Sending a message to Syria, via 59 Tomahawks

What we have all come to expect and love/detest from our employees that ignore us
Post Reply
User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

#1 Sending a message to Syria, via 59 Tomahawks

Post by bernomatic »

What better way to use inventory you plan on replacing with next gen models, than by using it for its purpose, blowing things up?
The Navy says it’s buying the last 100 Tomahawks this year before ending production in favor of upgrades to the inventory and starting development on a successor “Next Generation Land Attack Weapon.”
Tomahawk Launches Practiced by U.S. Before Trump Gave Go-Ahead

Now all we have to answer is, was this the right thing to do?

Anytime military force is used, it seems like someone comes out of the woodwork claiming it was not necessary. Really? As if Der Fuhrer would have just set aside his world domination dreams just to make some peaceniks happy. and BTW no calling "Godwin's law" here. This is a manly site (apologies to the babe, who really doesn't count as a man [thank God], but does understand the message and idea behind the phrase). If we were to use Godwin's law, it would be the true idea behind it (that by bringing up the Nazis, we recall the horror and devastation they wrought) and not the stupid corollary (you automatically lose the argument). In this instance actually, the idea of bringing up Hitler was to emphasize the terror he created so maybe acknowledging Godwin's law in this case is being true to its original intent.

Too many believe that this must bring forth an escalation of force in the Middle East, they cite the fact that in the past ten to twenty years that when we have interfered in that area, we have just brought more grief to all parties concerned.

To all that I say hogwash :!:
If we take a look a Donald Trump, we can see a candidate and president who has modeled himself after Ronald Reagan. Now one of the things that President Reagan did was the send a one time message to Muammar Gaddafi and while Gaddafi postured afterward about Reagan missing his target (Gaddafi), We didn't hear much from Libya until the botched affairs by the Obama administration set the country in a turmoil.

We need to sit back now, keep a watchful eye and evaluate the reactions to the attack. At least that's my thoughts.
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#2 Re: Sending a message to Syria, via 59 Tomahawks

Post by luke strawwalker »

I think we should disentangle ourselves from ALL that crap. Where we have a vital national interest, we SHOULD act... otherwise, let the idiots kill each other.

Later! OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

#3 Re: Sending a message to Syria, via 59 Tomahawks

Post by bernomatic »

luke strawwalker wrote:I think we should disentangle ourselves from ALL that crap. Where we have a vital national interest, we SHOULD act... otherwise, let the idiots kill each other.

Later! OL J R :)
I couldn't agree with you more Luke, with one condition. As long as it's only the idiots that are getting killed. That includes all the female idiots over there also, I ain't no sexist. When it comes to babies and little ones up to about age 6, I have to draw the line.

Besides in a strictly political sense, What is the President to do? If he does nothing, he is portrayed as an insensitive isolationist. If he uses force, he is a militaristic war monger.

Besides, it sends a message to some of the other idiots, ones which may be thinking of coming over here.
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#4 Re: Sending a message to Syria, via 59 Tomahawks

Post by luke strawwalker »

I'd agree with you on principle, BUT, it's a sad fact, that often noncombatants and the innocent get killed in war or become victims (maimed or injured, displaced). While it's regrettable, there is very little that realistically can be done about it.

Once you start down that road, then you have to PREEMPTIVELY take action and go into places where you REALLY have NO vital national interest, strictly because "you have to do SOMETHING for "the children"... Which basically gets you into the boat we're in now-- running around spending trillions to be the "world's policeman" and being almost universally hated for it for our trouble. Humanitarian aid is laudable, BUT, more often than not either directly aids the enemy or provides valuable exploitation or propaganda for them-- IF it even gets to who truly needs it to begin with.

That's why I'm just like "cut the damn cord" and let them paddle their own canoe... We need to be fixing OUR OWN COUNTRY and to h3ll with all these other places... because no matter what, there'll ALWAYS be another "Dirtbagistan" for folks to wring their hands over and demand someone "do something"...

Later! OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
Post Reply