Russia PM says Trump attack came within an inch of war with Russia

this subject (trump retaliating against assad) seems like the 1 thing lefties and righties seem to semi-agree on. i havent seen so many opposites saying "hell is freezing over b/c i agree with-----". pretty cool to watch

originally posted by: Annee
So, the US is just one country among many.

All countries should condemn this type warfare - - gas/chemical attacks.

But, why should the US be the one to retaliate via bombing?

Because the US is the only country that enforces international law.

That's the exact reason many see NATO as obsolete, they are not willing to enforce law with military action even when diplomacy always fails.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Highly ironic.

Looks to me like he's being played, either by the MSM or the Intel agencies.

I am very tired of this.

a reply to: xstealth

Um... What? Do you not remember the "Coalition of the willing"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: allsee4eye

i was just wondering how this whole thing works. so lets say hypothetically, daesh sets off chemical attack, msm says assad did it, then us attacks assad, making russia and iran irate. sounds like a whole can of worms, and the lids off....

You just pinpointed why Trump should have stayed out of this.

Why would Trump ever do such a thing?

He's a puppet, and beholden to his masters like every other POTUS.

Nothing is changed, people are just gullible as ever.

a reply to: TonyS

Me too, but I saw this coming a mile away. That's what happens when you discard nuance and let shallow decisions guide your methodology.

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Annee
So, the US is just one country among many.

All countries should condemn this type warfare - - gas/chemical attacks.

But, why should the US be the one to retaliate via bombing?

Because the US is the only country that enforces international law.

That's the exact reason many see NATO as obsolete, they are not willing to enforce law with military action even when diplomacy always fails.

Do you believe what you are saying? How can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?

originally posted by: Willtell
This is an absolute reckless act with no justification.

The deep Nazi state forced Trump to do it because of his bad press.


So there going to risk a war with Russia, a potential world destroying event just for this deep state political act against Assad without any clear proof he used gas.


No investigation


We are in trouble folks

God help us

Yeah, we're in trouble alright.

God doesn't exist, and has nothing to do with geopolitical schemes.

The deep state Nazi's made Trump do it.

Goddamn - you people are bat# insane.

originally posted by: Velatropa24

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Annee
So, the US is just one country among many.

All countries should condemn this type warfare - - gas/chemical attacks.

But, why should the US be the one to retaliate via bombing?

Because the US is the only country that enforces international law.

That's the exact reason many see NATO as obsolete, they are not willing to enforce law with military action even when diplomacy always fails.

Do you believe what you are saying? How can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?

How can NATO be a military force without the USA?

We are NATO.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xstealth

Um... What? Do you not remember the "Coalition of the willing"

I remember that.

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Velatropa24

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Annee
So, the US is just one country among many.

All countries should condemn this type warfare - - gas/chemical attacks.

But, why should the US be the one to retaliate via bombing?

Because the US is the only country that enforces international law.

That's the exact reason many see NATO as obsolete, they are not willing to enforce law with military action even when diplomacy always fails.

Do you believe what you are saying? How can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?

How can NATO be a military force without the USA?

We are NATO.

Yeah. You are nato. No one questioned that. The question was: " how can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Woulda liked your link better if it was "coalition of the billing."

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Trump goes on a rampage and fires 59 Tomahawks. More than 30 were intercepted by SA-22 Greyhounds near Tartus.

twitter.com...

Any source for that? I cannot find anything about intercepted Tomahawks, but that might just be me.

They only lost one out of the 60 that fell into the sea from malfunction.

originally posted by: Velatropa24

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Velatropa24

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Annee
So, the US is just one country among many.

All countries should condemn this type warfare - - gas/chemical attacks.

But, why should the US be the one to retaliate via bombing?

Because the US is the only country that enforces international law.

That's the exact reason many see NATO as obsolete, they are not willing to enforce law with military action even when diplomacy always fails.

Do you believe what you are saying? How can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?

How can NATO be a military force without the USA?

We are NATO.

Yeah. You are nato. No one questioned that. The question was: " how can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?"

The US was enforcing international law, I guess you want to see us punished for doing the job of enforcement, since we are NATO.

a reply to: xstealth

NATO is Washington Treaty

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Velatropa24

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Velatropa24

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Annee
So, the US is just one country among many.

All countries should condemn this type warfare - - gas/chemical attacks.

But, why should the US be the one to retaliate via bombing?

Because the US is the only country that enforces international law.

That's the exact reason many see NATO as obsolete, they are not willing to enforce law with military action even when diplomacy always fails.

Do you believe what you are saying? How can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?

How can NATO be a military force without the USA?

We are NATO.

Yeah. You are nato. No one questioned that. The question was: " how can you enforce international law by constantly braking it?"

The US was enforcing international law, I guess you want to see us punished for doing the job of enforcement, since we are NATO.

I repeat the question yet again, read carefully: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO ENFORCE INTERNATIONAL LAW BY CONSTANTLY VIOLATING IT?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Woulda liked your link better if it was "coalition of the billing."

To be honest. I can't think of that phrase without thinking of Dave Chapelle saying it during his Black Bush skit. I wanted to post a Youtube clip, but I can't find it online.

just me or tomahawk seems outdated as #?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: carewemust
The public has no-idea how well planned these things have to be...because defenses are always in place. James "Mad Dog" Mattis planned yesterday's attack personally.

Sources please?

Certainly.
theintercept.com...

From your own source

The proposed airstrike was prepared by U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in Syria

Which is a far cry from your assertion that Mattis "personally crafted" a plan to strike Syria. Your hyperbole knows no bounds.

originally posted by: Lysergic
just me or tomahawk seems outdated as #?

So are tires and gasoline, but when something works you stick with it.