U.S. Launched Tomahawk Strikes on Syria

[Guest No2bonus]

So how is this going to play out? That region is already messed up.

From what I heard, McCain doesn't care about going beak to beak with Russia. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[ViperMan]

Come again?

Say reason for thread title.

[ViperMan]

Oh sorry, I checked CNN and as of two seconds ago, they had nothing up...I get it now...

[Guardian]

Check drudge. 50+ tomahawks.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guest No2bonus]

The UN is pointless. Don't draw lines in the sand and let Assad and Putin walk all over your gonads (former administration). I like knowing we don't debate and tell the media we are going to do x, y, and z. Just make it happen so opposition forces don't have time to prepare and setup countermeasures. You think the kangaroo saw that punch coming?

 

@ViperManSurprised CNN didn't report the administration didn't collude with the Russians prior to the strikes.

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[Cameltactics]

22 minutes ago, No2bonus said:

 

@ViperManSurprised CNN didn't report the administration didn't collude with the Russians prior to the strikes.

They'll be happy to swing to this, anything to get away from the Rice story and bury it. 

[ClearedHot]

Trump gives no fucks about Obama's fake red line.

[waveshaper]

The target of tonight's attack is Shayrat air base; Something to think about/there might still be Russians at this location; excerpts;

- On 1 December 2015, Russia was preparing to expand its military operations in Syria by opening the al-Shayrat air base near the city of Homs, already home to Russian attack helicopters and a team that had arrived about a month prior.

- 11 April 2016 (source; IHS Jane's);
Russia has forward deployed its new attack helicopters in Syria to bring them closer to one of the main fronts in the current offensive against Islamic State militants.

Airbus Defence & Space satellite imagery shows that there were four Ka-52 Alligator and three Mi-28N Night Hunter helicopters deployed to Al-Shayrat Air Base, 30 km southeast of Homs city, on 31 March. Al-Shayrat has previously been used as a forward base for Russian Mi-24 and Mi-35 helicopters, four of which could be seen at the base on 31 March.

[tk1313]

Looks like Trump's red line is a bit more stationary than Obama's (see below for the Obama policy).

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by tk1313

[Fuzz]

Word from media is we warned the Russians prior to the strike.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, waveshaper said:

The target of tonight's attack is Shayrat air base; Something to think about/there might still be Russians at this location; excerpts;

- On 1 December 2015, Russia was preparing to expand its military operations in Syria by opening the al-Shayrat air base near the city of Homs, already home to Russian attack helicopters and a team that had arrived about a month prior.

- 11 April 2016 (source; IHS Jane's);
Russia has forward deployed its new attack helicopters in Syria to bring them closer to one of the main fronts in the current offensive against Islamic State militants.

Airbus Defence & Space satellite imagery shows that there were four Ka-52 Alligator and three Mi-28N Night Hunter helicopters deployed to Al-Shayrat Air Base, 30 km southeast of Homs city, on 31 March. Al-Shayrat has previously been used as a forward base for Russian Mi-24 and Mi-35 helicopters, four of which could be seen at the base on 31 March.

CNN is confirming Russians at the base when the strike occurred, no mention of Russian causalities. 

By attacking the regime do you help ISIS or do you strike a ruthless dictatorship or both?  Assad is evil but so is ISIS, AQ, Al-Nusra, etc... and the Kurds / FSA are not realistically strong enough to take the West Syria and hold it.  

A punitive strike is fine but ultimately we (the world that purportedly wants to stop the Syrian Civil War) have to have a strategy, a plan and commitment of the resources (forces, money, casualty acceptance, robust ROE, commitment, patience, etc.) to end this if we believe it is worth enough to our interests to act and pay the cost of action.

If the world wants to end it, put together an overwhelming force for occupation, give the regime an ultimatum with an escape vector, asylum in Russia for the highest echelons of the regime with no ICC warrants if they cede power, sanctuary for the lower levels of the regime/military in ethnically/religiously homogenous zones with the coalition occupation force providing security.  ISIS, AQ and Al-Nusra get no quarter and could pincer them between a very large conventional occupation force arriving from Turkey, Jordon & Mediterranean ports and Kurds/FSA in Eastern Syria; if they run to Iraq, we continue the drive from both sides and they lose.

This would have to be a coalition in the 350k+ range to sweep them out and sit on Syria for years to come so I put about 0.69% that this will get assembled but that is what it would take, if no one gives an f that place will just continue to burn.

The International Community should either admit it doesn't give a damn and just stop bemoaning the plight of the Syrian people or man up and do something, if we (the usual contributors) all agree go all in and not try to min run it, this could be done.

