When they shot down a first generation stealth aircraft (F-117) that was end of life with what amounted to a lucky shot in ideal circumstances. Not to say that stealth is unbeatable, but this is perhaps not the optimal example of it’s limitations.
Would you feel it was a “Wag The Dog” antic if it had been a President Clinton ordering the strike? She seems to be supportive of it.
Well, here is CNN’s early release footage of the strike.
I would seem the only source for this info is the Syrian government. Do you believe them?
Your cite doesn’t give a source, but all the other news sources I’ve seen reporting this list the Syrian government as the source.
Some people, perhaps not Velocity, equate them to Wonder Woman’s plane.
They think they are invisible.
Unfortunately not, and less so as time goes by.
We have prior threadabout that.
Yes, MHO is that any rational despot would have seen Trump and Tillerson’s prior statements as a green light to do whatever the fuck he wanted without fear of any reaction/response. If you want to debate that then there is that thread but I think it is past the point. It’s past.
59 Tomahawks launched, and all we managed to kill were a handful of soldiers and civilians?
Was it a state holiday where almost everyone stayed home? Were these mini-tomahawks with the explosive power of a large firecracker? Were 99% of the soldiers wearing their bomb-proof undeerwear that day?
How the flying fuck do you throw 59 fucking Tomahawks at a military installation, and not manage to kill a fucking minimum of one soldier per missile…unless that target has already been mostly evacuated?
Was she in favor of giving them advanced notice so that minimum damage would result?
Thanks. I wasn’t trying to derail this thread, I just didn’t understand what you were talking about. You clarified it nicely, and like you said, it’s past, so I won’t dwell on it.
And I’m open to alternate sources popping in with more info. What is our government, or any other source, claiming as to damage done and people killed?
If she wasn’t then she would be crazy. Basically, if we hadn’t and if Russian tech or pilots were caught in the attack it would have been a huge international issue. Frankly, I’m surprised Trump et al thought of it and actually authorized it (it actually happened at a much lower level in a system we set up with the Russians in 2015 so as not to have any unexpected clashes…so, maybe Trump never listed to the briefing). Do you have a serious issue with this aspect? Because…well, I’m not getting why you would. 
There are various competing claims. Here is the Pentagon’s statement and I’ll quote the bits that I think you’ll find most interesting:
However it’s characterized, I was against it (and posted as such on this board), and still am.
Third choice: If there was danger to the Russians because this particular target could bring them harm, and there was no way to warn the Russians to haul their personnel and equipment out of there without warning the Syrians to do the same, then in my opinion it is no longer a viable target and you should find another way to accomplish your stated goal without undermining yourself. If you are sending over 59 Tomahawk missiles to a single target, then the message is that you intend to do maximum damage-that old fashioned “shock and awe” in action. This is what makes me question both the intent and the ultimate result of this particular action.
Here are some of the competing claims as well:
Russia says only 23 of the Tomahawks actually hit the base and
In contrast, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the base was “almost completely destroyed”.
But, well, why? We hit the base where the planes that did the chemical attacks flew out of…why hit somewhere else?? We damaged the base, destroyed some planes and infrastructure, and we attempted to warn the Russians ahead of time so they could get out. We didn’t, in fact, do a ‘shock and awe’ response (surprisingly), even though we could have launched hundreds of tomahawks followed by airstrikes. Instead, it was a measured response who’s intent was, again surprisingly, not to do the maximum damage or cause the maximum casualties, but instead was crafted to send a message that such attacks won’t be tolerated in the future. Whether Prez Carrot Top actually follows through on that…well, who knows what the guy is going to do? But I am really not understanding your objections here. It seems to me that this was nearly optimal, from our perspective…was low risk, didn’t kill a lot of people, yet put Syria on notice and will at least make them more circumspect (and, basically, go back to killing their civilians the old fashioned way). I’m not hearing many if any of our allies objecting, even the Dems seems mainly on board so far.
The Pentagon said “The strike was intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again.” We’ll have to wait and see if that goal is accomplished.
So the first report indicates that some of the missiles might have missed the base and hit the town, and the second seems to indicate that much more people were killed than was initially reported unless the base was almost entirely deserted beforehand.
My guess is that the planning went something like this:
**
*
<<Trump Turns off TV and gets on phone to General Mattis>>***
**Trump: ** Hey Jim, I just watched on Fox News that Assaad is killing babies in Syria! Wee Little babies, Jim! Did you hear about this?
**Mattis: ** Yes, Mr. President, I think you were tweeting about Hillary at the time, but in last weeks security briefing we discussed the extent of Assad’s military actions against civilians and in particular his…
**Trump: ** Never mind, you can apologize later. Vlad said Assad was a good guy but now he’s started killing babies, Jim! We’ve got to do something! What can we do?
**Mattis: ** Well, we have several contingency plans available for military actions in Syria, for example we could do a missile strike from naval ships we have in the region, but we should consider the diplomatic effects of attacking a soverign…
**Trump: ** Yeah, let’s do that missile thingee. Make it happen. Thanks so much for taking care of this. I’m heading for bed.
**Mattis: ** But Mr. president we should really take some time to consider …
**Trump: ** Oh one last thing, can you get Vlad on the phone and let him know what were doing, I promised I would give him a heads up before I did anything to another country. Also he needs to know that his friend Assad is killing babies, I’m sure he’ll be shocked to hear that. Good night.
**Mattis: **Good night, Mr President.
How much advanced notice was given, btw?