President Trump announces Military Strikes on Syria

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

Seanchaidh:
Yes, "other nations" are also influenced by an out of control military industrial complex. It's almost as if capitalism is international in its scope.

Do you also blame capitalism when the police have the audacity to arrest somebody for drink driving?

What is the point of an international agreement, if nobody has the balls or the conviction to enforce it? What do you see as the end result of allowing Russia et al to continually cross lines? Do you imagine they'll stop?

Or are you buying the Russia Today line about it all being a hoax set up by those sneaky Brits? Just like the last one they did. And, I assume, Litvinenko. And probably Arshavin being so disappointing when he was at Arsenal. What it comes down to, is, are you more inclined to believe a statement from the US / UK / France, based upon French intel, in nations where, let's be honest, pretty much everything gets leaked eventually, or a statement from Russia and Syria, countries with heavy media control and a habit of murdering anybody who thinks about leaking things?

\

The credibility of the United States when it comes to chemical weapons?

I

R

A

Q

It wasn't that long ago.

Let's be honest here, the on-the-ground sources for these findings are literally ISIS and Al Qaeda ("the White Helmets").

Seanchaidh:

Catnip1024:

Seanchaidh:
Yes, "other nations" are also influenced by an out of control military industrial complex. It's almost as if capitalism is international in its scope.

Do you also blame capitalism when the police have the audacity to arrest somebody for drink driving?

What is the point of an international agreement, if nobody has the balls or the conviction to enforce it? What do you see as the end result of allowing Russia et al to continually cross lines? Do you imagine they'll stop?

Or are you buying the Russia Today line about it all being a hoax set up by those sneaky Brits? Just like the last one they did. And, I assume, Litvinenko. And probably Arshavin being so disappointing when he was at Arsenal. What it comes down to, is, are you more inclined to believe a statement from the US / UK / France, based upon French intel, in nations where, let's be honest, pretty much everything gets leaked eventually, or a statement from Russia and Syria, countries with heavy media control and a habit of murdering anybody who thinks about leaking things?

\

The credibility of the United States when it comes to chemical weapons?

I

R

A

Q

It wasn't that long ago.

Let's be honest here, the on-the-ground sources for these findings are literally ISIS and Al Qaeda ("the White Helmets").

Also the fact that thr U.S. backed Salafists who have been known to have chemical weapons. Who were discovered with chemical wespons in Turkey, only for the government to claim otherwise despite independent testing. Also the fact that the fact that the U.S. routinely seems to not wait for independent research teams to go into a place. It's almost as if numerous Salafists backed by the U.S., Israel and the Sauds have a vested interest in drawing in Western forces in a war that the grand majority of Syrians don't want to see them winning and wouldn't have a shot in hell of doing so without Western assistance.

It's almost as if the West shouldn't be there at all...

After all... Gaddafi getting murdered by Westerners has lead to *slave markets* in the streets. Then Europeans have tyhe fucking gall to complain about refugees despite allowing their governments to commit violent regime change and backing Salafists with military strength to assert control.

The second Syria falls to Saudi and Turkish interests, we'll conveniently ignore the human rights abuses that come with regime change like we always do.

Gotta keep those arms manufacturers lined with taxpayer money, somehow. Remember when Western values meant propping up liberal democracy? Me neither ... but maybe we can at least pretend to do so by recognizing Salafists shouldn't be handed countries on a silver platter.

Oh goddammit Trudeau.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/news/pence-thanks-trudeau-for-canada%e2%80%99s-support-on-us-attacks-in-syria/vp-AAvSAuu

You couldn't wait until the independent observers confirmed what happened before coming out and making a statement of support or not for the US? GAH.

My mood is not helped by the fact some people on my facebook wall are like "why is everyone mad about this? There hasn't been such overwhelming consensus on an attack in a long long time!" and I'm there wondering where their pattern recognition is.

