Syrian Personnel, Equipment Evacuated From Airfield Ahead of US Strike

The administration warned the Russians ahead of the strike as the strike was against the Syrian Air Force.  Defense One Today says there was equipment and aircraft destruction from the strikes also.  They won't be launching chemical attacks from there anytime soon.

They won't be launching chemical attacks from there anytime soon.

Doesn't take that long to get an airfield back up.  Even then, I doubt that they will be launching them at all.  The strike was a warning.  The airfield gave the capability to launch chemical weapons, therefore it was attacked.  The will to launch chemical weapons comes from President Assad, therefore, the Presidential Palace could be next.  If President Trump tells you to not do something, don't do it.

The will to launch chemical weapons comes from President Assad, therefore, the Presidential Palace could be next.

This will do absolutely nothing to deter Assad from more chemical attacks if he wants to do them and no we will not launch missiles at any of his palaces because we do not want to get involved in the civil war in Syria or piss off the Russians who are Assad's ally. This attack was just a waste of perfectly good Cruise Missiles.  No one, especially not Assad or anyone else in the region, was the least bit impressed.

no we will not launch missiles at any of his palaces because we do not want to get involved in the civil war in Syria or piss off the Russians who are Assad's ally.

You do realize, don't you, that 59 Cruise missiles are quite sufficient to piss off the Russians?  If they haven't started shooting by now, they're not going to do so, no matter what actions we take?  Further, we are already involved in the war in Syria. 

I saw on the news, undoubtedly information given to the media by the Russian Government as a backchannel threat, that a Russian warship was steaming through the Bosporus into the Eastern Mediterranean toward those two US Destroyers.  If the US military is on the job, when the Russian reaches visual sighting distance there will be a squadron of US fighter-bombers circling the Russian vessel; not saying anything or taking any hostile action, just circling.  The Russian commander will know what they are, what they're carrying and what will happen if he makes the slightest hostile move. 

If they haven't started shooting by now, they're not going to do so, no matter what actions we take?

Either Russia fires nukes (not gonna happen) or we don't even take notice. Their defense budget is less than France or the UK. 

You do realize, don't you, that 59 Cruise missiles are quite sufficient to piss off the Russians?

Not if the Russians knew when they were coming and that they were going to hit an empty airfield and no Russians were going to get hurt. I don't think the Russians really gave shit about this. The Russians knew there was going to be no real damage, especially to the airstrips, Assad was still going to be in power, that he was still going to be every bit as strong, his military strength was not going to be diminished at all and there their warm water port was nice and safe. To Putin and Assad this didn't even amount to a pinprick. This was a mere nuisance, like a small fly that has already flown away.

There was surely some destruction. But as I keep repeating, it cost us over one hundred million dollars. So... who lost the most? Assad or us? 

We warned that the strike was coming. What is the message we sent? 

tomahawks  cost less than $575,000 a piece , have heard 59 hit 1 went down in the sea 2 misfired and didn't launch so that's 62 that equals $35,650,000 just in missles alone. cant say how much it cost for the ships and crews to be there  .

 all info gathered from Wiki , or news reports , and doing some simple mathematics.

How much is a human life worth to the left? Pennies? How quickly they spin.

Good question. How much would you say? 

my old USGI insurance said it was $100k

my old USGI insurance said it was $100k

In chemical elements about a buck.

thoughtco

You first since you raised the issue. Typically liberals place little or no value on human life. 

Where did I put a value on life? 

Or do you think Tomahawk missiles are alive?   

The replacement cost of a Block IV Tomahawk is above $1.6 million. The number you quoted was for the first version twenty years ago. 

The replacement cost of a Block IV Tomahawk is above $1.6 million.

So Trump's actions used up some of the older versions of the missiles . They were basically just gathering dust . In the meantime up to 20 Syrian aircraft were destroyed ...

petey , reports I am seeing on the news , 7 personel dead , and 7 or 8 aircraft (Su-22 varients)  Syria had 47-48 at the beginning of the civil war , count the machine shops , ammo dumps fuel dumps  misc buildings  repair shop and  related avionics equipment to work on and arm the planes in said shops. as well as hardened hangers .

Bob , more like 30 years ago , and the GLCM the AF had was a million a pop in 85 simply because its a nuke, and my base in Belgium had about as many as was fired yesterday  off the ships the conventional versions are always a lot less even in later versions .

