Rayvin
-
Posts
21495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
Agree with basically all of that - but what they need to do to get rid of him, are things that they won't do.
-
This is the same Clinton who, in response to this attack, said that she would blow up every airbase in Syria, and implement a hardline stance with Russia?
-
So you're saying it's going to be a scoreline along the lines of the famous 8-0?
-
He's gagging to win the thing, we know that for certain. If Chem weaps help, and he's not previously brought the yanks in by using them, why stop now?
-
...I mean, I'd personally be amazed if anything remotely interesting comes of this. But who knows.
-
You aren't a chemical weapons expert and yet you're telling me that it's not effective when dropped from planes... I don't think you get to play that one both ways Why would the risk it - who knows. Maybe because they've had no repercussions previously?
-
No chance is that going to happen. I mean, come on. That's just setting us up to be the fall guys in some bizarre PR stunt where Defoe comes out and says he's leaving, but he's turning us down on principle
-
I remember him telling me that I shouldn't worry about the poor in this country, and that he would inform me when things got so bad that people like me should vote for policies to help... until that point, I should be entirely self interested, apparently.
-
The argument against the idea that they've inadvertently blown up a munitions depot appears to be that doing so would have all but entirely destroyed the Sarin. Thoughts?
-
That's convenient. Is there any real evidence at all to support this? I mean, literally anything? Has Russia got a single damn piece of information other than it's "word", and the word of the fuckwit who currently rules Syria, that this is what happened? I'm prepared to give Russia a lot of slack in the face of Western aggression, but I'm not going to choke back their bullshit unless they have any actual, meaningful evidence to contribute. As it stands, the West for all its 'hastiness' in responding here, has the far more convincing story.
-
I tried, I got nothing. As for the rest of it, we know the Syrian airforce bombed that area at least 30 minutes before the alarm was raised about Sarin, so your argument could stand but - I was under the impression that the Russians had agreed with Obama that they would have all chemical weapons in Syria removed by mid-2014. So for your argument to be correct, the Russians would either be duplicitous or incompetent.
-
Citation? Also, presumably then you believe that the Russian story about Rebels blowing up a chem weapon storage facility is the likelihood?
-
Was under the impression that both Turkey and the US have intel confirming it was dropped from a plane..?
-
I dunno man, a missile strike isn't a ground war. And he's stopped short of blowing up every airbase in Syria and giving Russia a 'you're with us or against us' ultimatum as recommended by HRC...
-
Aye I suppose it does read as if they consider it to be a controversial viewpoint. The Sun seem like they're trying to outdo the Mail for most cuntish newspaper atm.
-
...Oh. That's how the press has been talking about him for the past two years but ok
-
I don't understand, what's so incredible about it? It's a direct quote isn't it?
-
In fact, you could argue that the Trump move here is in fact less belligerent than what HRC has proposed...
-
Gloom, what he's done appears consistent with other US politicians... http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/ Hillary Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force on Thursday, days after a chemical attack killed more than 70 people in the war-torn country. "Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," Clinton said in a speech at the "Women in the World" summit in New York City. "And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."
-
I know what you mean - for all the points made in my last post it's equally possible that Putin could respond by fighting fire with fire, and that we see a general escalation in military bravado and tension. That said, as noted, Clinton said she would have done the same thing, so I'm not sure the outcome would have been fundamentally different either way, so far. It'd just be couched in more comforting narratives with her. Don't think we'd be any 'safer' though.
-
Ok, full devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Sure it makes the world appear 'less secure' but if "enemies" of the West have to consider that for each action they take, their might be a sudden and unpredictable backlash, they'll consider those actions far more carefully. For a long time Russia has had the upper hand in this, as they were the ones who would make the sudden and unpredictable moves. Now they might be in a position where they have to play the responsible power to the US' recklessness. I don't think Russia and Putin want a war any more than we do. However, this is just one data point and it's hard to draw useful conclusions from it. If he ends up embroiled in a surface war, then he's no better than those who came before. If this missile strike is left to stand as it is, then it remains a significant statement. However unwitting, Trump may have actually averted some far worse actions by the Syrian regime. We'll have to see I guess.
-
Whichever way we look at it, he wouldn't have done it just on principle. So aye, there will be domestic political benefits as well.
-
What would you have done in his position?
-
Was the Sun actually crass enough to beam that onto the Rock...
-
We're away, so I think we'll win this. 2-1.
