BREAKING: US Launches attack on Syria

Trump, just days ago, said, we are not the world's police. He said he is America's prez, not the worlds.
Now he unilaterally goes and attacks another sovereign nation. I guess he bamboozled the world with lies.

 

That was the most meaningful comment that poster ever done.
It didn't ridicule or sling mud at anyone. The real Rosa would be proud, for once.

 

Else what?

 

Why doesn't the RW want Syrian refugees in this country?
Why does the RW condemn all muslims every time there is a terrorist attack?

Moral of the story, you guys don't know up from down. Your side hates all muslims due to their religion, then you want to start a war because a muslim dictator killed some other muslims.

Stop pretending you think Assad did something wrong. Everyone knows the RW thinks a dead muslim is a good muslim.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party
What's worse for your side? Muslim religious people or social communist people? It a lose lose for your side, our side, the US side in Syria. You hate them all. So why not let them kill each other?

 

So you don't care is Sarin and Chlorine gas is used on small children and babies?

 

I do care. But I don't hate all muslims.
And I don't want to be a unilateral world police force. We have a mechanism for nations to act together. NOT as a LONE wolf. Like Bushkie and Trumpskin.

yAre You for just going into any nation we don't like and bombing them without approval from other world leaders?
It's ok if you can't answer publicly.

 

There's no such thing as "innocent civilians" in wars. You're on one side or the other and you had better be actively fighting.

 

But Syria is not our war.

 

Trump didn't do too much damage. All he did was to get rid of some of our old cruise missiles.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4392240/Syrian-warplanes-air-base-hit-missiles.html

The Syrians were back in the air within a minute.

 

There is an established protocol for these situations. Trump's singlehanded, premature, trigger-happy response should remind us that it is not wise to turn a pyromaniac loose in a refinery with a book of matches.

 

Only the US is allowed to kill small children and babies. Remember how we dropped napalm on Vietnamese kids? http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/a5/cd/b3/a5cdb3972956449f06f01c30dae03e7b.jpg

Remember Afghanistan & Iraq?

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan

http://philosophukka.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-heroism-final-taboo.html

http://www.islamicpostonline.com/fr...ntagon-rules-will-allow-more-civilian-deaths/

The sanctimonious BS is enough to gag a maggot.

 

I wonder.. It didn't hurt Assad or his family.

 

Deleted - it was meant as a reply to post 580 by moon and subsequently corrected.

 

Where is a evidence, a investigation, a trial???

 

Something must have happened to make Trump so suddenly and inexplicably join the Establishment. I do not believe for one moment that he believes Assad used chems. But if I'm wrong his supporters will go ballistic and his presidency days will be numbered (then the Establishment can settle back down as if he'd never appeared on the scene to disturb their elitist complacency?). I'm afraid that as predicted in Bitter Lake the United States of America is terminally sick, and is the greatest threat to world peace: I mean whoever would have thought that would happen?? Anyway **** Trump and **** the warmongering wackos in the Pentagon, and I guess it's just a case of Watch this space?

Ooh boo-hoo - we must think of the children! Bloody knee-jerk emotive crap.

 

Look at this! Usa is full of ****.

 

I suspect lefties would condemn Trump for doing nothing about Assad gassing his own people too. Lefties criticise Trump simply because he's Trump and by their definition everything he does is wrong, has to be or else they'd be wrong themselves (which is impossible for a lefty to ever be).

National sovereignty is moderated by international law, a ruler can't use chemical weapons against civilians, a secular ruler in a Muslim country is desirable, but not when his level of tyranny exceeds acceptable bounds (as was seen with Saddam, Khaddafy and the Taliban -among others). The US president cannot forcibly impose his will anywhere, but is more able to do so when he does not exceed some acceptable bounds.

All of these issues are very relevant in debating Trump's missile attack against Syria, they merit intelligent discussion and offer insight into international relations, US foreign policy, international law, human rights and responsible government. Nothing in these issues is absolute, there are nuances and circumstances to be considered, things need to be balanced, comparisons should consider circumstances. Ranting about any of this is a wasted effort. It's not a zionist plot, isn't due to colonialism, is not racist nor Islamophobic.

 

In First, the CIA arm rebels and then begins a civil war, and then Usa uses it as a pretext for invasion. Or bastards in Pentagon lying banal.

 

Now why do you think Assad would do that?

 

Lol...You mean the same small children and babies that you right-wingers foamed at the mouth to deny entry to the US as refugees, eh?
Who the **** do you people think you're kidding with this desperate turd polishing?

 

One year old kids?

 

Lol...Don'cha know? Right-wingers think it's never too early to get a gun.
If those babies aren't with us, they're against us.

 

Assad gassed the town he targeted because insurgents from that town were causing his forces too much trouble, it was in retaliation.

Assad (and those he's delegated power to) expected the new US president to be much like the previous one, to be wary of the quagmire, seek broad international support, consult with allies, worry about harm's way, be concerned over sacrificing blood and treasure, and relied on an overestimated capability of Putín to protect him.

Trump was apparently moved by the distressing images of the suffering inflicted, persuaded of the legal unacceptability of chemical weapons use, not cowed by Putín, unconcerned over allies and others' misgivings and felt he could control the risk of escalation, there was negligible chance any US military would be harmed and the costs acceptable to prevent more gassings.

 

Are you so naive that you think that Assad thinks that radical Islamists can be intimidated by some kind of chemical weapons? They are not afraid even to blow themselves up. It's funny.