myself i'm freaking out man

1 Tomahawk missle costs 569,000$ to make.

We just fired 50 at an airfield with no confirmation we took out a single chemical weapon.

Meanwhile the national endowment for the arts is destroying our deficit.

28 million dollars spent in one afternoon and all anybody can do is say fuck yea its about time we intervened.

28 million dollars spent in a day??? NOOOOO

but you do know we had 4.2 billion dollars in debt every day... right?

bigger picture guys.

Right... still not seeing it.

Am I supposed to imagine that we just ended Assad in that one missle strike? Sweet that was a cheap affordable war. Hooray. Back to stories about John Glenn.

There are a lot of ways we waste our military money, brain. We have a trillion dollars invested in a plain that can't fly, for example. 50 warheads to possibly take out a chemical weapons stash is about the only active military investment I'm okay with.

You would spend 28 million dollars in taxpayer money to attack a chemical weapons stash that may not be there that poses no strategic threat to us or a single one of our interests. Purely because its the right thing to do?

You guys are all whack too!

Brad you live off our tax dollars to play webdip. Lol

I seriously doubt we took out any chemical weapons. We took out the delivery system (airfield).

Chemical weapons wouldn't have been destroyed in this attack but their storage facility and as Jeff said their delivery system would have been.

Brain, how do you suppose that chemical weapons in Syria don't pose a threat to our interest? You are aware that Syria signed the chemical weapons convention, and we typically want to show that those get enforced and aren't a joke, right? You know that Israel, a huge ally whether you like it or not, is just around the corner, right? If we completely removed ourselves from the Middle East then none of this matters, but we haven't done that, so it matters a lot.

The real bullshit about this situation is how Republicans blocked Obama when he asked them for an AUMF to do exactly the same thing. Hypocrites who act in party interest, not national interest.

My little Kuta is growing up. I'm so proud!

James do a little research. It's all over. Only infowars and RT are screaming false flag. EVery one else, Us intelligence, UN, Europeans, all saying it was Assad, as always over the last several years

And of course, the point wasn't to blow up a chemical weapons stash because that's an extremely dangerous thing to do

Wel bo, simply put they dont have ICBMs to launch them at us. And I dont personally consider Israel to be an interest of ours even if Republicans do. So as far as threat to America and its interests Id rank North Korea far higher.

@Jeff Kuta - Obama asked Congress for authorization, Trump just went and did it without asking. Trump claims he's already got the authorization since it doesn't take out Assad.

IT's going to be a lot more of Trump doing what he wants until forced to stop by courts and/or Congress.

The US is a mess. Time to just dissolve it

@Ogion

i know, i'm just freaking out.

update from marine core personnel

"all joking assad, things are getting Syrias"

Israel is an interest of ours, regardless of what you think. We have a way of aligning with human rights violations, you know. Israel, Saudi Arabia, previously Egypt and Libya, and on and on and on.

I agree with you that North Korea is a higher interest, but I'm not sure how North Korea is relevant.

Let's encourage Syria's ally Iran to accelerate their nuclear aspirations. Yay, Trump.

This is going to be one fun draft

In terms of financial cost, it's pretty negligible. Cruise missiles come with a use by date, and you get to the stage where you either fire them or chuck them away.

This is all surprisingly well done. Trump has let the world know he is willing to act and isn't afraid of upsetting Russia. Short term sabre rattling aside, this may well earn a bit of Russian respect. Moscow took Crimea because it knew that with the US led by Obama it could get away with it. Moscow will now think twice before trying similar tricks.

An unfortunate side effect may be that ISIS et al will be rather keen on provoking new American strikes by using chemical weapons and blaming it on Assad. I doubt that the US attack will do much to protect Syrians.

Second- and third-order effects will become a nightmare. Bad idea, Trump.

From what I remember Syria gave away all is chemical weapons to USA/Russia for destruction years ago. Also cannot see that Assad can profit in any way from using the chemical weapon. Chemical weapon main purpose is to cause psychological damage to the enemy which in this case is not possible.

Effect would be just the opposite and any use of it would cause serious consequences - turn public opinion in the world against anyone who use it. Assad so far proved to be very clever and manipulative person who will do whatever possible to manipulate public opinion to serve his interest.

In game terms France and England could agree to DMZ the EC. If France has a fleet in MAO it could move to EC to test if England was determined enough to retaliate. But where is profit in that for France? There is none. If you are smart you will not test your opponent just to see his reaction. That worth double if opponent happens to be the only world power who could crush you in seconds.

from twitter: "@Cromelo_Anthony said:
Trump went to war over the murder of children he wouldn't let into his country to avoid being murdered."

To which i replied (rather cynically):

"You can't make money off of refugees so it is hard to exploit them.

Much easier to take tax money from citizens and give it to weapons manufacturers, but you kinda need a war to justify a huge spending increase..."