Quote:
Originally Posted by strangerhypno
I wouldn't be surprised Assad's regime did do it. Russia saying they don't approve doesn't mean they actually don't approve, Russia is pretty corrupt itself. I don't see what talks can lead to with them, but I guess it's better than a missile exchange.
|
Yeah, that is what the western establishment would like for you to believe. The logic actually follows somewhat like this:
- Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against his own people by the Western Bloc. No hard evidence is provided, and Western Bloc could be lying.
- Eastern Bloc interjects and says the Western Bloc is lying, also providing no hard evidence. Eastern Bloc could also be lying just as well.
- Since there is no hard evidence linking Assad to the attack, the finger-pointing becomes irrelevant as neither party is to be trusted.
- With the Blocs out of the way, we examine Assad and Syria to find that he has little or nothing to gain by attacking his people with chemical weapons, and a lot to lose by doing so. So why would he do that?
Regardless of who says what, the logic forming the accusations against Assad isn’t there. He has everything to lose to do something so reckless and stupid in a civil war like this, so assuming Assad is capable of acting in his own interests, which for his entire past career he pretty much has been, then he would not do this.
Of course, we don’t know for a fact what happened either way. For now, the chemical attacks are completely unexplained and the only big answers being pushed by the Blocs have no significant evidence and expect the public to take their word on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bidoof FTW
Russia called an emergency UN Council meeting today so hopefully we'll get some good news out of that.
I just want to be done with Syria, Trump recently talked about pulling troops out and to see a missile strike by 3 major powers just makes me so uncomfortable. The sooner this conflict is over, the better.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14
This is terrible. The US President needs to get the authorization of Congress to commit acts of war. I don't know about the UK ad French requirements, but Jeremy Corbyn seems to be saying that May needed to get the approval of Parliament for the UK to participate.
|
People wanted to be done with Syria seven years ago, as President Obama began moving in to go to war with them. And like Obama, Trump seems to be following the same exact pattern: “We are going to war with Syria,” “I do not need Congressional approval,” “Assad absolutely did use chemical weapons [ad nauseam],” et cetera.
The Presidents are checked by nobody, and for wartime purposes have as much power as an Emperor would to carry out their will. They count on the fact that the public won’t really care about the war that much, as long as they’re not personally inconvenienced, and in all likelihood they’re probably right on the money and prove it by getting reelected. They’ll continue doing what they want, making messes and leaving millions to waste away, and check right out on inauguration day like nothing happened as the next guy inherits their mess.