It's especially shameful that they're not just swallowing the "Assad did the gas attack even though that's completely against his best interest" thing but also going "but the children!!! Children were GASSED!! How can you not be against the gassing of children!!" while conveniently ignoring the yemen blockade, bombing, cholera epidemic and (essentially) genocide that the Saudis are engaged in.

aegix drakan:

You couldn't wait until the independent observers confirmed what happened before coming out and making a statement of support or not for the US? GAH.

Nope. At this point it is pretty important for all NATO members, particularly the prominent ones like Canada, to come out and express support for the lead nations of their military coalition (compare to how Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, tweeted his support of the attack very soon after). If they don't Russia is likely to interpret it as dissent and fracture within NATO. At which point Russia will likely become even more aggressive in its' rhetoric and actions against the west.

In the grand political game it is not about whether the attack against Syria was justified or not, it is about showing Russia that NATO is done being indecisive and playing nice.

Seanchaidh:
Let's be honest here, the on-the-ground sources for these findings are literally ISIS and Al Qaeda ("the White Helmets").

...you don't seriously believe that the White Helmets are al-Qaeda, right?

Because that's...not true. If you believe that is the case, then you have been misinformed.

Gethsemani:

aegix drakan:

You couldn't wait until the independent observers confirmed what happened before coming out and making a statement of support or not for the US? GAH.

Nope. At this point it is pretty important for all NATO members, particularly the prominent ones like Canada, to come out and express support for the lead nations of their military coalition (compare to how Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, tweeted his support of the attack very soon after). If they don't Russia is likely to interpret it as dissent and fracture within NATO. At which point Russia will likely become even more aggressive in its' rhetoric and actions against the west.

In the grand political game it is not about whether the attack against Syria was justified or not, it is about showing Russia that NATO is done being indecisive and playing nice.

And in the process also giving the usual suspects a go ahead to continue their habit of destabilizing an entire region of the world with proxy wars.

NATO deserves to be fractured.

erttheking:

BreakfastMan:

The Lunatic:
So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

It will never go away, because the Democrats will never admit that Clinton was just a shit candidate that ran a shit campaign. They need it to be true.

Dude, an awful lot of people are pleading guilty to Mueller. Something stinks.

Tell me, what is supposed to be the conspiracy now between trump and russia? The reason they are pleading guilty is because they are all sketchy white collar criminals with a history of fraud and tax evasion, not because they are russian secret agents or whatever.

Still waiting on proof that Assad gassed his own people considering Mattis still doesn't have any either.

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5

Hey, I know we're winning back the country, but fuck it, let's gas some people and get international powers involved.

Almost boggling that conservatives are saying maybe we should step back and actually examine this situation more and the left are foaming at the mouth ready for war.

OPCW investigators might find evidence soon though. Really rather avoid a conflict with Russia.

Whitbane:

Almost boggling that conservatives are saying maybe we should step back and actually examine this situation more and the left are foaming at the mouth ready for war.

Neolibs are. Leftists are absolutely furious about this, to a man.

BreakfastMan:

Whitbane:

Almost boggling that conservatives are saying maybe we should step back and actually examine this situation more and the left are foaming at the mouth ready for war.

Neolibs are. Leftists are absolutely furious about this, to a man.

Yup. Just about everyone I've seen on the progressive side of the spectrum is totally against this.

It's typically "centrist" democrats and establishment elite type people who are cheerleading this attack (and people who just take things at surface value and say "Oh, but if the UK and France are involved, there MUST be global consensus that assad did it, so we must bomb them to save the children!" no joke I saw that on my FB feed today. x_x and she was all "Oh russia is just all talk about this, they'll surely cooperate and not actually escalate to world war, they're not that stupid!" and I'm there wondering how she can be ok with people playing world map checkers like this.)

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Let's be honest here, the on-the-ground sources for these findings are literally ISIS and Al Qaeda ("the White Helmets").

...you don't seriously believe that the White Helmets are al-Qaeda, right?

