Cheers.

LOL. Humorists wrote that article.
1. In the reality, all air defense systems have their effective zone of operation. That airbase was not in zone of Russian air defense systems in Syria.
2. In the photos of air base after bombing, if to count the exlosion funnels, it's not 59.

Cheers.

LOL. Humorists wrote that article.
1. In the reality, all air defense systems have their effective zone of operation. That airbase was not in zone of Russian air defense systems in Syria.
2. In the photos of air base after bombing, if to count the exlosion funnels, it's not 59.

1: So why were Russians on that base?
2: It did get hit did it not?

LOL. Humorists wrote that article.

Well they seem to write every link that you post Igor. ;-)

Cheers.

1: So why were Russians on that base?

Russian military specialists are present in the many locations, where located Syrian army forces.

2: It did get hit did it not?

9 destroyed ancient Syrian jets and old Iranian military truck - it's very big result! LOL. 4 or 5 hours after bombing, and airbase begin work again.

9 destroyed ancient Syrian jets and old Iranian military truck - it's very big result! LOL. 4 or 5 hours after bombing, and airbase begin work again.

As ancient as these?

"But the turbo-prop powered strategic bomber took its maiden flight in 1952 (Russian "Bears") and has recently suffered a number of technical glitches, resulting in a dramatic crash in January and the temporary grounding of the fleet last year."

Cheers.

LOL. Humorists wrote that article.
1. In the reality, all air defense systems have their effective zone of operation. That airbase was not in zone of Russian air defense systems in Syria.
2. In the photos of air base after bombing, if to count the exlosion funnels, it's not 59.

https://www.rferl.org/a/weher-was-the-s-300-s-400-missile-defense-systems/28417014.html
MOSCOW -- In confirming the deployment of its S-300 and state-of-the art S-400 missile-defense systems in Syria, the Kremlin boasted six months ago that it had secured the country's air bases from American cruise missiles.
But after a barrage of U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles hit the Syrian government air base at Shayrat on April 7, where some Russian military personnel were stationed, consternated Russians took to social networks asking: "Where the hell were the vaunted S-400s?"
“Am I the only one who doesn’t understand why our S-400s…. didn’t shoot down the American rockets?” asked one Twitter user.

BTW Igor, how's that job of yours going with the Russian Propaganda Service these days?

Cheers.

Snort chuckle snort.

Only the USA has the target list so who is to say how many missed. Unless it is saying something about how Russian Generals plan for war and what they would have targeted?

US may not have had 59 separate targets, they my have been expecting a failure of two.

As to the ammo revetments, I suspect they had multiple strikes on them to be sure and crack them open. Airplanes wouldn't need that as a pile of shrapnel would kill a plane as well as a direct hit. And you don't need to kill the shelter to kill the airplane under it.

Now as to these Russian Air Defenses, after the nice de-confliction call I expect they were in the safe/off mode just as they should be.

As to those planes by the side of the runway, the ones that haven't moved in a decade, google earth is such fun, why waste ammo on them?

Now did they hit the fuel depot or not?

Yes, they can truck in fuel but it limits how much flying you can do.

Now as to that old truck, was it the only one with a hoist to put chemical munitions into a plane?

If I was a betting man, I'd bet the damage was less than the American propaganda and far worse than the Russian propaganda.

---

Here is an article from the Irish Times I share because it's pretty close to my take on the situation:

President Donald Trump’s airstrikes against Syria were of dubious legality. They were hypocritical. They were impulsive. They may have had political motivations. They create new risks for the United States.

But most of all, they were right.

I’m deeply suspicious of Trump’s policies and competence, but this is a case where he is right and Barack Obama was wrong. Indeed, many of us believe that Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake was his passivity in Syria.

I try to be pragmatic in my views on how a leader is doing based on their actions themselves, rather than tacitly either accepting or dismissing them because of their political "alignment" or their party. So far Donald Trump has done a lot I disagree with, but I do find myself agreeing with this as it seems to have put humanitarian concerns over political ones. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my take on it. The most honest and reliable humanitarian groups (ie Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International) have been documenting the human rights abuses of the civil war and the al-Assad regime for six years. Chemical and other banned weapons have been used on civilians numerous times, four hundred thousand dead, six million refugees. If this can cause the regime to have second thoughts about using banned weapons again, or bring them to the negotiating table, then it was necessary.

Saving children from being nerve-gassed to death by their own government may be the best use of cruise missiles I have yet heard of. Better to use them on this than something more dubious.

Edit: Oh, a peaceful Syria is also essential to making ISIS/Daesh go away, so there is an actual benefit for the U.S. (and allies) in there too.

---

Mr. Kevvy and other warmongers:

You need to step back and see what it is you are advocating. You are advocating that the USA enforce a Judaeo-christian moral code on others, who have a different code, by force*. I do not see the USA as some pillar of moral virtue that everyone should look up to like some God. I do not see the USA acting alone to enforce a multiparty treaty as correct. I see a bully using force to make others hew to the bully's moral code. A very immoral act.