The regime, the Russians, the Iranians could put up a fight as this coalition assembled and D day approached but methinks when the Mediterranean ports are blocked, there are is an Air armada circling waiting for the call and a 1000+ tanks, APCs and 350k soldiers in columns ready to fight a conventional war of annihilation, they will realize it is time to get with the program.

[Guest No2bonus]

19 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

CNN is confirming Russians at the base when the strike occurred, no mention of Russian causalities. 

By attacking the regime do you help ISIS or do you strike a ruthless dictatorship or both?  Assad is evil but so is ISIS, AQ, Al-Nusra, etc... and the Kurds / FSA are not realistically strong enough to take the West Syria and hold it.  

A punitive strike is fine but ultimately we (the world that purportedly wants to stop the Syrian Civil War) have to have a strategy, a plan and commitment of the resources (forces, money, casualty acceptance, robust ROE, commitment, patience, etc.) to end this if we believe it is worth enough to our interests to act and pay the cost of action.

If the world wants to end it, put together an overwhelming force for occupation, give the regime an ultimatum with an escape vector, asylum in Russia for the highest echelons of the regime with no ICC warrants if they cede power, sanctuary for the lower levels of the regime/military in ethnically/religiously homogenous zones with the coalition occupation force providing security.  ISIS, AQ and Al-Nusra get no quarter and could pincer them between a very large conventional occupation force arriving from Turkey, Jordon & Mediterranean ports and Kurds/FSA in Eastern Syria; if they run to Iraq, we continue the drive from both sides and they lose.

This would have to be a coalition in the 350k+ range to sweep them out and sit on Syria for years to come so I put about 0.69% that this will get assembled but that is what it would take, if no one gives an f that place will just continue to burn.

The International Community should either admit it doesn't give a damn and just stop bemoaning the plight of the Syrian people or man up and do something, if we (the usual contributors) all agree go all in and not try to min run it, this could be done.

The regime, the Russians, the Iranians could put up a fight as this coalition assembled and D day approached but methinks when the Mediterranean ports are blocked, there are is an Air armada circling waiting for the call and a 1000+ tanks, APCs and 350k soldiers in columns ready to fight a conventional war of annihilation, they will realize it is time to get with the program.

I think the Syrian men fleeing the country and demanding refugee status from EU countries should "go all in." Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya has taught us all valuable lessons. Don't get sucked into this quagmire because in the end, the U.S. will get blamed no matter what happens.

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[Mark1]

1 hour ago, tk1313 said:

Looks like Trump's red line is a bit more stationary than Obama's (see below for the Obama policy).

 

More like Obama made an idiotic move by declaring a red line, but then when it was crossed, actually made the correct decision to reassess the situation and move forward in a logical manner not dominated by emotion or ego.  In the time between the red line being "established", and confirmation that it had been crossed, the situation in Syria had fundamentally changed.  ISIS surged and made huge gains in that time.  To weaken the Assad regime with military strikes would have only served to bolster ISIS's advance, as Assad's government forces were their primary resistance at the time.

Destroying the Assad regime would have left a power vacuum that ISIS would have been in the best position of all the militant groups to fill.  The Obama administration could have never said as much, but Assad went from our chief enemy in Syria, to the lesser of two evils.  As such, targeting him was a bad option, and allowing the Russians to help broker a WMD transfer was the best among a buffet of shit sandwiches.

Yes, it was foolish to established a "red line".  But all those in the partisan conservative camp that love to attack him over destroying U.S. credibility are short sighted, simple minded, and exploiting a political faux pas for political purposes while tacitly implying that they expected him to make a stupid move with respect to Syria just to keep his word.

I'm no Obama fan, but I'm able to admit I was happy to have someone in the office mature enough to eat their pride in order to do what's appropriate despite the personal hit they may have to take.  I have zero faith that we enjoy the same with the current administration.  I hope active duty members are willing to sacrifice their lives for a Trump dick measuring contest, because 4-8yrs is plenty of time for foreign actors to affront his precious ego.

Get the popcorn out if Assad has the balls to call Trumps "bluff" and use chemical weapons again.  A personality such as Trumps would have no choice but to escalate the situation.  Escalation means weakening Syrian government forces, which leaves 15 militant factions on equal footing to fill the power vacuum with none of them quite having the strength to truly accomplish it.  Cue the quagmire.  Hopefully the Joint Chiefs have heads on their shoulders and are able to hold onto Trumps reigns.

I'm curious to see how this affects U.S. freedom of operations inside Syrian borders and airspace as up until now we were effectively the enemy of Assad's enemy and left alone to operate as necessary.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Mark1

[fire4effect]

3 minutes ago, No2bonus said:

I think the Syrian men fleeing the country and demanding refugee status from EU countries should "go all in." Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya has taught us all valuable lessons. Don't get sucked into this quagmire because in the end, the U.S. will get blamed in the end no matter what happens.