OK. I wouldn't argue about plus or minus a bunch of millions. It's a ton of money in any case. 

We tend to think that munitions are a bottomless well. Nope! 

Me , April 1985. Florennes , Belgium, spent a wonderful tear in the beautiful Meuse river valley , not far from the French border , or the town of Bastone.

year, not tear

Mark,

Cool! 

I used to live in Lorraine, across the French border. The Ardennes is a beautiful region. 

yep it is , but back then when I was there still very dangerous to walk off the beaten path, If I wasn't headed north into Holland on my days off , I was with the US and Belgian EOD  using a metal detector looking for left over "treasures" my best find was a 30 cal  belt fed MG with ammo cans , and the ammo was still serviceable even after 40 years, the gun not so much.

 and I picked up just enough French to get my face slapped in the bars , same for dutch and Flemish.

When we moved away from Lorraine, it was to the North (That's a region of France.) Farmers' plows still occasionally turn up munitions, more likely from WWI, but sometimes WWII.

Trump is just firing missiles without the slightest idea of the consequences. He's like a big retarded kid with a shotgun. 

That's nice ... Now how do you feel about Assad ?

They won't be launching chemical attacks from there anytime soon.

They'll be taking off and landing from there within a week at most. Cruise missiles are not very good for pockmarking concrete runways and putting them out of action. You need dropped bombs to do that.

randy is right , at the most maybe 2 weeks to get the runway up to usable condition , the  cruise missle version they used  though it can have a 1000# war head and is very good for precision hits  was made more for air craft shelters , fuel depots and radar facilities , if they really wanted to take out the runway and use the tomahawk , they would have had to use the version I guarded back in 85 in Belgium , but to take out the runway they would have had to use the nuke version of the tomahawk , , other option would be bombers with conventional bombs . but conventional armed tomahawks was just a big fireworks display with showing how accurate they can be.

 So IF he wanted to show them something to make them think , ok he did  other than that its just sit back and let them make the next move.

Mark,

Both you and Randy are correct as far as making the airfield physically ready for traffic is concerned.  However, the intended effect was not physical but psychological.  The bombardment didn't destroy the air strip but did tell those flying the missions, and their commanders, what would happen the next time they tried taking off with a load of chemical weapons.  Further, the precision of the raid shows that we not only have the will to destroy their next attack while they're taking off, but that we have the ability.

Would that stop the General in charge from issuing the orders to go?  Probably not, after all, he's not the one who has to fly the mission.  Will it stop the airplanes from being capable of flight?  Quite likely.  A very possible scenario:  Bombing Squadron Commander to General in Charge, "I'm sorry sir; we are eager to carry out your attack order, but it's simply not possible.  It seems that none of our aircraft are able to fly, and the crew chiefs can't figure out what's wrong with them.  It will be at least several weeks before we can carry out any missions at all, much as we would love to do so".  It probably wouldn't happen that openly, or the Squadron Commander and the Crew Chiefs would be shot, but mysterious stuff would keep happening to the airplanes so that the pilots wouldn't have to make that long, dangerous trip down that runway.

Why wouldn't they fly the mission? There is no one there to stop them. They're not going to get shot down, at least not by us. They'll return to perfectly safe and usable airbases. If they were willing to fly the last mission they would have no trouble flying another one. What Trump did is not going to change that even a little bit. What Trump did, did not scare the pilots, crews or their commanders at all and why would it?

Why wouldn't they fly the mission? There is no one there to stop them. They're not going to get shot down, at least not by us.

Randy, have you ever seen what happens when a plane is trying to take off and the runway takes a hit right in front of it.  You don't have to shoot them down, they never get off the ground.  (Ton Son Nhut Airport-1970) The Destroyers now have the airstrips ranged.  The pilots know it.  Do you really think that knowledge will be ignored.  Those pilots are not fanatics or Assad enthusiasts, they're just guys doing the job they were told to do.  They now realize that their job's danger level just increased.  They won't like it and will figure a way out of it if they can possibly do so.

What Trump did, did not scare the pilots, crews or their commanders at all and why would it?

