Some would say the two are the same.
1 Like
I agree but how was he to know Trump would reverse course and launch a missile attack? I wouldnāt be surprised if the Russians helped him, let alone knew about it. Testing out a new US regime would be very like the Russians.
It was the wrong thing to doā¦and frankly as someone who was happy that he won against HRC for this v reasonā¦Iām coming around to the opinion that he lied his way throughout the election and is deeply entrenched in hawkish Clinton foreign policy as well.
And the rumoured family friend stuff wasnt far wrong.
Iām dissapointed tbhā¦I dont give a fuck about internet victoriesā¦those air strikes are not good news for anyone seriously like.
1 Like
6 Likes
At least Iāve the e-balls to admit it.
There is nothing hawkish about responding to a regime that uses chemical weapons against its own population. The response is good news for those Assad is targeting. The intent of the strike is to stop further use of chemical weapons, something Obama should have done in 2013.
If North Korea develops the ability to launch a nuclear warhead at Japan or the US, would it be hawkish to act against them? or should we just wait until they launch?
Why would people think anything Assad would do would be logical ?
The US have come and said recently after spending billions they cant guarantee stopping a missile from NK once its launchedā¦which to me is serious failure.
Itās all bollix mateā¦Trump signed off on that to deflect from growing disharmony within his own party.
It wasnt rightā¦and it was a v dangerous and irresponsible move in my opinion.
Youāre probably right Assad is more than likely as thick as pigshit. I donāt think Vladimir is though so cant get my head around what he has to gain from it. i tend to agree with Ron Paul on this oneā¦http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/7/ron-paul-former-congressman-says-zero-chance-basha/?
2 Likes
You did enough research on a few scumbags in Limerick back in the dayā¦read a few articles for yourself ffs.
There is perfect logic to what he has been doing. Since 2012 his entire strategy has been to terrorize those living in areas of Syria outside his control. Most of the civilian deaths in Syria have been from Assad using artillery and an air war to achieve total victory. He only backed off from using chemical weapons in 2013 after he was led to believe the US was going to act against him, although there is evidence of chemical attacks in 2014 and 2015.
As government forces have seized control of rebel areas since 2015, they have been herding people into Idlib province. It makes perfect sense for Assad to break that last major enclave of resistance.
Do you honestly think overthrowing Assad will lead to any kind of peace in Syria.
Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Eygpt in recent history would suggest otherwise.
1 Like
Where did I say anything about overthrowing Assad?
Overthrowing him and deterring him from using chemical weapons against civilians are different concepts.
When the US start bombing a countryā¦thatās what tends to happen pal.
Deterring him is laughableā¦all those strikes have achieved is given the lunatic fanatics on the ārebelā side a further cause to continue the war.
Because heās a doctor?
How many people have died in Syria?? The media coverage suits the players/sick bastards
Give RT a watch pal.
Whatās RT bud?
In some cases yes, in some cases no. Reagan bombed Libya in retaliation for a terrorist attack in Berlin and Bill Clinton bombed Afghanistan in retaliation for terrorist attacks. Neither case resulted in invasion or regime change. No question the regime change efforts by the neocons since 2001 have been bone headed. You appear to think Trump is now committed to a US invasion of Syria and regime change, I donāt believe so, but we will see how it plays out, as neither of us actually knows.
The entire Middle East is comprised mainly of lunatic fanatics.