Yup, hence the price tag. Blows my mind how accurate they are.

We could probably support 10,000 refugees at the cost of one of those, assuming none of them had a job (which most will).

Not to mention we are celebrating our Native American heritage with pride every time the word "Tomohawk" is repeated tonight...

Who do you think Assad got the chemical weapons from that just so happen to be the same Saddam had used to kill thousands of people?

By the way, there were chemical weapons in Iraq, not that I think we should have gone in, but your "bs" claim is simply false.Dude some of these people and their comments are astounding.

What's your salary's percentage of the federal budget?

We're going to slowly see it happen overnight.

id MUCH rather the money be spent on the missile(srs)

This. May as well start agreeing with liberal argument that terrorism doesnt matter because people are more likely to trip down the stairs and die than be killed by a Muslim.

Nah, I think it was definitely Assad and I'm not sure why people would be reluctant to believe that it was him. He is a piece of garbage and we shouldn't support him, but we shouldn't topple him either. How about the ******* Arab countries and Erdogan do something already? All they too is bitch and whine.

I dont know whats going on so im just over here like

I am CS master race, and I cant even fathom the brain power required to design something like that.

I've got to agree man.

There are some full blown idiots in here.

As a military brah, not a huge fan of this and the bull**** justification. Why would Assad wait until now to drop chemical weapons and for what goal? The US is already shelling the **** out of the country and kicking in doors.

I'd rather see North Korea have their C2 and missile development structures taken out than this ****.

Agreed. To die to any sort of bomb would be terrible. It isn't something that should happen to any innocent person but innocent people die all of the time all over the world. It isn't our responsibility to stop it from happening.Not sure how that's relevant at all.

People certainly, certainly, absolutely no doubt about it, suffer from normal bombs too. Absolutely no doubt about it. Suffering happens in war. Why does it matter what caused the suffering? Chemical weapon, normal bomb, fire, building collapsing and crushing a person, bullet, whatever, they're all going to cause suffering. I don't think that it matters. Suffering happens. Suffering in war happens. Innocent people die. Innocent people die in war. Syria is in a civil war. It isn't our responsibility to stop it or to make sure that the Syrian people don't suffer in certain ways.

Sounds good to stick your head in the sand but the reality is we live globally.

Makes you wonder what cool sh!t our military has that we haven't even heard of.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...y-to-use-nukes

"The reality is that when it comes to using the bomb, the president has almost complete autonomy with no institutional checks and balances. There are no interagency meetings, congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, or UN votes. As Bruce Blair, a former Air Force nuclear missile launch officer, has said, “the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy.”

Yes, there are many systems in place to prevent nuclear weapons from being launched by an unauthorized person or by accident. But currently there is no way to prevent a president from starting nuclear war."

Or we could fix some of our infrastructure that's falling apart. Or help businesses to expand. Or just give the middle class some tax relief. Spending millions pew pewing missiles like there's no tomorrow is a gigantic waste of money but bringing in free loaders isn't much better.

My retirement pay is about 0.000001% of the federal budget.

What the hell does that have to do with anything, other than to showcase your desperate need to distract and deflect from on-topic discussions that don't go your way?

Brb enlisting.

When did you retire?

Not my words but I think this should be posted ITT:

>We launched 50+ missiles. The target of said missiles, rather than Assad's headquarters, was an air base supposedly responsible for the recent chemical attack. We are the United State of America. If we were looking to destabilize Syria, we would have gone the route of Lybia, and bombed the leader. Instead, we removed the threat of Assad targeting his own people.

>This was not the action of a President targeting a Middle-Eastern regime, but rather one of a President removing the thread of a regime posing a threat to innocent lives. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared that the resolution of the Syrian conflict is an international concern, not one of the United States alone.

>Secretary of State's statement on Assad is as follows:

>"The process by which Assad would leave is something that requires an international community effort both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country to avoid further civil war and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving."

>This does not indicate a desire to continue a foreign policy of "kill the leader, allow destabilized chaos." This indicates a desire to neuter the military of Assad, and to, as Trump stated during his campaign, set up safe zones in Syria to eradicate the extremist rebels and allow the state to organize. Unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will seek aid from neighboring states, such as Jordan, who have interest in Syria stabilizing, and not falling to terrorists. Restructuring of failed Middle Eastern regimes will be better handled by current prosperous secular Middle Eastern states.

So Trump fired Tomahawk missiles because Assad gassed his own people, but Trump attempted twice to ban refugees from Syria.

Time to self reflect on who you voted for.

Who knows. The real intel would never be released to the public at this point anyways.

I was wondering if Assad was questioning whether trump had the balls to actually launch a strike and figured he wouldn't considering how low his approval rating is.

He got his answer.

Thanks for your service.

Your source is a blog, written by an opinion columnist

Not surprising that someone like you doesn't understand the concept of "lawful orders".

if I am ever going to be killed, I'll take a bullet to the head, or if that is not an option, I'll take being blown up by a bomb.

You can choose to have Chemicals dumped on you so your skin slowly melts off your body or you die of suffocation or burn to death if that's what you want.

Once again, you're clearly insane.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.1c9ff406c960

Here's another source for you.

"Commanders further down the pipeline are trained to act quickly on any orders that do come in. The launch officers are trained to launch weapons, not to debate the legality or advisability of the action. Hence the problem with Hering’s question in 1973: While nuclear launch officers are not meant to be strictly mechanical (and indeed, the United States has always resisted fully automating the process), if they stopped to question whether their authenticated orders were legitimate, they would put the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence at risk."

I'll try and stay up and let you bros know if a bunch of helicopters start flying VIPs out of the city.

We're all going to make it.