The hell it didn't.  If they are human beings, with the reactions and instincts of human beings, it scared them.

randy you have a point there , but there is the point also of the psychological aspect , they can take off pull a sortie , but in the back of their heads , they will be wondering , will the base REALLY be there when we get back and in one piece and usable?, remember only 1 nation so far has ever deployed and used nukes , and that sadly is us.

 Now its been widely reported , at least here that part of the justification for the missile strike is because our sats and awacs watched them take off tues , make their bomb run , and return to that base. they now know we are REALLY watching . though the Russians are going to upgrade their air surveillance systems can they guarantee that a rolling thunder or Arc light out of Diego Garcia wont happen before or during their return? lets not forget there is still a USAF base in turkey for landing at .

point is , they don't know how far it is willing to be  cranked up. or even how .

I'm thinking about that , and I'm not even really involved.

You're probably right, Mark... but I'm guessing Assad's pilots aren't given much choice about when to fly. 

Syria is a small country and any sortie is going to be really short. We will not have any advance info to one happening and we will not launch another attack without informing Putin again so we do not kill Russians, so there will not be an attack on the airbase before they are off the ground. In the very highly unlikely chance we were to attack the airbase they took off from, Assad has more, with more Russians at them that need to be warned and we are not going to attack them all.

Plus our airbase in Turkey is not really ours. We use it with the permission of Turkey and cannot launch any military strikes against anyone from it without getting their government's permission to do so because they do not want to be seen as the launching point for an attack or war that they don't want to be a part of. If we are going to land B52's out of Diego Garcia (damn I would have hated to be stationed there!) we are going to need their permission to do it. Of course it would more likely be an air refuel and return mission anyway.

There are plenty of military things we can do, but we also have to look at the political realities of what we will do. We are not going to just open fire on any planes lifting off from one of Assad's air bases on the off chance that they may or may not be carrying chemical weapons and we are not going to be able to identify the air base they took of from fast enough for our chain of command to make the decision to attack that airfield while leaving enough time to warn Russia that we are going to attack.

all valid points randy , but can you or I say with certainty  what will happen ? nope , neither can the Syrian pilots , nor can the Russians ,  and over time  that will most likely weigh on pilots minds . and since the Russians disconnected from the hot line that was set up( If they are telling the truth about disconnecting) I don't see how we will be able to call them and let them know anything anymore that wont have to go through other channels slower.

DG isn't bad , did a stop over there , theres a woman for every tree........never saw a tree there.....

I think they may think about it, but it'll be way in the back of their minds and (IMHO) it won't make them hesitate to fly.

DG sounds like being stationed in Grand Forks. There is a beautiful woman behind every tree, but there are no trees. The state tree is a telephone pole. The state bird is a mosquito. I used to have a poster in my apartment that showed a flat snow covered field and a mostly covered fence and the caption on it was "Ski North Dakota!

Could be worse. I knew a guy who was transferred from Grand Forks to Johnston AFB in the middle of the Pacific. An island just big enough for the air strip and housing and not much more.

LOL Goose bay , and shimya  (sp, its been a while) seeing those places made me appreiciate  the other places I was actually stationed , because I KNEW it could get worse if I screwed up.

After my 4 years active I seriously considered making it a career. Then I found out that, since I had been trained to be a computer operator for a SAC Strategic Missile Wing, I would only be assigned throughout my career to other SAC Missile Wing bases. No overseas assignments. Unless I cross trained and they weren't about to let that happen. Hell I think at that point even I would have taken a transfer to Johnston or DG! Oh well, I guess I should have made it a career anyway. Nice pension after 30 or even 40 years by now. And at least I could have never been assigned to Greenland. Just airbases that felt like it. LOL!

LOL Thule!!!! another stop over hop......always wondered what someone screwed up to get stationed there.....

I did 10 and a few months , hearing was shot by then , they offered the early out when they were down sizing after the storm I was in the pay grade they wanted to cut and they were PAYING people to get out so I took it since I had a hefty savings from other finances , should have waited to be either medically discharged , or tried to stick it out another 10. but that falls under shoulda coulda woulda , and I cant really complain now anyway.

 besides , my first duty station I was SACUMSIZED too.

Thule was the base Commanders at Grand Forks threatened most enlisted personal with, because it was one of the only places that scared them more the staying in North Dakota! When I was n they were downsizing after Vietnam and Airmen were offered an early out on even a 4 year enlistment, but with no money or at least some people were. Some of us in SAC tech jobs were offered re-enlistment bonus' to stay in, which was tempting.

