Trump launches military strike against Syria

[Aurielius]

@Whinging Wizard

 

Chuckles...OK lets start from the top. We claim the Syrians lost 20 out of 100-110* Ground Attack capable fixed wing assets ( they have more aircraft but these numbers reflect those that are currently capable of ground attack. Consisting of Mig 23's, Su 22's and Su-24's), lets be conservative and allow that the Russian report of 4 being missed or currently flight worthy from Sharat AFB. So that is roughly a 15%-20% loss, which is considered considerable in terms of aviation combat attrition. The current viability of the runways is immaterial. They were a tertiary target, hit to prevent a scramble take off of the primary objective, it worked. The primary targets were the aircraft, secondary targets were the support facilities both of which were successfully destroyed. If you are going to critique a military op it would help if you actually knew something about the subject.

 

*Janes IHS- 2014 Reported as of the start of the Civil War. ( If normal combat / mechanical attrition is in play the actual flight worthy numbers of Ground Attack aircraft should be closer to 90.)

 

 

As for my dialogue with TheMastersSon, he was doing just fine by himself. It is droll that you thought he needed an assist. I have always believed that when an another debater has made a salient point that one should acknowledge the validity of it, especially if one is in diametrical disagreement about the majority of his thesis. It's called being civil to someone with a honestly held divergent opinion. However that you see a concession of a debating point as narcissism speaks volumes about your perspective.

 

"your cute".... :ermm: Thanks, but you are not my type.

[Skagens]

Ouch, poor Gandalf got demolished. :laugh:

[gandalftw]

@Whinging Wizard

 

Chuckles...OK lets start from the top. We claim the Syrians lost 20 out of 100-110* Ground Attack capable fixed wing assets ( they have more aircraft but these numbers reflect those that are currently capable of ground attack. Consisting of Mig 23's, Su 22's and Su-24's), lets be conservative and allow that the Russian report of 4 being missed or currently flight worthy from Sharat AFB. So that is roughly a 15%-20% loss, which is considered considerable in terms of aviation combat attrition. The current viability of the runways is immaterial. They were a tertiary target, hit to prevent a scramble take off of the primary objective, it worked. The primary targets were the aircraft, secondary targets were the support facilities both of which were successfully destroyed. If you are going to critique a military op it would help if you actually knew something about the subject.

 

*Janes IHS- 2014 Reported as of the start of the Civil War. ( If normal combat / mechanical attrition is in play the actual flight worthy numbers of Ground Attack aircraft should be closer to 90.)

 

 

As for my dialogue with TheMastersSon, he was doing just fine by himself. It is droll that you thought he needed an assist. I have always believed that when an another debater has made a salient point that one should acknowledge the validity of it, especially if one is in diametrical disagreement about the majority of his thesis. It's called being civil to someone with a honestly held divergent opinion. However that you see a concession of a debating point as narcissism speaks volumes about your perspective.

 

"your cute".... :ermm: Thanks, but you are not my type.

Ok Chuckles,you win!!!You are the masterdebater now go find a mirror like a good narcissist and enjoy your victory with a lovely selfie.A word to the wise keep your face out of the video for it will,believe me,come back to haunt you. Hehe..

 

If you haven't noticed,i hate pumpkinhead,he's a narcissist too btw,so my motivation wasn't to debate it's attempt at improving it's approval rating,my only motivation was to point out it's hypocrisy.So your pumpkinhead took twenty planes and killed nine citizens,four of which were children,apparently murdering innocent citizens is a success in your book as long as it takes out 20 aircraft?Wow your kind are demented.

 

Not your type?Wth?I am very hairy and strong like bull,what's not to love?

[gandalftw]

Ouch, poor Gandalf got demolished. :laugh:

Oh, go off with your redheaded self.

[HeyYou]

 

@Whinging Wizard

 

Chuckles...OK lets start from the top. We claim the Syrians lost 20 out of 100-110* Ground Attack capable fixed wing assets ( they have more aircraft but these numbers reflect those that are currently capable of ground attack. Consisting of Mig 23's, Su 22's and Su-24's), lets be conservative and allow that the Russian report of 4 being missed or currently flight worthy from Sharat AFB. So that is roughly a 15%-20% loss, which is considered considerable in terms of aviation combat attrition. The current viability of the runways is immaterial. They were a tertiary target, hit to prevent a scramble take off of the primary objective, it worked. The primary targets were the aircraft, secondary targets were the support facilities both of which were successfully destroyed. If you are going to critique a military op it would help if you actually knew something about the subject.

 

*Janes IHS- 2014 Reported as of the start of the Civil War. ( If normal combat / mechanical attrition is in play the actual flight worthy numbers of Ground Attack aircraft should be closer to 90.)