2X

Trump gets a two for one. Shows we mean business to the trouble makers in the world and helps the oil industry recover. Oil prices are already rising in response. 350k? I'm thinking closer to 500k.  Unfortunately a large ground force is a great recruiting tool for all the wannabe Jihadis.

Edited April 7, 2017 by fire4effect

[Guest No2bonus]

44 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

To weaken the Assad regime with military strikes would have only served to bolster ISIS's advance, as Assad's government forces were their primary resistance at the time.

If the former administration would have hit the facilities where Assad stores his chemical agents would have weakened Assad's ability to kill children utilizing chemical weapons. Especially taking out the military aircraft utilized. The Russians are flying a vast majority of the sorties anyway so your point is moot.

I was just watching an HBO documentary on Syria. Everywhere you look the kids are always outside playing, despite being in a war torn environment. When you hurt children, a response was necessary the first time around because it may have made Assad think twice about doing it again. The world turned a blind eye because we did nothing. Since an attack occurred a second time, world leaders are like should we care? They are totally confused because their response is based on how the U.S.reacts. You would definitely have the world on your side if you acted accordingly the first time around.

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[Mark1]

6 minutes ago, No2bonus said:

If the former administration would have hit the facilities where Assad stores his chemical agents would have weakened Assad's ability to kill his own people utilizing chemical weapons. Especially taking out the military aircraft utilized. The Russians are flying a vast majority of the sorties anyway so your point is moot.

Jesus Christ what a face-palm.  First, Obama's red line was not a threat to mildly hamper Syria's ability to employ chemical weapons.  It was a threat to depose Assad or significantly degrade the ability of his administration to defend itself, effectively ensuring it's collapse.  Everything that I said Obama could not do IN 2013 given the meteoric rise of ISIS.

What percentage of sorties was Russia flying in 2013 when everything I referenced took place?

One sentence says all would have been alright if we just destroyed Syria's aircraft.  Very next sentence says the Russians are flying all the sorties anyway.  I don't know how to parse this nonsense.

[Guest No2bonus]

22 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

Jesus Christ what a face-palm.  First, Obama's red line was not a threat to mildly hamper Syria's ability to employ chemical weapons.  It was a threat to depose Assad or significantly degrade the ability of his administration to defend itself, effectively ensuring it's collapse.  Everything that I said Obama could not do IN 2013 given the meteoric rise of ISIS.

What percentage of sorties was Russia flying in 2013 when everything I referenced took place?

One sentence says all would have been alright if we just destroyed Syria's aircraft.  Very next sentence says the Russians are flying all the sorties anyway.  I don't know how to parse this nonsense.

I wasn't throwing a face palm. That's a women thing. If you think the former administration thought about paving a way for the collapse of Assad, they didn't learn anything from Libya. As I'm flying combat sorties in Afghanistan, they were striking Libya. I don't think for one second any military leader would have signed off on what you are insinuating in regard to Syria. You are giving too much credit to someone who pulled forces out of Iraq and from Afghanistan. He learned a valuable lesson after Libya at least I hope.

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[Guest]

I wasn't throwing a face palm. That's a women thing. If you think the former administration thought about paving a way for the collapse of Assad, they didn't learn anything from Libya. As I'm flying combat sorties in Afghanistan, they were striking Libya. I don't think for one second any military leader would have signed off on what you are insinuating in regard to Syria. You are giving too much credit to someone who pulled forces out of Iraq and from Afghanistan. He learned a valuable lesson after Libya at least I hope.

Quit it with the verbal diarrhea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

Initial results say they destroyed 20 Syrian aircraft on the ground and the base is largely destroyed.

 

[waveshaper]

8 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Word from media is we warned the Russians prior to the strike.

If the shoe is on the other foot (down the road), hopefully Russia/Assad/Turks will return the courtesy and give us a heads-up.

Edited April 7, 2017 by waveshaper

[Blue]

While Ron Paul can be a divisive guy, I think he brings up some good observations:

Does anyone believe that on the eve of peace talks, just after the White House said the Syrian people should choose their own leaders, that Assad would launch a gas attack to turn the whole world against him? We don't either. We're back to the same lies that got us into Iraq. Do we never learn to question the propaganda? Our take in today's Liberty Report:

Syria Gas Attack: Assad's Doing...Or False Flag?
https://youtu.be/LULzvg1gA5U

Edited April 7, 2017 by Blue

[nsplayr]

Peace talks were breaking out? In what alternate universe was that happening? France and others want to restart peace talks in Geneva, but I also want to do two chicks at the same time. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen anytime soon.

Also, false flags do typically involve chemical weapons attacks against children now that I think about it...that'll really throw the investigators off the trail of who did it! 