Many officers at the Captain rank got riffed (that was what the nickname was for reduction in forces then) for failure to make Major (without rally being given a chance), given a choice to stay in as a Master Sergeant (with a reassignment of course) and being able to retire after 20 at their Captain rank or take a year's pay and an Honorable Discharge. I remember a Capt. that I really hated and used to give me all kinds of shit (he was our squadron commander or glorified barracks chief) and he was very religious or sort of. He was judgemental because I had a son out of wedlock and made me a personal cause of his. And I didn't even live in the barracks (though I was required to have a room in the barracks even though I had permission for an apartment in town?)! My office commander was a Lt Col named King (great guy and the kind of officer you really did respect) and he advised him to back off. Anyway I was coming back to the base after a leave and I saw now ex-Capt. Stead at the Grand Forks Airport after he was riffed. I loved it! The bastard!

Yeah I started my security police career with sac and 9 years later ended it with sac when they cross trained me for hearing loss ,  in the mean time , I went to grenada , panama , Europe to USAFE for a year  got all sorts of gung ho training , figured they spent close to 60 -70 grand on me just in training and different schools  abgd was taught by army and marines , AIT which subbed for GLCM school was taught by the same people at an army base , when I had the bright idea to join the bases emergency services team they made me the sniper so there was another school the AF didn't have at the time so they sent me to quantico  for some schooling in that. of course it was all TDY with per diem and allowances, some I was married and had the kids so there was family separation pay.. then my last year when they cross trained me , (SMH) morale welfare & recreation.........up until the cross train I got got good re enlistment bonuses , was told that would end. spent a year working the enlisted club and the base gym. wasn't for me . the rest as they say is history , so SAC, USAFE and MAC 509th, 485th and 443rd  respectively as PDS's with a few TDYS  a couple 6 month TDYs to Saudi  before the storm , then got caught in shield /storm.

After Lackland (I can even remember my squadron and flight after all of these years lol, 3707 BMTS, Flight 1176 in the old wooden barracks) and then tech school at Sheppard in Wichita Falls TX, I got to spend 3 years, 7 months and 16 days in the 321st SMW (SAC) at Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota. I looked at my Basic Training graduation book the other day, my little brother had found it and saved it for me and I didn't even recognize the skinny 17 year old kid standing there in October of 1973. I tell people I grew up in the Air Force and in a very real way I did.

3709 BMTS flight 0482...... funny the things we remember , I was the chow runner....Stayed at llackland for rope( student leadership course , extra 2 weeks tech school ) and tech school proper and Air base ground defense 1 , by the time tech was over I was the only rope graduate that hadn't lost his rope for infractions or screwing up. that was 10 weeks worth of tech and abgd out at camp bullis, during abgd got 60 specialist qualified (Rambo gun) and 50 cal qualified , ( any wonder why I am deaf ?)

I was the House Mouse, so I got to watch a little TV in the barracks office while I filled out TSgt. Bales paperwork for him. I got pretty good at signing his name too.

I'll bet you I can still do a perfect salute (in a proper Air Force salute the hand is already stiff and never moves more then 4 inches from the front of you body while bring it up and to above the corner of the eyebrow or (in my case) to the rim of the eyeglasses and you will not bend your head down to meet your hand! You will keep your neck stiff and head up!) and facing movements, though not an about face while drunk. Remember, feet at exactly a 45 degree angle while standing at attention! LOL!

I only did the standard qualifying on the M16, but I did get my Marksmanship Ribbon, so I liked that. We had old Vietnam rejects that jammed if you looked at them wrong.

Yeah I started my security police career with sac

I had a good friend at Grand Forks who was a Security Police Officer guarding the missile silos. He was named John Acuna. Great guy. Claimed he was mostly Apache and I never argued with him. He was raised in East LA , was a low-rider fan and his older brother had been killed in the line of duty for the LAPD. Him and his wife Lucy had the cutest little girl named Lisa who had Muscular Dystrophy. My girlfriend at the time and I used to always volunteer to babysit for them so they could have some alone time together. Besides, once Lisa was asleep there was always the couch for Jean and me.

