Gas Attack In Syria..genocide

[DogMan85 722]

Remember when it was just hysterical liberals saying Trump would start WWIII? Good times.

It's a long time coming, I feel Hillary would have beat him to it though. ?

Edited April 11, 2017 by DogMan85

[Accip74 7,112]

 

Remember when it was just hysterical liberals saying Trump would start WWIII? Good times.

It's a long time coming, I feel Hillary would have beat him to it though.

By 24 hours?

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Red Dawn was better than Threads...

[DogMan85 722]

 

 

Remember when it was just hysterical liberals saying Trump would start WWIII? Good times.

It's a long time coming, I feel Hillary would have beat him to it though.

By 24 hours?

Your guess is as good as mine pal. ?

[Nik_B 3,790]

Red Dawn was better than Threads...

 

More entertaining but Threads was very realistic in how it depicted the build up and attacks especially the mention of a high altitude nuclear detonation which military planners in the cold war believed would cause a massive electro magnetic pulse to damage electronic equipment, thats why there is a bit in the film where cars wont start etc.

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

 

Remember when it was just hysterical liberals saying Trump would start WWIII? Good times.

It's a long time coming, I feel Hillary would have beat him to it though.

By 24 hours?

Your guess is as good as mine pal.

Can't argue with that....;-)

[ChrisJones 7,975]

More entertaining but Threads was very realistic in how it depicted the build up and attacks especially the mention of a high altitude nuclear detonation which military planners in the cold war believed would cause a massive electro magnetic pulse to damage electronic equipment, thats why there is a bit in the film where cars wont start etc. o

 

Give over, Nik!

[C556 351]

I wonder if this is the start of a longer term plan to curtail Iran's influence in Syria. I wish the US would stick to supporting the YPG and bombing ISIS.

[Nik_B 3,790]

I wonder if this is the start of a longer term plan to curtail Iran's influence in Syria. I wish the US would stick to supporting the YPG and bombing ISIS.

 

100% for sure

 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

[Nik_B 3,790]

 

More entertaining but Threads was very realistic in how it depicted the build up and attacks especially the mention of a high altitude nuclear detonation which military planners in the cold war believed would cause a massive electro magnetic pulse to damage electronic equipment, thats why there is a bit in the film where cars wont start etc. o

 

Give over, Nik!

wolverines.jpg

 

 

What have I said?

 

Scared the living sh*t out of me when I was a kid

[ChrisJones 7,975]

I know, mate! Same here. I was just arguing that Red Dawn was a better film!

[Nik_B 3,790]

Someone else floated a similar idea earlier in this thread but maybe these strikes were a message for the North Koreans.

 

Jack Posobiec a smart guy and good journalist (also predicted the Syrian strikes with 75% certainty) claims he has a source that says they're going to take out the North Korean nuclear reactors and other facilities if they don't give up their nuclear program. He claims the attack could happen within days and this week and gives a 50/50 chance. He also claims that the intelligence agencies and the likes of MccMaster are feeding Trump information that North Korea are thinking about using their nuke.

 

Personally I think NK nuclear program is nowhere close to being able to use a nuclear weapon

 

On Zerohedge an interesting spin that China would also attack NK as soon as the US does and secure territory.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/china-threatens-bomb-north-koreas-nuclear-facilities-if-it-crosses-beijings-bottom-l

 

Amazingly public support for a strike on NK is far higher than boots on the ground in Syria. Anyway who knows, they often circulate stories in the news to send a message of intent to foreign countries and gauge public support etc

[Nik_B 3,790]

p.s Trump confirms "we're not going in to Syria"

[Born Hunter 17,798]

p.s Trump confirms "we're not going in to Syria"

 

Nik, at what point do the nationalist/anti-interventionists draw the line on, well, intervention. Is it only okay to deploy force to counter a direct threat to US territory? In genuine humanitarian cases? To protect a direct threat to an ally? To protect international trade routes?

 

Do they really think that the US should remain absolutely inactive and let the rest of the world get on with it up until the point enemy airborne are dropping on US soil? Surely there is a line somewhere between the Bush agenda of overthrowing every uncooperative foreign state and say deploying force to counter the likes of IS or threats to international shipping lanes and trade? Or are they both viewed similarly?

 

Is this anti interventionist feeling driven by the bad experiences of the neo-con/Bush agenda with therefore the simple attitude of 'no intervention at all' being the safest option to avoid it?

 

The reason I pose these questions is that I'm far from convinced that Trump is in any way chasing that same agenda. I think that neither the reason nor justification for that strike was anything to do with regime change or gaining another valuable proxy. Militarily it was a waste of time, he did everything he could to make sure that any real military damage was minimal. The justification we all have heard about and will be supported or opposed with the evidence from the ensuing international investigation. The reasons however imo were simple, it made the statement loud and clear that "this administration is not afraid to get involved anywhere!", a statement which helped with more than one problem.

 

I mentioned the message being addressed to Pyongyang. I've had that at the back of my mind since the electoral campaign. It's one of the things I thought he seemed to be quite sensible on, rejecting the bad tasting agenda of regime change and saying that nuclear states were the greatest threat.

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

p.s Trump confirms "we're not going in to Syria"

 

Nik, at what point do the nationalist/anti-interventionists draw the line on, well, intervention. Is it only okay to deploy force to counter a direct threat to US territory? In genuine humanitarian cases? To protect a direct threat to an ally? To protect international trade routes?

 

Do they really think that the US should remain absolutely inactive and let the rest of the world get on with it up until the point enemy airborne are dropping on US soil? Surely there is a line somewhere between the Bush agenda of overthrowing every uncooperative foreign state and say deploying force to counter the likes of IS or threats to international shipping lanes and trade? Or are they both viewed similarly?

 

Is this anti interventionist feeling driven by the bad experiences of the neo-con/Bush agenda with therefore the simple attitude of 'no intervention at all' being the safest option to avoid it?

 

The reason I pose these questions is that I'm far from convinced that Trump is in any way chasing that same agenda. I think that neither the reason nor justification for that strike was anything to do with regime change or gaining another valuable proxy. Militarily it was a waste of time, he did everything he could to make sure that any real military damage was minimal. The justification we all have heard about and will be supported or opposed with the evidence from the ensuing international investigation. The reasons however imo were simple, it made the statement loud and clear that "this administration is not afraid to get involved anywhere!", a statement which helped with more than one problem.

 

I mentioned the message being addressed to Pyongyang. I've had that at the back of my mind since the electoral campaign. It's one of the things I thought he seemed to be quite sensible on, rejecting the bad tasting agenda of regime change and saying that nuclear states were the greatest threat.

 

The trouble with the whole argument is that it is rendered void by the simple and undeniable fact that if one purports to be a superpower that looks after it's interests one cannot have an non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

Otherwise some proxy of some other budding power will test you and force your hand.