lexington Institute.



Demand for Tomahawks never seems to go down, said Tom Karako, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Karako estimated a replacement cost for each Tomahawk of around $1 million.


The Navy’s 2017 budget has the future missiles at a unit cost of $1.5 million, higher than previous years, but that is probably because the Navy is winding down the program and does not plan, at least for now, on buying more Tomahawks after this year, said Todd Harrison, also a director with CSIS.

Tomahawks can be launched from a ship or a submarine. Yesterday’s Tomahawk missiles were launched from two U.S. Navy destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea, according to reports.

Tomahawks have been part of the U.S. military’s arsenal for three decades, and were first used during the 1991 Gulf War. Newer iterations of the missile were last used in October to strike targets in Yemen after attacks on U.S. Navy ships.

The value of the Tomahawk comes from their long range, their precision, and the fact that they don’t require putting a pilot in hostile airspace, said the Lexington Institute’s Thompson.

According to Raytheon’s website, the cruise missile has been employed in combat more than 2,000 times since it was introduced.

Tomahawks can fly about 1,000 miles at subsonic speeds (around 550 miles an hour), and its latest version, the Tomahawk Block IV, can be pre-programmed as well as redirected to a new target in real time and during its flight. The Tomahawk is also the weapon of choice of the British military.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-10-2017, 04:40 PM)Benton Wrote: Where do people keep coming up with these numbers? I've seen it go from $500,000 to $1 million to the expected replacement cost of $1.5 million. At this rate, in another week, this will have been a $50 billion attack. In a month we could've just bought Assad out of his time share at a cheaper rate than attacking him with our $1 trillion (each) tomahawk missiles.

I just google whatever fits my narrative.

That price come from Wikipedia, but the way I hear it everything in the media (except Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars) is fake anyway so does it really matter?

[Benton]

(04-10-2017, 04:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-it-will-cost-to-replace-the-tomahawks-used-in-syria-2017-04-07

$1.59 million
http://finance.nine.com.au/2017/04/07/15/09/how-much-a-tomahawk-missile-costs

$569,000
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/07/what-is-a-tomohawk-missile-and-how-much-does-one-cost-6559588/

$832,000
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3277606/tomahawk-cruise-missiles-cost-syria-donald-trump/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/tomahawk-missiles-explainer/


The street value on these things is all over the place. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(04-10-2017, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you did see what happened as soon as I asked the question.

No what happened?

[GMDino]

(04-10-2017, 06:50 PM)Benton Wrote: $1.59 million
http://finance.nine.com.au/2017/04/07/15/09/how-much-a-tomahawk-missile-costs

$569,000
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/07/what-is-a-tomohawk-missile-and-how-much-does-one-cost-6559588/

$832,000
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3277606/tomahawk-cruise-missiles-cost-syria-donald-trump/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/tomahawk-missiles-explainer/


The street value on these things is all over the place. 

I'd still fall into the 1/2 to million for current weapons with a top dollar of 1.5 to replace.

Edit: Let me add that my first thoughts about this were never "how will this affect the military budget and what did this cost".

[fredtoast]

Cruise missiles cost about $500K each.

But shipping and handling is close to a million.

And, of course, you want to buy the extended warranty.

[Belsnickel]

So, just out of curiosity, since we're in the business these days of using our military might to handle issues of human rights violations internal to a sovereign nation, how do we feel about Chechnya?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-11-2017, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, just out of curiosity, since we're in the business these days of using our military might to handle issues of human rights violations internal to a sovereign nation, how do we feel about Chechnya?

Simple calculation using the 3rd Law of Congressional Partisanship which states for every political action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

If a Democratic President uses military force, Republicans are against it. If a Republican President uses military force, Democrats are against it.

If a Democratic President doesn't use force, Republicans agree military force is necessary. If a Republican President doesn't use force, Democrats agree military force is necessary.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-11-2017, 11:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Cruise missiles cost about $500K each.

But shipping and handling is close to a million.

And, of course, you want to buy the extended warranty.

I thought it was free shipping on all orders over 25 million?

[GMDino]

(04-11-2017, 03:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I thought it was free shipping on all orders over 25 million?

That was for Trump Steaks.