Or Adak.  One of the almost barren islands right at the end of the Aleutian Chain.  There was a radar station and a small Navy base...and nothing else but scrub trees, rocks and cold water.  I never went there but a friend of my younger brother was stationed there for a year.  He got a long range rifle sent to him because there was nothing at all to do when he wasn't on duty at the radar station but shoot at the rabbits and foxes that were the only wildlife.  Every now and then somebody would hit one and that was the big excitement of the day.

Randy, Mark, Ttga,

I hope you guys don't mind my eavesdropping...  Your stories are fun.

Eavesdrop away. No problem from me. They are just old military bullshit stories. True, but old memories.

My service was a lot shorter: just a year on a hill in the boonies...

Hilarious. The loony left on this site spread Iranian propaganda to defend Iran and it's best friend Barack against complaints about mistreating US sailors. Now it uses a Russian fake news sites controlled by the Kremlin as its basis to attack the President .

When the American military is involved, always trust the truly hate filled members of the loony left will parrot whatever lone America's enemies are peddling.

So if we don't like what another country does within its own borders, we just lob a missle at them. Can everybody do that or is that just us? 

So if we don't like what another country does within its own borders, we just lob a missle at them. Can everybody do that or is that just us?

Are you the guy that stands back and shoots the video of the gang rape, or are you the guy that jumps in to help the victim?

Are you the guy that stands back and shoots the video of the gang rape, or are you the guy that jumps in to help the victim?

I'm the guy who thinks that the best way to encourage others to follow international law is to follow it yourself. 

I'm the guy who thinks that the best way to encourage others to follow international law is to follow it yourself.

There is a reason why Crimes Against Humanity are called Crimes Against Humanity.

There is a reason why  Crimes Against Humanity  are called  Crimes  Against Humanity.

There's also a reason why crimes against humanity are prosecuted before an international court rather than as a unilateral knee jerk reaction by one country lobbing missles at another.

I agree completely. That's what we have international courts for.

Because they are sooooo effective....

So if we don't like what another country does within its own borders, we just lob a missle at them. Can everybody do that or is that just us?

Actually, everybody seems to be doing it, at least the Russians have been throwing bombs and missiles around like they were confetti.  Is there some, non emotional, reason that we should be held to a different standard.  Remember that this is international politics, where gentlemen decide their differences based on who has the biggest club.  It is not a kindergarten, where indefinable concepts like morality, justice, right or wrong actually matter.  Our goal may be chosen using these concepts; our methods cannot be if we expect to win.  If we have no desire or expectation of winning then lets just sit back and watch the slaughter as though it was a soap opera.

Actually, everybody seems to be doing it, at least the Russians have been throwing bombs and missiles around like they were confetti.  Is there some, non emotional, reason that we should be held to a different standard. 

Everybody thinking that might makes right is what triggered World War II. Everyone, including us, should be held to the same standard or the standard disappears. An unprovoked attack on another country is illegal under international law and we should be upholding the law not eroding it. 

Remember that this is international politics, where gentlemen decide their differences based on who has the biggest club.  It is not a kindergarten, where indefinable concepts like morality, justice, right or wrong actually matter. 

We should not be helping to make the world a jungle where only the strongest survive. The concepts of right and wrong are easily definable and make up the basis for all law.

Our goal may be chosen using these concepts; our methods cannot be if we expect to win.  If we have no desire or expectation of winning then lets just sit back and watch the slaughter as though it was a soap opera.

Assuming that Trump has identified something to "win" in Syria (which I doubt), I oppose completely any notion that we should win "by an means necessary." That's what the NAZIS and Japanese thought and it led to a world wide conflict that killed over 60 million people. 

We should not be helping to make the world a jungle where only the strongest survive.

We aren't the ones making it that way 1.  The world has been such a jungle as long as humans have inhabited it; the reality of that has not changed in the slightest, despite our silly pretensions toward civilized behavior.  We can't change that condition, as long as nations possess sovereignty. All we can do is try to survive it.  You can't survive it, either individually or as a nation, by trying to alter the conditions in the world.  The only possible way is to be the biggest dog on the block.  That implies a hierarchy of survival and is certainly not the way any of us would like it to be.  It is, however, the way the world is, and it's not going to be changed just because we don't like it.

