Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by Trumped, Apr 6, 2017.
Is this enough evidence to start yet another war and change yet another regime?
Yes. Trumps knuckled under on all points finally.
The trump administration appears to be adamant that "Assad is to blame" and is sabre rattling ready for another intervention.
Just like Iraq and Libya, and we all know how well that turned out.
John McCain rips Trump administration over Syria policy - CNNPolitics.com
Wake up sheeple! etc...
Yeh it'll be the juice behind it all *again*
I suppose that anybody who questions the actions of warmongers is automatically a "conspiracy theorist". Case closed. No further questions your honour. Strike first and look for evidence after. WMD all over again.
It looks like that is the intent.
McCain may have got what he wanted all along.
Can you explain what you mean by this please, what is the intent of whom?
There is one *slight* difference - there have been what appear to be (several) chemical attacks in Syria.
But trump is also trying to sabre-rattle over North Korea. In both these cases, other countries would probably have more influence in the situation. (For Assad, that might be Russia and for Kim, China has a closer relationship than the usa ).
New president, same old bullshit. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What "appears" to be several chemical attacks. The previous supposed chemical attacks were not proven, just like WMD.
It's like groundhog day.
What really happened in your opinion?
BBC summary ...
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know - BBC News
I don't know what happened. I have been told that "Assad did it", and I'm supposed to take that as read and not ask any questions. I was also lied to about Iraq and Libya by the very same people telling me the Assad did it. That is not enough to justify military action.
It's literally shoot first, ask questions later. In the future when we discover (as is my expectation) that things are not at all as they have been presented it'll be a matter for the 'fringe news media', out there with the alt-right and the anti-vaxers and the propornot-Left and the info-wars lot that any "official findings" will be paid any attention whatsoever to.
Or "we're going to shoot anyway and you can't do shit". Thank goodness for "humanitarian" US foreign policy. Were would we be without it.
You're really quite confused aren't you?
Really? How so? Perhaps you can enighten me oh great wise sage.
Start by looking up 'redundancy'
Your post in this thread is a great example of 'redundancy'.
When all else fails and when an argument cannot be constructed, fall back on irrelevant grammar diversions and snide remarks.
Before the antagonists start with their "you're just a conspiracy theorist" bullshit, and "you get all your information from youtube and wikipedia and it's not credible"...etc. Stop right there. Bring some real evidence to the table that justifies the escalation of military action headed by the latest warmonger in chief. Bear in mind that there were apparently very strong and compelling and supposedly "credible" arguments in favour of bombing Iraq based on WMD, which turned out to be bullshit and helped to create the clusterfuck in that region.
The previous chemical weapons attacks were extensively proven by independent autopsies and toxicology reports which back up eyewitness accounts. The OCPW have confirmed their use.
OPCW Press Release on Allegations of Chemical Weapons Use in Southern Idlib, Syria
Can you point to a single poster looking to justify the escalation of military action by the US?
And escalation? They have carried out 8000 airstrikes within syria since 2014. This single one on a different target appears to be the only one that's suddenly bothered a lot of people. The far more deadly russian airstrikes even less. The assad ones - not at all. You would oppose all of these three though right?
Yes, this is the real deal - has been for a while...
Let's be honest, it's the target rather than the idea of US attacks that has these types backs up isn't it?
None of that sez it was Assad wot did it.
Yes, if the US now goes to war with Syria overtly this mess can explode into far greater proportions with even greater loss of life (regional, worldwide?). In Russia (because Putinbot natch) a pessimist is said to be someone who thinks things can't get worse, whereas an optimist is someone who knows they can.
Separate names with a comma.