US launches Tomahawks on Syrian airbases

ITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned on Thursday of "negative consequences" if the United States carries out military strikes on Syria over a deadly toxic gas attack.

"We have to think about negative consequences, negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic enterprise," Safronkov told reporters when asked about possible U.S. strikes.

So does this mean we can drop the Russia stooge thing?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Same as in the other thread.

What in the actual f)(#????

News breaks that Syria used gas on children, next day were launching missiles at their infrastructure. Preceded by HRC coming out of the basement to say "Hay guyz!! I would totally lauch missiles at their airfields!"

Red flags should be raised in minds across the world.

a reply to: DBCowboy

well then, I guess there will be some more bridge collapses due to "electrical fires" or perhaps sudden "pipeline disruptions". Expect to see more spectacular "infrastructure failures" soon.

originally posted by: vjr1113
No WAR!!!

we dont need more wounded vets

That's easily resolved. We have the capacity to render Syria into a grease spot without ever setting a single American foot down on Syrian soil. If we go that route, fighting this from a position in which it is impossible to suffer US casualties, the price is low and internal backlash shouldn't be all that high.

Well that escalated quickly.

I do have to wonder if the timing is to show China Trump means business on NK..

Watch Russia.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Only $1,600,000 a piece. $80,000,000 for the bunch of 50, was there a bulk discount?

This is how the world ends.

a reply to: face23785

my point is, straight to launching missiles, we dont know of any diplomacy that took place and remember Putin is Assad's friend, so how is this gonna work out? i have no clue.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

Same as in the other thread.

What in the actual f)(#????

News breaks that Syria used gas on children, next day were launching missiles at their infrastructure. Preceded by HRC coming out of the basement to say "Hay guyz!! I would totally lauch missiles at their airfields!"

Red flags should be raised in minds across the world.

You put that in my thread ( now closed )
This thread is better!🙄

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: vjr1113
No WAR!!!

we dont need more wounded vets

That's easily resolved. We have the capacity to render Syria into a grease spot without ever setting a single American foot down on Syrian soil. If we go that route, fighting this from a position in which it is impossible to suffer US casualties, the price is low and internal backlash shouldn't be all that high.

Cost in lives maybe but cost will depend on how many missiles we launch lol they're not cheap.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Be careful about slapping that Russian bear by mistake... its got claws of its own.

I know this was inevitable, but...

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

Finally... things get interesting!

Get out the popcorn!

Hey Blueajah,

They are targeting locations where chemical weapons are stored.

Fair enough, but when exactly did they receive intel on this? Fairly crucial to the plot methinks.

originally posted by: Wookiep
Well that escalated quickly.

I do have to wonder if the timing is to show China Trump means business on NK..

Watch Russia.

Russia is rational, watch North Korea and Iran. Either or both are serious risks to take this as an opportunity to get uppity and try something.

originally posted by: Ohanka
This is how the world ends.

That's a major exaggeration.

Trump gets things done. Something had to be done.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: face23785

my point is, straight to launching missiles, we dont know of any diplomacy that took place and remember Putin is Assad's friend, so how is this gonna work out? i have no clue.

They've been doing diplomacy on Syria since 2011. Just sayin. I'm not advocating to invade, but just taking out some chemical weapons facilities to reinforce that no you SHOULD NOT use these is fine with me.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Good point. I think it's safe to say Trump isn't in bed with Russia at this point. Maybe that's another reason for this. Sheesh.

Not a good move IMO, it didn't even go though congress as far as I know...Not to mention this whole thing reeks of 2013 when Kerry, McCain and Obama were pulling for "limited strikes" when there was more evidence that the "rebels" did the chem attack.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Breaking. . . . NBC NEWS: President Trump has launched over 50 Tomahawk missiles, striking Syria


mobile.twitter.com...

Anyone could have seen this one coming from miles away.

And don't forget - we let the Russians know we're coming via back-channels so they can get their assets out of harms way. Additionally, they agree to do nothing about this except maybe huff and puff a little, if that. And then as a thank you to the Russians for their "cooperation", sanctions are lifted by the end of the year.

The Russian's get richer, Trump keeps on Trumping, and the pageant continues while they dance the night away...

originally posted by: JinMI
Hey Blueajah,

They are targeting locations where chemical weapons are stored.

Fair enough, but when exactly did they receive intel on this? Fairly crucial to the plot methinks.

Good question. I think they must have known the locations for a long time, but no one else was doing anything about it.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Ohanka
This is how the world ends.

That's a major exaggeration.

Trump gets things done. Something had to be done.

Maybe he should've launched the missiles at terrorist locations?

This is Hillary's foreign policy. People for Trump to avoid exactly this kind of bull#.