Because that's...not true. If you believe that is the case, then you have been misinformed.

Have I?

https://www.salon.com/2017/05/25/yet-another-video-shows-u-s-funded-white-helmets-assisting-public-held-executions-in-rebel-held-syria_partner/

They're only an organization that assists Al Qaeda in brutally murdering people and operates exclusively in Al Qaeda held territory. Guess that means they're the good guys! Not really interested in line by line debunking NATO propaganda, though, so believe whatever the fuck you want.

BreakfastMan:
Tell me, what is supposed to be the conspiracy now between trump and russia?

There's a bunch of different allegations nested under the umbrella term "Russia conspiracy," some of which are all but confirmed and some of which are much less plausible.

Seanchaidh:
Have I?

https://www.salon.com/2017/05/25/yet-another-video-shows-u-s-funded-white-helmets-assisting-public-held-executions-in-rebel-held-syria_partner/

They're only an organization that assists Al Qaeda in brutally murdering people and operates exclusively in Al Qaeda held territory. Guess that means they're the good guys! Not really interested in line by line debunking NATO propaganda, though, so believe whatever the fuck you want.

You're talking about this video? Okay, it doesn't prove what you say it does.

It shows White Helmets carrying a man's body away on a stretcher after he was executed by al-Nusra. One of the things the White Helmets do is provide the dead with burial services, as opposed to leaving the corpse to rot in the street. You might argue that they should've prevented the execution from occurring, but the White Helmets aren't armed and rely on that fact in order to operate, like most warzone non-combatants do. If they attempted to stop the execution, they'd probably just get executed themselves.

That's a far cry from "assists al-Qaeda in brutally murdering people." For the White Helmets to carry away the body of a man executed by al-Nusra is no different to them carrying away the body of a man killed by an airstrike. They're providing dues to the dead. It doesn't make them terrorists.

I hate to say this, but you're falling for fake news. Syria and Russia like to discredit the White Helmets and smear them as terrorists because Assad has a tendency to bomb towns, then bomb the towns again after first responders have arrived to treat the victims, because he wants to discourage people from aiding the rebels. Naturally, bombing first responders is a war crime, so Assad has to somehow twist the White Helmets into being terrorists so he can justify bombing them.

I have no doubt the White Helmets have operated in al-Qaeda's territory or even provided medical assistance to members of al-Qaeda at some point. They do that because they're non-combatants; they pull people out of bomb sites, take them to hospitals, and give them medical treatment. They don't stop and ask "which side do you work for?" first. That doesn't make them terrorists or collaborators or agents of NATO imperialism or what have you. It makes them medics.

BreakfastMan:
Do you seriously believe that intervening here will actually help anybody and won't get the US pulled into yet another war?

That's a different question.

But in principle, any action that deters this regime or future regimes from using chemical weapons in combat will help people.

As to whether it stops before devolving into another war - limited to what it currently is, sure it will. A couple of strikes on targetted locations, with the recipients warned beforehand - limiting casualties while crippling the means of production - is not significant enough that it will be escalated. Russia cannot afford to escalate a conflict for the sake of a chemical plant in Syria. Not when, let's be honest, waiting for the US to implode spectacularly (with the odd nudge here and there) is a much safer strategy.

Whitbane:

Almost boggling that conservatives are saying maybe we should step back and actually examine this situation more and the left are foaming at the mouth ready for war.

OPCW investigators might find evidence soon though. Really rather avoid a conflict with Russia.

There an official 'The Left' website that made a policy statement?

bastardofmelbourne:
*

You're just uncritically repeating things you read on snopes or the Guardian and acting as if that makes you correct.

Yes, Al Qaeda is capable of having medics. Great.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
*

You're just uncritically repeating things you read on snopes or the Guardian and acting as if that makes you correct.

Yes, Al Qaeda is capable of having medics. Great.

