Originally posted by Robtard
Not Trump per say, as he can't make Assad do something tactically useless and utterly stupid, which only draws negative attention with no gain whatsoever. Putin on the other hand, he can.
I get it now, so it's Putin who staged an attack against an ally just to get people in another country to stop bringing up Russia to Trump?
But..this will grant only a temporary reprieve from Russia being discussed. He's going to murder his allies in exchange for a few weeks of Russia not being focused on?
Let's just go with "Assad is a bad hombre" and he does stuff that severely endangers his control even though he now had the clear upper-hand in his war/genocide and a new US president who didn't give a shit about conventional bombs. Also expect the new angle that Putin really doesn't like Assad much and Assad's a loose cannon.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because Articles of Impeachment originate in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans.They are not going to move to impeach a member of their own party who will rubber stamp any damaging bill they ram through, and replace him with a more deliberative person.
But way to shift the blame to the opposition party who does not have the power to do anything.
Originally posted by SurturSurt, are you aware that the suggested no-fly zone was in response to the bombing of civilians also, and the steady destruction of most of Aleppo? The reasoning hasn't changed lol. And according to Trump, we should have done nothing.
Okay but the context here is that we just had a deadly chemical attack that killed shitloads of people including children.Which is something I hope people keep in mind before they immediately jump to "but Hilary!". Also btw, PLENTY of Trump supporters are indeed upset over this. Richard Spencer put out a whiny 20 minute video. So not only has Trump alienated Russia with this(but..collusion!) but also some of the alt right.
What do you think we should have done?
Originally posted by Robtard
Let's just go with "Assad is a bad hombre" and he does stuff that severely endangers his control even though he now had the clear upper-hand in his war/genocide and a new US president who didn't give a shit about conventional bombs. Also expect the new angle that Putin really doesn't like Assad much and Assad's a loose cannon.
Okay so now this has nothing to do with trying to distract from Russia, now it is because Putin just didn't like Assad?
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Surt, are you aware that the suggested no-fly zone was in response to the bombing of civilians also, and the steady destruction of most of Aleppo? The reasoning hasn't changed lol. According to Trump, we should have done nothing.
Trump has now switched gears and wants to do something though.
For instance, your country supports him with what he did to Syria, did you know that?
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Surt, are you aware that the suggested no-fly zone was in response to the bombing of civilians also, and the steady destruction of most of Aleppo? The reasoning hasn't changed lol. And according to Trump, we should have done nothing.
Military action in Syria is okay now that Trump's in office. I'm sure if he suggest a NFZ, it will be the greatest and best idea.
Originally posted by SurturThis is coming from the same person who dismissed Russian involvement in the first place on the basis of a conspiracy theory. Amusing as ever Surt.
Again: if Trump is beholden to Putin why is he launching missiles at Syria? Especially makes zero sense if Putin has stuff to black mail Trump.But I do love the conspiracy theories. Now you're implying Trump did this just so people wouldn't think he is in cahoots with Russia? Right.
I love the lunacy of the left. No matter what they will find a way to whine about Trump. If they can't find anything on the surface they will start putting forth conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
This is coming from the same person who dismissed Russian involvement in the first place on the basis of a conspiracy theory. Amusing as ever Surt.
That's exactly why I'm bringing it up though, so thank you for making this point.
You can't whine and say there is no conspiracy about Trump and people are silly for thinking it, but then totally say this other conspiracy is legit.
In other words: conspiracy theories that don't make Trump look bad aren't okay, ones that do are okay.
Yeah bro, that is definitely amusing.
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so now this has nothing to do with trying to distract from Russia, now it is because Putin just didn't like Assad?
I'm just waiting for Trump to openly criticize Putin, cos apparently as Assad's ally, he was supposed to keep Assad from using a WMDs and only kill his people with standard bombs and bullets.
Originally posted by SurturSwitching gears is what your doing yes. The statement you made was that Trump and Hillary's involvement in the Syrian situation had different contexts and reasoning behind them, they did not, despite Trump vocally opposing Hillary for her stance. In which respect this wholly ironic as Joker remarked, yeah.
Trump has now switched gears and wants to do something though.For instance, your country supports him with what he did to Syria, did you know that?
What my country thinks is not relevant here, however I'm certainly interested in what you think Surt.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm just waiting for Trump to openly criticize Putin, cos apparently as Assad's ally, he was supposed to keep Assad from using a WMDs and only kill his people with standard bombs and bullets.
Why are you waiting for this? I can tell you how it will go down and what people will say: if Trump doesn't openly criticize Putin..it means he is in cahoots with Russia. But if he does criticize him, I'm sure a bunch of little Einstein's will try to say it's a lie and that he is just criticizing Putin in the open in order to fool people into thinking he has no ties to Russia.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Switching gears is what your doing yes. The statement you made was that Trump and Hillary's involvement in the Syrian situation had different contexts and reasoning behind them, they did not, despite Trump vocally opposing Hillary for her stance. In which respect this wholly ironic as Joker remarked, yeah.What my country thinks is not relevant here, however I'm certainly interested in what you think Surt.
I said the context was they were just attacked. People were talking about Clinton being a war hawk, and in the past she had talked about going after Russia and stuff.
Did you have any further questions or comments?