Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

ikalugin · 04-07-17, 03:52 AM

Well that went to **** quickly. I guess we would have to tun in our bets if US intervenes on the ground and just keep the bases (and maybe a small puppet state in the coastal area?).

But I guess we atleast would be able to enjoy another show with a bucket of popcorn, seeing US getting stuck in Syria for a decade.

Dowly · 04-07-17, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Well that went to **** quickly.

Sure did.

Commander Wallace · 04-07-17, 05:34 AM

Just like the poor showing of Russia in Afghanistan where they got their heads handed to them from 1979 to 1989 ?

Edit. heads.

ikalugin · 04-07-17, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

Just like the poor showing of Russia in Afghanistan where they got their hands handed to them from 1979 to 1989 ?

I guess you could try to compare Iraq to Afghanistan but then:
- there was no interference by major powers in Iraq.
- Pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan worked after Soviets left as long as it was supplied. Compare and contrast with what happened in Iraq with ISIS.

Skybird · 04-07-17, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Trump's quick decision to strike Assad's forces came nearly three-and-a-half years after President Barack Obama threatened military action after hundreds were killed in a chemical attack in a Damascus suburb.

Obama declared a "red line" and was posed to strike Assad's forces before reversing course, opening him to criticism that he did not enforce his red lines and emboldened US opponents.

http://www.dw.com/en/us-launches-cru...ria/a-38332229

Skybird · 04-07-17, 06:05 AM

What remains to be seen, however, is whether this was just a singular event, a PR missile, so to speak, or indicates a lasting change in Trumpian policies. Because in principle he is not interested in the region and Syria.

Onkel Neal · 04-07-17, 06:06 AM

My question is: I thought there was a deal where the Russians ensured this would not happen again.

Skybird · 04-07-17, 05:35 AM

As long as no Russians get killed in scores and no Western ground troops get in, I'm fine with the going.

But if ever a bunker gets hit with sleeping Russian troops in it and dozens dead, then it is time to ring red alert.

And such stuff can happen in war.

If Iranians get hit, they will retaliate not in Syria, but by other means, somewhere, sometime... But then, they sell global terrorism anyway, so who cares.

The target airbase looks impressive now. Kleinholz in Streichholzlänge.

04-07-17, 05:47 AM

Quite ironic.
First Trump sheds some badly acted crocodile tears about the children killed in the chem attack, then he orders a strike that gets a handful of children killed as well.

I wonder how these collateral casualties were possible when the targets where ammunition and aircraft shelters?
(if the claims about the civilian casualties are true)

04-07-17, 03:52 AM	#1
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Well that went to **** quickly. I guess we would have to tun in our bets if US intervenes on the ground and just keep the bases (and maybe a small puppet state in the coastal area?). But I guess we atleast would be able to enjoy another show with a bucket of popcorn, seeing US getting stuck in Syria for a decade. __________________ Grumpy as always.

04-07-17, 05:34 AM	#3
Commander Wallace Navy Seal Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Under the sea in an Octupus garden in the shade Posts: 5,322 Downloads: 366 Uploads: 0	Just like the poor showing of Russia in Afghanistan where they got their heads handed to them from 1979 to 1989 ? Edit. heads. Last edited by Commander Wallace; 04-07-17 at 06:43 AM.

04-07-17, 06:05 AM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,698 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	What remains to be seen, however, is whether this was just a singular event, a PR missile, so to speak, or indicates a lasting change in Trumpian policies. Because in principle he is not interested in the region and Syria. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

04-07-17, 06:06 AM	#7
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	My question is: I thought there was a deal where the Russians ensured this would not happen again. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

04-07-17, 05:35 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,698 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	As long as no Russians get killed in scores and no Western ground troops get in, I'm fine with the going. But if ever a bunker gets hit with sleeping Russian troops in it and dozens dead, then it is time to ring red alert. And such stuff can happen in war. If Iranians get hit, they will retaliate not in Syria, but by other means, somewhere, sometime... But then, they sell global terrorism anyway, so who cares. The target airbase looks impressive now. Kleinholz in Streichholzlänge. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

04-07-17, 05:47 AM	#9
Nippelspanner Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Quite ironic. First Trump sheds some badly acted crocodile tears about the children killed in the chem attack, then he orders a strike that gets a handful of children killed as well. I wonder how these collateral casualties were possible when the targets where ammunition and aircraft shelters? (if the claims about the civilian casualties are true)