And you're uncritically repeating things you read on infowars or your preferred substitute, so...
And there is no uncritical repeating, he explains his reasoning. The reasoning is reasonable.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
*

You're just uncritically repeating things you read on snopes or the Guardian and acting as if that makes you correct.

Yes, Al Qaeda is capable of having medics. Great.

All I'm saying is that you need to go check your facts. Being misinformed isn't a sin.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
*

You're just uncritically repeating things you read on snopes or the Guardian and acting as if that makes you correct.

Yes, Al Qaeda is capable of having medics. Great.

All I'm saying is that you need to go check your facts. Being misinformed isn't a sin.

There is no fact checking. There are no reliable sources about Syria. None. People who go there and speak of their first-hand experience are dismissed as some degree of whack job or conspiracy theorist. People who "accurately report" the favored State Department approved narrative have never been there. Missiles are launched before international investigations are allowed to happen. CNN alternates between hearing the opinions of lobbyists for Defense contractors and practicing stenography for the Pentagon. Appearing in a prominent newspaper or on television means approximately nothing when it comes to Syria, nor does a story being repeated by many different outlets; none of them have a clue, they're essentially just retweeting unverified information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2013#Smith-Mundt_Modernization_Act_of_2012

If it's "Russia's strategy" (eyeroll) to muddy the waters on all things concerning Syria, they have had a willing partner in Washington:

Several news outlets reported that the 2013 NDAA overturned a 64-year ban on the domestic dissemination of propaganda (described as "public diplomacy information") produced for foreign audiences, effectively eliminating the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences.[41][42][43][44] The social news media site BuzzFeed for example quoted an unnamed source saying the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 would allow "U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population."[43]

Seanchaidh:
There is no fact checking. There are no reliable sources about Syria. None. People who go there and speak of their first-hand experience are dismissed as some degree of whack job or conspiracy theorist. People who "accurately report" the favored State Department approved narrative have never been there. Missiles are launched before international investigations are allowed to happen. CNN alternates between hearing the opinions of lobbyists for Defense contractors and practicing stenography for the Pentagon. Appearing in a prominent newspaper or on television means approximately nothing when it comes to Syria, nor does a story being repeated by many different outlets; none of them have a clue, they're essentially just retweeting unverified information.

...so it's all bullshit and the truth doesn't exist? Is that what you're saying?

What's the end-game here, Sean?

Seanchaidh:
If it's "Russia's strategy" (eyeroll) to muddy the waters on all things concerning Syria, they have had a willing partner in Washington:

Yeah. Probably. I don't doubt that Washington likes to muddle the facts when it's in Washington's interests to do so. That doesn't mean that the White Helmets are al-Qaeda, though.

Why would Washington want to help al-Qaeda form a fake humanitarian NGO anyway? What's in it for Washington? Shit, what's in it for al-Qaeda? If the US really wanted to invade Syria, they'd just fucking do it. They don't need video evidence of war crimes, because we've seen a lot of those already and the international community's response has been "meh." The thing stopping the Washington warhawks from going to war in Syria isn't the lack of video evidence; it's the lack of a compliant presidency.

And what does al-Qaeda get from encouraging the US to get involved in a ground war in Syria? Like, say their nefarious plan to impersonate first responders to publicise Assad's war crimes succeeds, and the US invades Syria and topples Assad like they did with Hussein. Now they're fighting the US instead of Assad. Is that somehow easier?

The whole thing's insane, dude. It triggers all my bullshit sensors, because a) the claims make no sense considering the motivations of the parties involved, b) there's nothing backing up the claims except for Facebook infographics and some out-of-context Youtube footage, and c) there's a way more likely explanation, which is that Assad really, really, really wants to make people think that the White Helmets are terrorists so that he can justify bombing them.

It's not like there's a pressing need to litigate this, anyway. The US isn't going to invade Syria anytime soon. The warhawks lost; the chickenhawk reigns supreme.