If our IC says they believe Assad was responsible, I for one believe them. Everyone on here who serves should have a professional position of believing IC assessments unless proven otherwise - we bet our own lives on it.

Doesn't mean they can't be wrong or haven't been wrong in the past, but we are on the same team here. These are our intel folks making the assessment. Blows my mind how many AD guys are conspiracy theorists toward our own government and then strap on jets to back up policies made from those very same intel assessments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Worth reading instead of wasting your time on the Ron Paul conspiracy video.

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/269543.htm

Also this statement and Q&A with Tillerson and McMaster.

Edited April 7, 2017 by nsplayr

[Kiloalpha]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Peace talks were breaking out? In what alternate universe was that happening? France and others want to restart peace talks in Geneva, but I also want to do two chicks at the same time. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen anytime soon.

Also, false flags do typically involve chemical weapons attacks against children now that I think about it...that'll really throw the investigators off the trail of who did it! 

If our IC says they believe Assad was responsible, I for one believe them. Everyone on here who serves should have a professional position of believing IC assessments unless proven otherwise - we bet our own lives on it.

Doesn't mean they can't be wrong or haven't been wrong in the past, but we are on the same team here. These are our intel folks making the assessment. Blows my mind how many AD guys are conspiracy theorists toward our own government and then strap on jets to back up policies made from those very same intel assessments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Worth reading instead of wasting your time on the Ron Paul conspiracy video.

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/269543.htm

Also this statement and Q&A with Tillerson and McMaster.

Mark the day and the hour. I agree with nsplayr 100%.

All of this False Flag conspiracy sh!t has to stop. Seriously. It's bad enough listening to Ron Paul say how ending the drug war will magically solve the illegal immigration crisis (hint: it won't).

I, for one, think the missile strike was a good call. It serves many purposes. It tells Syria that we're not tolerating their crap any more. It tells Russia that they can't just cover up the massacre of innocent people in Syria... but most importantly, it sends a message to the Chinese premier (currently in Florida) that the US is no longer a paper tiger, and Lil Kim might be next.

[Guest No2bonus]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Doesn't mean they can't be wrong or haven't been wrong in the past, but we are on the same team here. These are our intel folks making the assessment. Blows my mind how many AD guys are conspiracy theorists toward our own government and then strap on jets to back up policies made from those very same intel assessments.

 

Colin Powell told the UN that Iraq had WMD. The false intelligence from a human source and the resulting Iraq debacle might have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Powell disappeared from politics after that huge blunder, which wasn't his fault.

I stood up to a professor during my time in AFROTC and I told him he didn't have access to the classified data proving there was WMD. Well, I learned to STFU. He was 100% right about there not being WMD in Iraq. We upset the fragile balance of the middle east. Iraq was a buffer to Iran. Now Iran has infiltrated Iraq and Syria. I thought we learned our lesson, but someone decided to go after Muammar Gaddafi in Libya who had actually turned in his WMD. Look at Libya now.

We fly tons of ISR missions with huge intelligence centers sorting through all the data and imagery. Yet, we still get stuff wrong. That's a hard pill to swallow for the people who lost loved ones. 

I hope you can understand why some people may doubt what they hear. I know troops in the Russian military don't always believe what they are told.

In a particular country, an IED facilitator was taken out. I followed up and asked intel if we saw a drop off in IEDs. The answer was no. How do we know we got the right guy and not some goat herder.

I'm not saying you are wrong, people can form different perspectives based off experiences is all I'm saying.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus

[Guest No2bonus]

29 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

It tells Russia that they can't just cover up the massacre of innocent people in Syria... but most importantly, it sends a message to the Chinese premier (currently in Florida) that the US is no longer a paper tiger, and Lil Kim might be next.

Have you been to South Korea? Nobody is going to hit North Korea. It will collapse well before the US hits that place with an airstrike. I don't think it will happen anytime soon. Anyway, the repercussions for attacking North Korea would be devestating to South Korea. Nothing would be left in Seoul after rockets, artillery, and missiles hit that place. Osan AB would be a damn speed bump.

I don't know if you have ever dealt with people other than pilots in the Korean military. South Koreans are required to serve in the military. You don't want to fight next to people who really don't want to be there and I think we learned that as a nation in Vietnam. Especially their younger generation in South Korea of which some sympathize with North Korea. They love to protest at the Osan AB front gate.

At work, Korean military men like to hug, sit on each other laps, and hold hands. When you are in the trenches its not time to hug and sit on each other laps. I remember one of the guys I trained tried to give me a massage on the ops floor. I was like our military doesn't get down that way. He tried to massage a female TSgt and she cursed him the hell out. We all got a good laugh.

Edited April 7, 2017 by No2bonus