Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Was Donald Trump right to bomb Syria?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWas Donald Trump right to bomb Syria?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Poll Question: Without congressional approval or a UN resolution?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
5 [20.83%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [12.50%]
9 [37.50%]
3 [12.50%]
0 [0.00%]
4 [16.67%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 11 2017 at 05:56
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

The west are also crazy enough to supply them to future enemies, as was the case with Iraq, when they were at war with Iran. This is my problem. There are no cleans hands. There are no good guys, there are just 'interests' that each side wish to protect, and will do so regardless of the cost in human life or money.
Weapons don't really have a "shelf-life", even obsolete, out-moded and antique weapons have the capacity to kill so just as current allies can be future enemies, current enemies can be past allies and past enemies can be future allies so every arms sale has the potential to bite the seller on the arse. As we consider replacing Trident I'm sure someone in the Pentagon is having second thoughts 'hey, didn't those guys burn down the White House in 1814...'.

While the rebels have no means to make Sarin so if they deployed it they had to get it ready-made, Assad has the technology and all raw ingredients to make as much of it as he likes, and it doesn't take a genius to work out where all that came from - the only uncertainty is when. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day... Putin hands out fish, he doesn't teach people how to fish whereas the West doesn't sell fishing nets, it just sells string and a bumper book of knots...
What?
Back to Top
Pastmaster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 23 2015
Location: Spiderwood Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 1774 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2017 at 11:21
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by aglasshouse aglasshouse wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

The UN is a joke and the congress would only have slowed him down. You could argue that the bombing was a waste of money and he shouldn't have done it at all (and I would be inclined to agree), but if he was going to do it, this was the right way.
Yeah, this.

Yeah, this too.

+3
Back to Top
O666 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2009
Location: TEHRAN-IRAN
Status: Offline
Points: 2619 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2017 at 08:08
NO
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20616 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2017 at 09:22
Hello Omar, good to see you back.Smile I wish it was about a better topic. Unhappy
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Machinemessiah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 02 2005
Location: Santiago, Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 594 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 29 2017 at 21:02
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:



Yes, war is always a money spinner, but the whole episode doesn't smell right to me. For a start Assad was getting the upper jhand in the conflict having recently taken Aleppo. Why risk a foreign intervention with a chemical attack, unless he was testing the new presidents reaction...


As for the reasons for Assad I remember having read this article in The Guardian stating that: it's been 6 years of war, Assad gains have been costly, his army is battle weary, he is struggling in some places, has used terror tactics before, bombed hospitals, etc.

Trump himself said in campaign he didn't have a problem with Assad and would stay focused on America (so there would be no risk of intervention...).

Also, by now, more evidence has mounted on the authorship of the chemical attack by Assad's regime.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.185 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.