If it is fine, then perhaps Russia should lob some cruise missiles into Washington DC to force America to give up Bush jr to stand trial for Abu Ghrib and all the extra ordinary renditions, after all if one country can be a moral policeman then any other country should be able to as well.

Both my examples are from multi-party treaties. Treaties which have no teeth. That is what should be occupying the president's time. Putting some teeth in those treaties. Such that they meet and decide -- no veto -- if a country has violated the treaty they signed. If guilty all the rest are bound to act against the violator [or at least pay for weapons and troops.]

Now before you all say I advocate gassing babies, I do not. I find Assad to be a subhuman. He should be gassed with a slow acting agent , an eye for a eye, but I don't have the right to do that. The only people who do are his subjects and through legal means, not some kangaroo court.

The problem in Syria is far to deep to just remove Assad. Yes he has to go, but you can't leave a power vacuum as was done in Iraq and ISIL sprouts to fill it.

As to war, and make no mistake lobbing 59 cruise missiles is war, it should only be engaged in when the result you seek is surrender. I don't see the USA wanting to force Syria to surrender, occupying it and turning it into the 51st state.

Obama learned the lessons of Vietnam well. Too bad shrub didn't. His ham handed policies and willingness to believe propaganda gave birth to the mess we have now. tRump seems hell bent on making the mess worse.

The UN needs to move against Syria. Perhaps Mr. tRump should use the nuclear option as he did for SCOTUS and get around Russia's veto. However the USA has made so many enemies by its own use of the veto, it has no one to blame.

I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.



*That is exactly what ISIL wants to do, enforce their code on others.

---

Mr. Kevvy and other warmongers:

You need to step back and see what it is you are advocating. You are advocating that the USA enforce a Judaeo-christian moral code on others, who have a different code, by force*. I do not see the USA as some pillar of moral virtue that everyone should look up to like some God. I do not see the USA acting alone to enforce a multiparty treaty as correct. I see a bully using force to make others hew to the bully's moral code. A very immoral act.

If it is fine, then perhaps Russia should lob some cruise missiles into Washington DC to force America to give up Bush jr to stand trial for Abu Ghrib and all the extra ordinary renditions, after all if one country can be a moral policeman then any other country should be able to as well.

Both my examples are from multi-party treaties. Treaties which have no teeth. That is what should be occupying the president's time. Putting some teeth in those treaties. Such that they meet and decide -- no veto -- if a country has violated the treaty they signed. If guilty all the rest are bound to act against the violator [or at least pay for weapons and troops.]

Now before you all say I advocate gassing babies, I do not. I find Assad to be a subhuman. He should be gassed with a slow acting agent , an eye for a eye, but I don't have the right to do that. The only people who do are his subjects and through legal means, not some kangaroo court.

The problem in Syria is far to deep to just remove Assad. Yes he has to go, but you can't leave a power vacuum as was done in Iraq and ISIL sprouts to fill it.

As to war, and make no mistake lobbing 59 cruise missiles is war, it should only be engaged in when the result you seek is surrender. I don't see the USA wanting to force Syria to surrender, occupying it and turning it into the 51st state.

Obama learned the lessons of Vietnam well. Too bad shrub didn't. His ham handed policies and willingness to believe propaganda gave birth to the mess we have now. tRump seems hell bent on making the mess worse.

The UN needs to move against Syria. Perhaps Mr. tRump should use the nuclear option as he did for SCOTUS and get around Russia's veto. However the USA has made so many enemies by its own use of the veto, it has no one to blame.

I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.



*That is exactly what ISIL wants to do, enforce their code on others.

+100......

What was he thinking.

Sean Spicer Holocaust denier?

I suppose the answer is he wasn't.

What was he thinking.

Sean Spicer Holocaust denier?

I suppose the answer is he wasn't.

That's the alternate reality for you Bernie. ;-)

Cheers.

What was he thinking.
Sean Spicer Holocaust denier?
I suppose the answer is he wasn't.

Oops:)

During an appearance on CNN on Tuesday evening, Spicer said he did not want his comments on Hitler to distract from Trump's attempts "to destabilize the region."

What was he thinking.

Sean Spicer Holocaust denier?

I suppose the answer is he wasn't.

That's the alternate reality for you Bernie. ;-)

It isn't alternate to them!

and the silence for this proves they have already yelled wolf so many times no one is listening anymore.

---

Mr. Kevvy and other warmongers:

Geez, agree with one little military action in, well... I can't remember since when... and I'm a "warmonger".

If it is fine, then perhaps Russia should lob some cruise missiles into Washington DC to force America to give up Bush jr to stand trial for Abu Ghrib and all the extra ordinary renditions, after all if one country can be a moral policeman then any other country should be able to as well.