 

 

As for my dialogue with TheMastersSon, he was doing just fine by himself. It is droll that you thought he needed an assist. I have always believed that when an another debater has made a salient point that one should acknowledge the validity of it, especially if one is in diametrical disagreement about the majority of his thesis. It's called being civil to someone with a honestly held divergent opinion. However that you see a concession of a debating point as narcissism speaks volumes about your perspective.

 

"your cute".... :ermm: Thanks, but you are not my type.

Ok Chuckles,you win!!!You are the masterdebater now go find a mirror like a good narcissist and enjoy your victory with a lovely selfie.A word to the wise keep your face out of the video for it will,believe me,come back to haunt you. Hehe..

 

If you haven't noticed,i hate pumpkinhead,he's a narcissist too btw,so my motivation wasn't to debate it's attempt at improving it's approval rating,my only motivation was to point out it's hypocrisy.So your pumpkinhead took twenty planes and killed nine citizens,four of which were children,apparently murdering innocent citizens is a success in your book as long as it takes out 20 aircraft?Wow your kind are demented.

 

Not your type?Wth?I am very hairy and strong like bull,what's not to love?

 

And what hypocrisy would that be? Using facts to debunk your 'argument'?

 

It's a war. In war, people die. Sometimes, those folks are civilians. The US military generally takes great pains to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, however, if there are civilians in the target area, there is not a lot we can do about that. Should we simply not destroy a key target, just because there *might* be a civilian there? Would that be a viable strategy? Not hardly. At one point in time, we bombed a city, killing thousands of civilians, just to see what effect it would have on enemy morale...... Of course, in those days, we didn't have 'smart' weapons, and our tactics for destroying a target was to drop a HUGE number of bombs, and blanket the entire area. Civilian casualties were guaranteed there. Not the case any more. Civilians still die, but, not even close to the numbers as in previous wars. Professing that 'even one' civilian casualty is 'too many' is unrealistic.

[gandalftw]

 

And what hypocrisy would that be? Using facts to debunk your 'argument'?

 

Ok Chuckles,you win!!!You are the masterdebater now go find a mirror like a good narcissist and enjoy your victory with a lovely selfie.A word to the wise keep your face out of the video for it will,believe me,come back to haunt you. Hehe..

 

If you haven't noticed,i hate pumpkinhead,he's a narcissist too btw,so my motivation wasn't to debate it's attempt at improving it's approval rating,my only motivation was to point out it's hypocrisy.So your pumpkinhead took twenty planes and killed nine citizens,four of which were children,apparently murdering innocent citizens is a success in your book as long as it takes out 20 aircraft?Wow your kind are demented.

 

Not your type?Wth?I am very hairy and strong like bull,what's not to love?

 

 

It's a war. In war, people die. Sometimes, those folks are civilians. The US military generally takes great pains to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, however, if there are civilians in the target area, there is not a lot we can do about that. Should we simply not destroy a key target, just because there *might* be a civilian there? Would that be a viable strategy? Not hardly. At one point in time, we bombed a city, killing thousands of civilians, just to see what effect it would have on enemy morale...... Of course, in those days, we didn't have 'smart' weapons, and our tactics for destroying a target was to drop a HUGE number of bombs, and blanket the entire area. Civilian casualties were guaranteed there. Not the case any more. Civilians still die, but, not even close to the numbers as in previous wars. Professing that 'even one' civilian casualty is 'too many' is unrealistic.

 

The hypocrisy of pumpkinhead is what i was talking about.Pay attention..Hehehe...

Edited April 11, 2017 by gandalftw

[gandalftw]

Even more hypocrisy.

 

 

"@mguarino64: @realDonaldTrump " How would you treat the Syria situation if president ?" I'd let them all fight with each other-focus on US!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2013

Any American who fights w/ ISIS in Iraq or Syria should have their passport revoked. If they try to come back in, send them to Gitmo.

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2014

If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2013

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2013

We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2013

Some also pointed out Trump's hypocrisy in showing compassion for children in Syria who suffered the chemical attacks, but not for those fleeing the civil war and seeking refuge in the United States.

[HeyYou]

Oooo, a politician altered his position on a topic by a tiny bit, and that makes him a 'hypocrite'. Well, I guess all presidents are hypocrites then.

[gandalftw]

Oooo, a politician altered his position on a topic by a tiny bit, and that makes him a 'hypocrite'. Well, I guess all presidents are hypocrites then.

That's right now you're catching on.Good on ya.

[HeyYou]

 

Oooo, a politician altered his position on a topic by a tiny bit, and that makes him a 'hypocrite'. Well, I guess all presidents are hypocrites then.

That's right now you're catching on.Good on ya.

 

So, if all of them do it, and on a fairly regular basis at that, why single out trump for it? Not a single politician has stated a position, and then never varied from it. So why does it seem you think it a capitol crime for trump to do so? Or is it only OK when the dems do it?