Seanchaidh:

There is no fact checking. There are no reliable sources about Syria. None.

Then without reliable information, why should we be convinced that the "White Helmets" are secretly Al Qaeda? There's no good evidence, as you attest yourself, but you seem fully convinced one way nonetheless.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
If it's "Russia's strategy" (eyeroll) to muddy the waters on all things concerning Syria, they have had a willing partner in Washington:

Yeah. Probably. I don't doubt that Washington likes to muddle the facts when it's in Washington's interests to do so. That doesn't mean that the White Helmets are al-Qaeda, though.

Not to mention it is a false equivalence to begin with. Everyone lies (or omits and obscures facts) to some degree to achieve their political goals, but Russia is playing in a league of their own. Their approach to foreign policy is one of deception, misdirection and confusion, referred to as Maskirovka. The idea is that your opponent or target will have to deal with too much information to effectively parse, thus making them react slower (if they react at all) and potentially on the wrong information. This allows Russia to seize the initiative and thus dictate the terms of the engagement (political, military or otherwise).

This has been a thing in the Russian military since the 18th century and the USSR made it into foreign policy. They don't care about what's true, they only care about causing enough confusion that others will have a hard time opposing their interests. The USA is playing in the kiddie leagues in comparison, if only because the USA doesn't control most of its' domestic media (and what foreign media is allowed domestically) in the way that Putin et al does.

Whitbane:
Still waiting on proof that Assad gassed his own people considering Mattis still doesn't have any either.

Who else would gas Assad's opposition? That is, without going into the more far-fetched conspiracy claims of false flag operations?

Almost boggling that conservatives are saying maybe we should step back and actually examine this situation more and the left are foaming at the mouth ready for war.

Er, no.

Pro- and anti-interventionism are spread widely across the political spectrum; if we were to discriminate we'd probably say that interventionism is more aligned with the more conventional or mainstream left and right.

If we think about leftism such as Blairite Labour (UK) or Clinton Democrats (USA), we'd be looking at interventionism. But on the other hand Corbynite Labour or Sanders Democrats would be against. On the right, the Tories and mainstream Republicans have generally been happy to get stuck in. I don't see much right-wing opposition in the UK to intervention. In the USA, it's much more the alt-right, libertarians, etc.

Agema:

Who else would gas Assad's opposition? That is, without going into the more far-fetched conspiracy claims of false flag operations?

If only the Syrian civil war only had 2 sides.

Er, no.

Pro- and anti-interventionism are spread widely across the political spectrum; if we were to discriminate we'd probably say that interventionism is more aligned with the more conventional or mainstream left and right.

If we think about leftism such as Blairite Labour (UK) or Clinton Democrats (USA), we'd be looking at interventionism. But on the other hand Corbynite Labour or Sanders Democrats would be against. On the right, the Tories and mainstream Republicans have generally been happy to get stuck in. I don't see much right-wing opposition in the UK to intervention. In the USA, it's much more the alt-right, libertarians, etc.

[/quote]
Pretty sure most left-wingers don't see either as of those as left-wing. Especially not the corporate democrats that back Clinton.

Gethsemani:
This has been a thing in the Russian military since the 18th century

Out of interest, do you have a source for that? It's adoption specifically at that time, that is, I'd never knew that was when it started.

rederoin:

Agema:

Who else would gas Assad's opposition? That is, without going into the more far-fetched conspiracy claims of false flag operations?

If only the Syrian civil war only had 2 sides.

As far as the area in which the attacks occurred, there really are only 2 sides.

The Kurds don't have a presence there and any use of chemical weapons would instantly destroy any international goodwill and image they have gained; it would dramatically impact any attempts to form a sovereign state or at least not be classified as terrorists.

ISIS isn't a factor in the area particularly in any way that they could launch this attack. Gassing the rebels also doesn't gain them anything because Assad is by far their worst enemy.