Bad analogy as that would accomplish nothing as there is no immediate threat of another Iraq invasion. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell et al should have been impeached/fired and jailed for what they did to Iraq. It is not comparable to this at all as it was a full-scale invasion on very bad manufactured evidence linking to an unrelated event which (most of) the rest of the world could see was nothing more than a ruse to get at their oil reserves.

You are advocating that the USA enforce a Judaeo-christian moral code on others, who have a different code, by force

Again, the restriction against nerve-gassing civilians including children is not a "Judaeo-christian" moral code. It is a universal one.

---

Mr. Kevvy and other warmongers:

You need to step back and see what it is you are advocating. You are advocating that the USA enforce a Judaeo-christian moral code on others, who have a different code, by force*.

---

*That is exactly what ISIL wants to do, enforce their code on others.

Why bring religion into this? Is it not possible to have a moral code without reference to the imagined whisperings of some sky-wizard?

Is it truly impossible for an atheist to hold that killing those that have done nothing wrong, especially young children, is WRONG?

While I am not an atheist, my moral code of behavior is secular, having as its basis 'property rights'. And in my moral code of behavior, you don't go around gassing babies. If you do, start expecting something to get done to yourself.

To extend your line of reasoning here, we should then empty our jails and then destroy them (the jails). Let all the convicted murderers, robbers, and rapists go, with a sincere apology for ruining their lives.

I find Assad to be a subhuman.

Oh,really..... That speaks volumes about you. That is a nice short-cut you have there to get what you want... One that has been used MANY MANY times by various people down through history...

'Oh, the <insert racial/ethnic/gender group name here> are not really 'people', so they can be oppressed/slain without any moral difficulty'.

Didn't we in the USA fight a very bloody civil war (and a host of other wars and disagreements) over that one?

In short, Mr. Assad's behavior has passed the point of it being acceptable to being ignored. He has used chemical weapons on his own people. Just as a certain Saddam Hussein of Iraq did before he met his end at the hands of the US military (his rule in Iraq) and the people of Iraq(his life).

I am sorry. While I do not (usually) approve of war, I think Trump made the correct decision here (though I still think that overall, Trump is a bad person to be POTUS). Trump did an attack on the Military assets that Assad used to gas has own people. I understand that Assad is trying to defend his government against rebel attack in a civil war. If Assad had confined his operation to 'standard, regular' bombs and bullets, then what Trump ordered would have been dead wrong... But, Assad whipped out Sarin and used it. *That* merited a response from various members of the International Community.

My congratulations to whoever in Trump's circle of advisors that convinced him to go this way with his response. I might not have been so... wise... in my response if I was POTUS. When I heard about the Sarin attack and saw the pictures, I will admit (to my own discredit) that *my* first thought on the subject was 'nuke the sunnybeach'. It took me a couple of hours to calm down and think clearly on the subject and realize that that would have made me just as bad as (indeed likely worse than) Assad.

I still consider Trump to be poison... BUT, in this case, I think Trump acted properly. Now, what to do about the fat kid running things in the DPRK.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

My congratulations to whoever in Trump's circle of advisors that convinced him to go this way with his response.

May have been an unexpected advisor...

Also my apologies for being cliché but +1 KWSN-MK on that. :^)

---

Mr. Kevvy and other warmongers:

You need to step back and see what it is you are advocating. You are advocating that the USA enforce a Judaeo-christian moral code on others, who have a different code, by force*.

---

*That is exactly what ISIL wants to do, enforce their code on others.

Why bring religion into this? Is it not possible to have a moral code without reference to the imagined whisperings of some sky-wizard?

Well Mr. ID said morals can only come from sky-wizards, ethics are from humans. The rest of your scree says I'm right and you are going to force your code on others. You also seem to think your code is universal, if that is from ignorance or hubris, I don't know, but there are other cultures that have very different values because they have very different sky-wizards.

Is it truly impossible for an atheist to hold that killing those that have done nothing wrong, especially young children, is WRONG?

see next line

I find Assad to be a subhuman.

Oh,really..... That speaks volumes about you. That is a nice short-cut you have there to get what you want... One that has been used MANY MANY times by various people down through history...

Dictators for life aren't human. No human could hold such a view.

My congratulations to whoever in Trump's circle of advisors that convinced him to go this way with his response.

So the man with his finger on the button of enough nukes to wipe out the planet should be subject to emotional visceral reactions and not thought out reason. At least shrub's advisors kept him from nuking Afghanistan out of existence.

Sorry MK, rights are rights, just because the crime is horrible the police officer doesn't get to blow the criminal away with some street justice. So when is the trial? Is the defendant going to be represented by legal counsel? Will the defendant be able to examine the witnesses against him? Or is it only when you feel like it that people have rights? Speaks volumes about your lack of an ethical code.

And those Syrian soldiers tRump killed, are you 100% sure they were involved, or did our president just murder innocents as you accuse Assad of doing? Two wrongs don't make a right!

---

BTW Igor, how's that job of yours going with the Russian Propaganda Service these days?

This phrase is a nice example of way of thinking that is result of constantly pro-US hidden propaganda.