Topaz Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Boges said: Buried in the lead on this is how 59 missiles can be so ineffective? Remember the movie Under Siege? The whole premise was that this ship had Tomahawk missiles on it so it had to be taken out if Stephen Segal didn't save the day. 59 of them can't even put an airfield out of commission? On the news, they mentioned that and said the tomahawks weren't used to destroy, more of an warning not to use chemicals again or else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 Just now, Topaz said: On the news, they mentioned that and said the tomahawks weren't used to destroy, more of an warning not to use chemicals again or else. Then maybe use 4 or 5. But 59!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Boges said: Then maybe use 4 or 5. But 59!!!! Maybe it a way to create jobs???? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Boges said: Buried in the lead on this is how 59 missiles can be so ineffective? BGM-109 Tomahawks trade warhead yield for stand-off range and loiter time. Equally "ineffective" was the much heralded Russian made air defense system. Quote Remember the movie Under Siege? The whole premise was that this ship had Tomahawk missiles on it so it had to be taken out if Stephen Segal didn't save the day. 59 of them can't even put an airfield out of commission? Don't confuse America's Hollywood movies with reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Don't confuse America's Hollywood movies with reality. And don't take a post quoting a Hollywood movie so seriously. Obviously the urgency of the Under Siege ship was the fact those Tomahawks had Nukes. Duh. Tommy Lee Jones could have taken out Los Angeles! But seriously. Why waste 59 missiles if this was just a PR exercise? Edited April 10, 2017 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 I think the US and NATO really better THINK before jumping into trying to take of Assad because Russia, Iran and then China and N. Korea would be dragged into it. My understanding is Russia has a very good military especially Air Force and China, well all they have to do is say hey u owe me trillions and they could crippled the US economy and N. Korea is just nuts looking for a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, Topaz said: I think the US and NATO really better THINK before jumping into trying to take of Assad because Russia, Iran and then China and N. Korea would be dragged into it. My understanding is Russia has a very good military especially Air Force and China, well all they have to do is say hey u owe me trillions and they could crippled the US economy and N. Korea is just nuts looking for a fight. They don't want to get involved. But they have to do SOMETHING when dude gasses people. A war in Syria would lead to WW3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Boges said: And don't take a post quoting a Hollywood movie so seriously. Obviously the urgency of the Under Siege ship was the fact those Tomahawks had Nukes. Duh. Tommy Lee Jones could have taken out Los Angeles. But seriously. Why waste 59 missiles if this was just a PR exercise? Tomahawks lost their nuclear warhead option years ago. Count the airfield targets (shelters, fuel depot, weapons stores, air defense, etc.), add redundancy for BDA success, and account for failed missiles. Pretty easy to get to 59. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Tomahawks lost their nuclear warhead option years ago. Count the airfield targets (shelters, fuel depot, weapons stores, air defense, etc.), add redundancy for BDA success, and account for failed missiles. Pretty easy to get to 59. Yes...it used to carry the W80 which could dial-up to 200kt yield. But you know that...heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Wilber said: So what, cops operate under the same structure. Do we want to get rid of them to, after all they do the same job. The military protects our country, the police protect our sorry asses. Protect us from what? Blowback because of our foreign policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 1 minute ago, GostHacked said: Protect us from what? Blowback because of our foreign policy? Sure, why not? Would you prefer they didn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 14 hours ago, taxme said: I don't understand why Trump did this. I think that Trump may have been given false news here created by the zionist controlled media and military that want Assad out of power. So there is no room in your consideration for the possibility Trump was given the actual news and it is you who are mistaken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, GostHacked said: Protect us from what? Blowback because of our foreign policy? Attacks on the West have very little to do with our foreign policy. ISIS has said as much, explicitly. They hate us because we are infidels and do not follow the moral teaching of the prophet. 1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims. Thus, even if you were to stop fighting us, your best-case scenario in a state of war would be that we would suspend our attacks against you – if we deemed it necessary – in order to focus on the closer and more immediate threats, before eventually resuming our campaigns against you. Apart from the option of a temporary truce, this is the only likely scenario that would bring you fleeting respite from our attacks. So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to our war against you. At most, you could only delay it temporarily. “And fight them until there is no fitnah [paganism] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Al-Baqarah 193). 