We aren't the ones making it that way 1.  The world has been such a jungle as long as humans have inhabited it; the reality of that has not changed in the slightest, despite our silly pretensions toward civilized behavior.  We can't change that condition, as long as nations possess sovereignty. All we can do is try to survive it.  You can't survive it, either individually or as a nation, by trying to alter the conditions in the world.  The only possible way is to be the biggest dog on the block.  That implies a hierarchy of survival and is certainly not the way any of us would like it to be.  It is, however, the way the world is, and it's not going to be changed just because we don't like it.

I see things differently. The purpose of international law, like domestic law, is to create a civilized environment where people can resolve their differences based on accepted norms rather than as a pack of snarling dogs where the biggest dog rules. I'm interested in moving the world forward, not backwards to the savagery of the past. We should be subject to the same international standards as everybody else. If Trump (or anybody else) violates international law and kills people in an unprovoked attack, then I'm more than willing to turn them over for trial as war criminals to be imprisoned or hanged. 

Again, we agree. I'll second that!

I believe that the difference is that Russia was invited into Syria by Assad. We, on the other hand, were not invited in and chose to launch 59 tomahawk missiles.

This raises some questions.

What is the end game for the U.S. and what will the costs be?

What will be the response of Russia and Iran.

Russia has said that they are withdrawing from communication/agreement between the U.S. and Russia over air space. That will put American pilots in danger.

I imagine that there will more coming from the Russians.

Kav , I stated yesterday I thought the strikes were a mistake on another article , still do , the conflicting stories and all , cause me some doubts as to who actually did the gassing since it is not past either side , I predicted from now on Syrian AF air operations will have Russian , protective overflights to protect them from attacks .

Mark, I just heard that Russia will be up grading the air defenses of Syria.

IMO, Russia and or Iran will retaliate in some way, some where in the world.

Right or wrong we have inserted ourselves into the middle of a civil war.

Right or wrong we have inserted ourselves into the middle of a civil war.

Trump could just as easily bomb the other side or say he's tired of both sides or fall asleep at the wheel. Maybe the goal is to keep everybody busy scratching their heads wondering what mindless thing he'll do next. 

frankly , I don't trust either side in that civil war, so that is the main reason for my doubts .

 thank heavens , that Putin was given a reset button some time back , I wonder if it can still be used today? (SARC< couldn't resist it , sorry)

This whole thing is very dubious to me.  I have to say since Assad has been winning with the help of Russia recently, why would he be so foolish as to highlight such an atrosity as this.  It would seem self defeating at this time.

Man!  I just love coming onto this site and reading all the comments from the keyboard warriors and armchair Generals who have everything all figured out.  You people should be on speed dial with the Pentagon and the National Security Team.  Your Google powers are so strong, you know more than the guys giving the Morning Intel Briefs. 

The United States congress has allowed victims of 911 to sue Saudi Arabia and, thereby, eroded the concept of sovereign immunity. So maybe those who lost property in an illegal attack on a Syrian airbase can sue us for damages. 

Actually I heard Trump really didn't want to do this, but felt obligated to defend Obama's honor about the line in the sand threat Obama made and after all he has done for Trump. 

I thought Trump wanted to ignore Assad and get rid of ISIS. Now he's attacking Assad, to the cheers of ISIS, and threatens to drag us into Syria's internal conflict. Launching missles at a sovereign nation is an act of war. So are we now at war with Syria?

Actually I heard Trump really didn't want to do this, but felt obligated to defend Obama's honor about the line in the sand threat Obama made and after all he has done for Trump.

   Well somebody has got to grow a pair for BO don't they? 

BREAKING NEWS 

Obama is gone. There is a new President. 

Get used to it Bob.  Liberals said Bush did it First or made mention of Bush every time BO did something stupid for 8  frigging years.  It's your turn.

Oh, I don't mind a little bit of nostalgia... but among the right nowadays it seems like that is all there is. There's nothing about "our guy should do X because yada yada". There is only "Obama bad! ... Billary the devil!!"

I agree.   No original thoughts just criticism and defection.   

The irony of this comment is unparalleled.

Hahahahaha!

The use of poison gas was the reason that missiles were launched against Syria.

The use of barrel bombs, and indiscriminant killing of tens of thousands of civilians, many of them children does not warrant the  ''send a message'' missile attack.

As I understand it, Assad can keep using any other means of killing  civilians except poison gas and all is good.

I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply asking a question and with that question how do we justify killing of children as long as it isn't poison gas.

