Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If Trump launches against Syria...

If he launches against another empty airfield?

Skjellyfetti wrote:If he launches against another empty airfield?

What's the right number of fatalities that he needs to have on this one? Is there a min/max on collateral damage as well? Can he hit a threshold where he kills too many people? Do you have a graph showing where the statistical sweet spot needs to be?

Skjellyfetti wrote:If he launches against another empty airfield?

ANOTHER empty airfield? What does that mean?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:If he launches against another empty airfield?

ANOTHER empty airfield? What does that mean?

He’s implying that last year’s strike did no damage I guess.

Which of course isn’t true.

93henfan wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: ANOTHER empty airfield? What does that mean?

He’s implying that last year’s strike did no damage I guess.

Which of course isn’t true.

It's skelly's stretching of the truth thing. It certainly did some damage, but no one is going to argue that it did a lot or changed anything on the ground. After a few days after the last missile hit, the airfield was back up and operational. So it wasn't empty, but the impact was certainly minimal.

That's what begs the question on this one - how much do we have to damage and how many people need to be killed for skelly to consider this the correct kind of response? I still need a graph.

Witch tits!

GannonFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
He’s implying that last year’s strike did no damage I guess.

Which of course isn’t true.

It's skelly's stretching of the truth thing. It certainly did some damage, but no one is going to argue that it did a lot or changed anything on the ground. After a few days after the last missile hit, the airfield was back up and operational. So it wasn't empty, but the impact was certainly minimal.

That was my point. And, it was a matter of hours - not days.

If you want to take on BDK's mantle and quibble about it being empty or not I'll leave you to it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
It's skelly's stretching of the truth thing. It certainly did some damage, but no one is going to argue that it did a lot or changed anything on the ground. After a few days after the last missile hit, the airfield was back up and operational. So it wasn't empty, but the impact was certainly minimal.

That was my point.

If you want to take on BDK's mantle and quibble about it being empty or not I'll leave you to it.

It's not quibbling, you said something that was materially incorrect, and incorrect enough that it significantly changed the point you were making. You Trumped it, own up to it.

Thanks for the breather, gf.

I say we not take any action over the use of chemical weapons...that way Jon and Jelly will be happy that the U.S. is not involved in a foreign adventure...

There's no good response.

Bombing an airfield that is back operational in less than a day is just so we can check a box saying we "responded." It's worthless. And, clearly hasn't deterred anything.

Regime change and rebuilding Syria for the next 20 years doesn't sound great either.

What do you suggest, Col?

Skjellyfetti wrote:There's no good response.

Bombing an airfield that is back operational in less than a day is just so we can check a box saying we "responded." It's worthless. And, clearly hasn't deterred anything.

Regime change and rebuilding Syria for the next 20 years doesn't sound great either.

What do you suggest, Col?

We took out planes. Harder to replace planes than it is to repair a runway, isn't it?

I say we just leave it alone. Fuck them. I’m no spandos but it really makes more sense for the assholes doing this to make the other assholes look bad. Pull out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:There's no good response.

Bombing an airfield that is back operational in less than a day is just so we can check a box saying we "responded." It's worthless. And, clearly hasn't deterred anything.

Regime change and rebuilding Syria for the next 20 years doesn't sound great either.

What do you suggest, Col?

We took out planes. Harder to replace planes than it is to repair a runway, isn't it?

Replacing planes is as easy as making a phone call to Moscow.

Next thing you know, y'all will be advocating for a no-fly-zone over Syria.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: We took out planes. Harder to replace planes than it is to repair a runway, isn't it?

Replacing planes is as easy as making a phone call to Moscow.

Next thing you know, y'all will be advocating for a no-fly-zone over Syria.

Perfect. Let the Russians supply planes for free. They can afford it.

andy7171 wrote:I say we just leave it alone. Fuck them. I’m no spandos but it really makes more sense for the assholes doing this to make the other assholes look bad. Pull out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pwns wrote:

He posted those when someone reasonable was the last person in the room.

Now he has Bolton

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:

He posted those when someone reasonable was the last person in the room.

Now he has Bolton

Yup. Bolton was a terrible pick that hasn't seen a war he hasn't liked.


As far as the OP, assuming the chemical attack is legit (I haven't read up on this one much), we should bomb some shit in a response. We pretty much have to do it otherwise the US risks emboldening our Russian allies ( ) even more.

I'd like us to do very little and sit and wait for that quagmire to turn into a full scale Iran v Israel battle royale and then watch that whole area get glassed by the Jews.

Who cares about a full on shooting war in the dirt pile we have no strategic interests in when we have Russians hacking, collusioning and fake newsing on Facebooks?

Let's get with the program people

Or, WWHD?

(what would Hillary do?)

CID1990 wrote:Who cares about a full on shooting war in the dirt pile we have no strategic interests in when we have Russians hacking, collusioning and fake newsing on Facebooks?

Let's get with the program people

Or, WWHD?

(what would Hillary do?)

To answer Jelly’s question to me...THIS!

Col Hogan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Who cares about a full on shooting war in the dirt pile we have no strategic interests in when we have Russians hacking, collusioning and fake newsing on Facebooks?

Let's get with the program people

Or, WWHD?

(what would Hillary do?)

To answer Jelly’s question to me...THIS!

Or, what would Trump do?

(The answer is likely the same)

CID1990 wrote:Who cares about a full on shooting war in the dirt pile we have no strategic interests in when we have Russians hacking, collusioning and fake newsing on Facebooks?

Let's get with the program people

Or, WWHD?

(what would Hillary do?)

Answer to what would hilldog do? Here you go:


Oh wait, wrong dirt pile.