2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves. “Legislation is not but for Allah” (Yusuf 40). Your secular liberalism has led you to tolerate and even support “gay rights,” to allow alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury to become widespread, and to encourage the people to mock those who denounce these filthy sins and vices. As such, we wage war against you to stop you from spreading your disbelief and debauchery – your secularism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity and atheism – and all the depravity and corruption they entail. You’ve made it your mission to “liberate” Muslim societies; we’ve made it our mission to fight off your influence and protect mankind from your misguided concepts and your deviant way of life. http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/07/31/isis-why-we-hate-you-why-we-fight-you/ Edited April 10, 2017 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Sure, why not? Would you prefer they didn't? I guess he would prefer we had no foreign policy and didn't stand for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 47 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Sure, why not? Would you prefer they didn't? I'd prefer they protect us from our policymakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 25 minutes ago, Wilber said: I guess he would prefer we had no foreign policy and didn't stand for anything. What are you talking about? We clearly stand for dictators that keep us safe from tyranny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: I'd prefer they protect us from our policymakers. Again, sure, but I can't agree with the attitude that states: "I agreed/disagreed with Trump bombing that airfield so feel free to come and kill me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 55 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Sure, why not? Would you prefer they didn't? I would prefer they not do shit that threatens the lives they are supposedly protecting. Supporting the 'rebels' in another nation is directly supporting terrorism against a sovereign nation. No matter if you like the leadership or not. We'd get our panties in a bunch if this was done to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, eyeball said: What are you talking about? We clearly stand for dictators that keep us safe from tyranny. Quite right, Saudi Arabia for one. .. Sorry Eyeball.. I did not read your post right.. .... Edited April 10, 2017 by GostHacked because I felt like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 (edited) . Edited April 10, 2017 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Again, sure, but I can't agree with the attitude that states: "I agreed/disagreed with Trump bombing that airfield so feel free to come and kill me." Sorry I was talking about foreign policy during the last 60 years or so. Like ISIS, Trump is just the newest metastization of our policies towards the ME and surrounding region - a lot of people seem to agree with an attitude that states "We're free to diddle whoever we want". Exceptionalism is just about as extreme and crazy-assed as it gets, bar none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 Just now, eyeball said: Sorry I was talking about foreign policy during the last 60 years or so. Like ISIS, Trump is just the newest metastization of our policies towards the ME and surrounding region - a lot of people seem to agree with an attitude that states "We're free to diddle whoever we want". Exceptionalism is just about as extreme and crazy-assed as it gets, bar none. Me too. I just used DT as an example. My original point was in reply to GH that, even if you find the foreign policy completely abhorrent, that doesn't mean you are okay with dying for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 9 hours ago, taxme said: A good shot of good old common sense and logic now and then sure does wonders for the mind. It just shows what some morons in the government think about military people, the ones that are suppose to be fighting for those morons freedom. If one thinks that any politician really cares about the welfare of present or retired military people, well they should think twice about that. Military people are really there to serve the interests of the Kissinger warmongers of the world, and their goals. So your saying all those that did not follow your career path are not using common sense, or just dumb stupid animals....WOW.....listen everyone marches to their own drum....soldiers join for thousands of reasons, some decided by courts as an alternative, others no jobs in their local neighborhoods, some for the adventure, some for the free education,or job experience, some to travel, some join because they want to be a part of something larger, they want to serve the nation...And here i thought we lived in a free country where a person could chose their own path to walk.....No i guess not, not only to military members have to worry about getting bent over the table by our government ,but now we have to watch our backs from our own citizens.....Nobody has said you had to join the military to be somebody, it is not a life for everyone, it takes a certain type of person....and your not that type SO what.....nobody cares except you.....but that is not enough for you, instead now you've taken to media to call them names , and degrade them.....if that floats your boat....giver.....one day when you grow up, you'll see that may the military is not all that bad after all.... The military does not give one shit about what our politicians think about our military.....we have seen them come and go, from the kissinger's to the cretien's , now things go a lot better when they do approve of the military, but we don't need their approval to do our jobs..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Me too. I just used DT as an example. My original point was in reply to GH that, even if you find the foreign policy completely abhorrent, that doesn't mean you are okay with dying for it. It's the killing for it that's the problem - the thing that leads to people dying for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2017 Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 32 minutes ago, eyeball said: It's the killing for it that's the problem - the thing that leads to people dying for it. Yeah, but whereas I might disagree with the killing, while you agree with it, we both deserve the protection of our armed forces. Bless them. Just kidding about the who agrees/disagrees thing, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.