After the strike I'm hopeful that the administration has a plan going forward and have prepared themselves for a multitude of reactions that can come of this strike. Many times in the past we have blundered in with no real plan.

Most of the other ''send a message'' strikes were against countries that really could not threaten the U.S. This time around on the other side is Russia. Russia has a naval base in Syria and I doubt if they are willing to give that up, or give up their foot print in Syria.

We also have Iran there, another wild card in the mix.

The situation in Syria is extremely complicated with a number of different factions.

So we shouldnt consider NBC weapons differently? 

Should we? 

I assume you think we should have ignored the Holocaust too?

Is that your opinion? 

No. It appears to be yours.

You brought it up. It must be your opinion. 

Projection is embarrassing. I feel for you. Thank god Europe didn't have to depend on liberals like you.

That's my question Cerenkov, and if we do, why?

Because they are weapons of mass destruction that pose an existential threat to humanity?

In the amount used in Syria, it is a killer to a limited number of people. Of course the larger the amount is  more it becomes a force multiplier and the body count raises.

We intervened because poison gas was used.  Will we intervene again if a conventional bomb is used on civilians and kills hundreds.

There in lies the rub.

I don't think we should have intervened at all. Let the EU be adults and deal with their own problems. I disagree with Trump's response.

Why is Syria the EU's problem? 

Why is Syria the EU's problem?

Because that's where the refugees are going, bringing crime and terrorism with them.

Bob , you asking why is it the EUs problem is on the same line as me asking you in your article , why is it up to the USA to come up with a solution to the problems , and like I said there and then , there are 193 members of the UN , why is it only up to one or two or even just a handful? and not all 193?  why isn't it up to syrias immediate neighbors , why isn't it up to the nations that have the same belief systems?  see where I am going with that?

 if you can answer the question I qweried , maybe I can answer yours, at least to the best of my abilities understanding and beliefs.

Mark,

I can see no reason why Syria is the problem of either the EU or the US. If someone considers that there's a major humanitarian problem, then either that someone builds a multi-nation coalition or that someone takes the responsibility of going it alone. Personally, I would say that if Syria's immediate neighbors aren't motivated, then any EU or US action is doomed. 

Let's let the Saudis take the lead. 

Seeing children slaughtered is horrible. But adding tens of thousands more adult deaths is probably not a smart reaction. And until now, that has been the most evident result of our Middle East interventions. 

what I am about to say will most likely seem off topic .

The use of chemical weapons has been pretty much banned internationally for the better part of the last 100 years  for use during warfare, but every nation/state has some form of a chemical arsenal.

I am of the thoughts , that any nation that adhears to the international law and said  ban , should be actively be dismantling those arsenals that they themselves have.  the only reason I can see a nation would have a stockpile is because some other nation is stockpiling. and most sign treaties agreeing that the use is banned.

I would say , in a perfect world . what SHOULD happen , is those nations that sign such treaties on chemical weapons , that follow international laws and bans , should also without exception or alliegences, have to also enforce those self same laws and bans so that no nation has to "go it alone "as they say. and it doesn't matter how large or small a nation /state it is ,  and the message should be delivered that it is also not going to matter how large or small a nation you are , violation of international law and the bans on use , will be met with a swift strong and very ugly response , irregardless of who ones allies are in other matters.

something like this in place would mean both sides in the current Syrian situation would be shit out of luck and not just facing one or two  nations , but the combined military forces , of the civilized world, that will end the threat of use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. and those guilty should and would stand trial in front of the world in the international world court, no exceptions . 

Like you said, "should". 

"International law" is different from national law because there are no cops. Once in a while, if a country pisses off everyone... a posse assembles and smacks down the offender. Poppy Bush even had some Arab countries in the Gulf War I coalition. 

But that kind of coalition has to go through the UN, and the UN is (almost) as dysfunctional as Congress. 

Then there are regional associations of nations like tbe OAU (Organization for African Unity) that sometimes do peacekeeping. But when you read "African Unity"... you've got a pretty good idea of the problems... 

Syria (and the rest of the ME) won't improve until Iran and the Saudis agree. The US  annd the EU are irrelevant. 