The rebels, of course, do have their infighting, but they have nothing to gain by going to this extreme. It would lead to other groups turning on them and hurt their overall war effort again the regime's forces.

Any international actor other than Russia could have been identified as having been in the airspace or moving the equipment to do it because of how unusual it would be.

rederoin:

Er, no.

Pro- and anti-interventionism are spread widely across the political spectrum; if we were to discriminate we'd probably say that interventionism is more aligned with the more conventional or mainstream left and right.

If we think about leftism such as Blairite Labour (UK) or Clinton Democrats (USA), we'd be looking at interventionism. But on the other hand Corbynite Labour or Sanders Democrats would be against. On the right, the Tories and mainstream Republicans have generally been happy to get stuck in. I don't see much right-wing opposition in the UK to intervention. In the USA, it's much more the alt-right, libertarians, etc.

Pretty sure most left-wingers don't see either as of those as left-wing. Especially not the corporate democrats that back Clinton.

And yet, most right-wingers see both of those as literal incarnations of Lenin and Marx and conservatives such as Paul Ryan as secret/partial liberals. Extremists are going to extreme *shrug*

Avnger:

And yet, most right-wingers see both of those as literal incarnations of Lenin and Marx and conservatives such as Paul Ryan as secret/partial liberals. Extremists are going to extreme *shrug*

The far right sees them like that, ye. But the dems are pretty much right-wing too, just not the crazy kind.

bastardofmelbourne:
Why would Washington want to help al-Qaeda form a fake humanitarian NGO anyway? What's in it for Washington? Shit, what's in it for al-Qaeda? If the US really wanted to invade Syria, they'd just fucking do it. They don't need video evidence of war crimes, because we've seen a lot of those already and the international community's response has been "meh." The thing stopping the Washington warhawks from going to war in Syria isn't the lack of video evidence; it's the lack of a compliant presidency.

The US has been supporting Al Qaeda in Syria against Assad since before there were any allegations of chemical weapons use. A "fake humanitarian NGO" for Al Qaeda that just so happens to agitate for a no-fly zone and doesn't have to be called Al Qaeda when cited on CNN is useful to promote war with Assad. For exactly the same reason that you say the White Helmets would be unfairly linked to Al Qaeda by Assad and Russia, Al Qaeda has a reason to create them and the western military industrial complex has a reason to promote them.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

There is no fact checking. There are no reliable sources about Syria. None.

Then without reliable information, why should we be convinced that the "White Helmets" are secretly Al Qaeda? There's no good evidence, as you attest yourself, but you seem fully convinced one way nonetheless.

You shouldn't be fully convinced of anything coming out of Syria.

They don't operate in Assad's territory. They do in Al Qaeda's. They're made up of people aligned with the Syrian opposition, which is to say Al Qaeda. They want NATO to provide air superiority for the anti-Assad jihad. If they're not Al Qaeda, then they are Al Qaeda adjacent and Al Qaeda sympathizing. It would frankly be quite weird if they were not given what they do and where they do it.

Gethsemani:
if only because the USA doesn't control most of its' domestic media (and what foreign media is allowed domestically) in the way that Putin et al does.

The same people who control Congress financially also control our major media financially. The militarists in our society could not ask for a more compliant media. It puts state media to shame. Everything else is dismissed as propaganda or "fake news" even while we're getting pro-war propaganda 24/7/365 from the "serious" news sources.

If there were any actual humanitarian concern in the complex of media, military, and industrial institutions that agitate for war in Syria, they'd apply the same standards to Saudi Arabia and Israel. But they don't, because that's not what this is about.

Seanchaidh:

You shouldn't be fully convinced of anything coming out of Syria.

They don't operate in Assad's territory.

Well, that would be because Assad's regime is violently opposed to them, as it is with various organisations, plenty of them perfectly innocent. You can hardly blame an organisation for staying away from territory controlled by a hostile military force.

Seanchaidh:

They're made up of people aligned with the Syrian opposition, which is to say Al Qaeda.

