(April 6, 2017 at 9:59 pm)Isis Wrote:

(April 6, 2017 at 9:47 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I wonder what the 'goal' is ??   Or if the attack has even been thought out that far ??

Rule out right at the top of this regime change is not the goal.

BBC News Wrote:Earlier on Thursday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad should have no role in a future Syria.

It would appear that regime change is the goal now, although apparently some people in Trump's administration are concerned about this and quite rightly so. Assad is a brutal dictator but this may end up benefiting ISIL and other jihadist groups in Syria.

Saddam was a brutal dictator, does anyone now think that invasion was a good Idea? 
If successful?? then the US will be left trying to fight off Islamic fanatics while trying to force a democracy onto a people who will ultimately despise them.  The process will take years and years.

It makes me crazy that the correct course of action is to ignore a fucking gas attack that killed children. I feel violated and dirty for being forced to think like this.

Syria is ungovernable. What would 'regime change' entail that would be an improvement over the current cluster fuck ??

(April 6, 2017 at 10:05 pm)Crunchy Wrote: Saddam was a brutal dictator, does anyone now think that invasion was a good Idea? 
If successful?? then the US will be left trying to fight off Islamic fanatics while trying to force a democracy onto a people who will ultimately despise them.  The process will take years and years.

It makes me crazy that the correct course of action is to ignore a fucking gas attack that killed children. I feel violated and dirty for being forced to think like this.

If you read my post again, you will realise that I agree with you. The whole situation over there is already fucked up as it is and this will only complicate matters more, and cost taxpayers millions, possibly billions, if it continues.

Oh damn

(April 6, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Crunchy Wrote: If only they had killed those children with conventional weapons. Then, we could have ignored it.

Ignore it?  Why if they had killed them by taking away their health care the WLB and his scumbag republicunt pals would have been absolutely giddy.

(April 6, 2017 at 10:09 pm)Isis Wrote:

(April 6, 2017 at 10:05 pm)Crunchy Wrote: Saddam was a brutal dictator, does anyone now think that invasion was a good Idea? 
If successful?? then the US will be left trying to fight off Islamic fanatics while trying to force a democracy onto a people who will ultimately despise them.  The process will take years and years.

It makes me crazy that the correct course of action is to ignore a fucking gas attack that killed children. I feel violated and dirty for being forced to think like this.

If you read my post again, you will realise that I agree with you. The whole situation over there is already fucked up as it is and this will only complicate matters more, and cost taxpayers millions, possibly billions, if it continues.

Sorry, I knew you meant that and my reply was not directed at you. I was just being angry in general but I don't think I made that clear. 


This is really fucked up and its like watching a tape on replay. Haven't we been down this same fucked up road before?

Twitter is having a field day with some old Trump tweets:

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!"

"If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S."

"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."

"AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"

(April 6, 2017 at 10:07 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Syria is ungovernable.  What would 'regime change' entail that would be an improvement over the current cluster fuck ??

Think Libya.

Why on earth would Asad have ordered a gas attack now? 
Why on earth would Putin allow Asad to use gas now?

Around 400,000 have been killed so far conventionally and suddenly they decide to kill 100+ civilians with gas?

Ok, even if they absolutely did decide to use gas, does it really matter? Let's say we suddenly find out it wasn't gas after all. Is our position "Sorry, we thought you had done something wrong when you killed those kids. Carry on."

(April 6, 2017 at 9:47 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I wonder what the 'goal' is ??   Or if the attack has even been thought out that far ??

I can rule out right now regime change is the goal.

When Obama wanted to go in after the gas attack under his administration what did the GOP SAY? NO WAY, we are not going to play world's police.

But when an Orange narcissist wants to do it and has the backing of " die quickly GOP on health care", that makes everything ok. There is no upside to this, only irony because Trump is now in a tough spot having to challenge Russia whom he'd spent his campaign sucking their dicks.