Who says  that coalitions  HAVE to go through the UN ? Could the EU make agreements within itself an outside nations such as proposed? What about OAU you mentioned? or NATO? or any of the south american nations , or north American ones for that matter? what if only those nations that are members of the Nuclear club decide to form something like that? did the Geneva artcles of convention need the UN or its predisessor the league of nations? The Hague is certainly not a construct of the UN it existed prior .

We Both know that the UN is as useful as tits on a bull ,  and the only thing stopping the formation is not disagreement within the UN , the UN is immaterial and basically operates itself into irrelevance whats stopping something like I suggest is 3 things , an element of fear from distrust , and its still fear, greed be it money or influence , and the seeking of power

, which has elements in the other 2 as it has the other 2 within it.

Who says  that coalitions  HAVE to go through the UN ?

In international relations, nobody "has to" do anything. But there are only two options: go it alone, or go through an international organization. 

The biggest reason chemical weapons are banned is because they became obsolete as the major powers obtained nuclear arsenals. For non-major powers, chemical weapons are a poor man's nuclear bomb. Both are weapons of mass destruction but the range of destruction for a nuclear weapon is far greater than chemical weapons. The world should be free of them all but chemical weapon powers would no more give up their weapons of mass destruction than we will. 

The EU can say we created the problem and we should deal with it. Specifically, we toppled Saddam when the rest of the world cautioned against it. That led to Shia takeover in Iraq that sparked a Sunni rebellion. The rebellion expanded into a regional sectarian war, which spilled into Syria and led to civil war. We funded the Syrian rebels and expanded the war further which led to intervention by Iran and Russia to prop up Assad. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands more have fled. Our response? Shut the door, turn up the TV, and drown out the screams of those begging for help. 

and 1 it can be blamed also on the European community for toppling the ottoman empire that ruled the area right up until the end of the first world war, after which the area was carved up into different little European colonial mandates under European rule and influence, it could also  be blamed on the members of the EU for circumventing latter day sanctions by supplying materials banned or rigidly controlled that they disagreed with and looked the other way when it came to oversight and monitoring. breaking embargos chasing the money.

what has cause the situation? at its very basis , greed and power , no one is immune , be they the people in the area , the ones allying themselves or those in the background.

 you think it only goes back 30-40 years? then you re being willfully blind to reality.

. . . you think it only goes back 30-40 years? then you re being willfully blind to reality

Goimg back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire involves an act too remote in time to be relevant to current events . . . at least to me. 

And let's not forget the CIA overthrow of a legitimately elected Iranian Prime Minister, Mossadegh, in the 1950s. Let's not forget because the Iranians do not forget. The event is clear proof for them that America is objectively opposed to the popular will of the Iranian people.

Oh, and then... we gave satellite intelligence to Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, helping Saddam to use his chemical weapons more effectively...

Operation Ajax, run by the CIA and approved by President Eisenhower for which the Iranians never forgave us, because we took away their elected leader and instead installed a viscous dictator known as the Shah of Iran. It actually led directly to the revolution, the taking of our embassy in 1979.

I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply asking a question and with that question how do we justify killing of children as long as it isn't poison gas.

Well said. Our "humanitarian outrage" is kinda selective. Dead kids don't make much difference according to how they died. Nor dead adults, for that matter. 

This strike surely cost us more (over $100 million for the missiles) than Assad. Is that going to make him behave? I'd like to believe it, but... 

Spending money to protest dead kids is bad now? 

Is that what we did? 

So using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons should be normalized? Your inhumanity is disgusting. 

using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons should be normalized

Is this really what you think? It's disgusting! 

So you aren't willing to discuss this? You just want to lie about it? Enjoy your circle jerk, bob. It's likely the only entertainment you have. We're done.

So you aren't willing to discuss this?

With you?   

I've never seen you "discuss" anything. I've never seen anything more than snide remarks. I kinda doubt that you know what "discuss" means. 

I'm fairly confident that I know more than you on most subjects. Keep up the deflection though, it amuses us all.

That may be true... but since you never post anything but zingers, your knowledge is wasted.

Dead kids don't make much difference according to how they died.

If they did we would have fired 100 million dollars worth of food into Nigeria instead.

Feel free to do so.

The Trump budget cuts non-military foreign aid. 

And it's less then 1% of our budget!

washingtonpost

0.14% to be precise. 

There is no excuse at all to cut that. None. Remember when America had the moral high ground?

Yeah. Peace Corps.