Can I get a citation?

I've found a few, but... they're all exclusively unreliable madpeople.

Seanchaidh:
They want NATO to provide air superiority for the anti-Assad jihad.

Well, they support a no-fly zone enforced by Western governments, which is not the same thing. Whether you agree with that position or not, the notion that it provides evidence of their being connected to Al Qaeda is nonsense.

Seanchaidh:

If they're not Al Qaeda, then they are Al Qaeda adjacent and Al Qaeda sympathizing. It would frankly be quite weird if they were not given what they do and where they do it.

I'm not saying there definitely isn't evidence of this, but... well, if there is, I've tried digging around a little, and could only find the words of raving lunatics. And, if there is, it would have to be a good deal less rickety than that above. Snopes notes that some of the earliest articles casting aspersions on them rely wholly on insinuation, providing nothing of substance, and I can't seem to find anything more solid at all.

It's pretty shameful that trump thinks combat is syria is a good idea. The last thing we need is another iraq war.

Fox12:
It's pretty shameful that trump thinks combat is syria is a good idea. The last thing we need is another iraq war.

This isn't Iraq. It's Syria. A completely different Arab state with minority rule and an oppressive strongman's iron grip keeping the opposing groups in line.

Fox12:
It's pretty shameful that trump thinks combat is syria is a good idea. The last thing we need is another iraq war.

You'd almost think he was being blackmailed into this position. We've been here too many times before. That Assad would use a gas attack just as we announced the USA was pulling out of Syria? Absurd.

Gorfias:

Fox12:
It's pretty shameful that trump thinks combat is syria is a good idea. The last thing we need is another iraq war.

You'd almost think he was being blackmailed into this position. We've been here too many times before. That Assad would use a gas attack just as we announced the USA was pulling out of Syria? Absurd.

Yea..
They have been saying that Trump has been blackmailed by Russia all along as the reason he does things like warn Russia when they are going to hit, say he isn't going to enforce existing sanctions and Oh yea- block sanctions after they have already been announced by his administration. Go figure.

Trump just decided not to sanction Russia for its election meddling

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16949878/trump-russia-sanction-list-oligarch-congress

Trump warns Russia to 'get ready' for U.S. strike on Syria

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/russia-will-target-u-s-military-if-strikes-hit-syria-n864901

Trump just blocked his own administration's Russia sanctions
Once again the president is taking steps to make sure he doesn?t anger Putin.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/16/17242484/nikki-haley-trump-russia-sanctions-syria

Fusion GPS dossier author "feared Trump was blackmail target"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42628347

Considering how much he complained about telling US adversaries when we were going to attack, it sure does look suspicious that he eagerly does so now.

Assad using chemical weapons is expected when he thinks no one will do anything about it. Hell he uses them when he thinks people will do something about it so US announcing they are leaving what else would a sick POS like that do to celebrate?

Lil devils x:
Trump warns Russia to 'get ready' for U.S. strike on Syria

This one, at least, is perfectly reasonable. If the US actually killed Russian soldiers with their strikes it would risk unnecessary escalation.

The Entertainer:

Lil devils x:
Trump warns Russia to 'get ready' for U.S. strike on Syria

This one, at least, is perfectly reasonable. If the US actually killed Russian soldiers with their strikes it would risk unnecessary escalation.

Didn't we already do that a few times now since Trump has had the military on autopilot so he does not have to learn how to be briefed?

President Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of State confirmed Thursday that "a couple hundred Russians were killed" by U.S. forces in Syria earlier this year

http://time.com/5237922/mike-pompeo-russia-confirmation/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/intelligence-briefings-trump-prefers-little-possible

http://time.com/5237922/mike-pompeo-russia-confirmation/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/rules-of-engagement-military-force-mattis.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/15/trump-bluster-about-syria-james-mattis-calling-shots

Trump only warns them on what he bothers to find out about ahead of time.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here