True.

Champstark,

Is that wrong? Saddam gassed people too, but removing him was a major cause of all of this. And the buck doesn't necessarily stop with Syria. Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and North Africa are all vulnerable. A missile strike on an old airbase isn't making that happen, but if this is policy what makes you think more chaos isn't the result?

That's why we and the UN put in place the no-fly zone in Iraq.

Like I said, this one attack isn't going to destabilize things much further, but now Trump is in charge, not Bill Clinton and there's no UN support.

Also, did Clinton's actions in Iraq make things better? Pretty gross when Madeline Albright just says killing 500 000 children was worth it.

(Edit: I thought I was replying to Champstark, but w/e. )

Are you referring to the Gabbard quote?

I don't disagree with you, I posted that quote because she openly doubts that Assad gassed the civilians, lending credence to all the idiots with their conspiracy theories. It is fully in line with her ridiculous meeting with Assad and support of Putin/Assad. All of which HastenDan has defended.

Gabbard needs to get primary'd badly. She's a Democrat from Hawaii.

How Tulsi Gabbard became Assad’s mouthpiece in Washington
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.dc83e32f3721

Obama gave sarin gas to Assad? Cite?

How dare anyone question the official line! Let's go to war immediately! Why bother presenting the case to the U.N.? Definitely get rid of Tulsi, no one likes her! She said something that made me think too hard!

I'm seeing people say Syria is very similar to Iraq. I disagree.

when Iraq was invaded, it had been more than a decade since Saddam had last used chemical weapons. Saddam agreed to give them up and U.N. weapons inspectors could not find any evidence to the contrary. America, contrary to the rest of the world, insisted that Saddam had restarted his programs, and invaded as a pre-emptive measure. We now know the U.N. and world community was right, and the Bush administration had pushed the USIC for biased 'evidence' in support of their invasion.

This is not the same as an 6 years-ongoing civil war where Assad has repeatedly used chemical weapons against his people and did so again just a few days ago.

Brief googling suggests the Russians supplied Syria with sarin in the 80's, but they can manufacture it themselves now. Syria bought 100 metric tons of precursors from German companies from 2002-2006.

I'm not for going to war. Trump didn't present the case to the U.N. for his airstrikes either. I've been against Gabbard since before the strikes because she is clearly pro-Assad. She was pushing pro-Assad conspiracy theories after the chemical weapons attack.

This pretty much says it all for me:


https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/...14597665054720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

Is it a far fetched conspiracy theory that this whole thing has been orchestrated to deflect attention away from Trump and Russia controversy? After the gas attack happened they could have seen an opportunity. Now it looks like Trump is going against Putin on something and Russia is condemning Trump.

Now Gabbard is a Nazi. That was fast.

definitely twitched a little when I read this part

I don't think she's a Nazi, I think she's a pro-Putin opportunist who latched onto the Bernie wave and is trying to become the Rand Paul of the left.

Tulsi Gabbard is a member of a cult-like sect of Hinduism, she supports Assad because he is secular and she imagines that no matter what he does it could be even worse if an Islamist took his place. (Hindus and Muslims have conflicted for a long time)

Right. She's not a Nazi but she is way too friendly with Assad. She needs to go.

I don't think this is true. It played well in the primaries among the crazy people, but most of his supporters are driven by selfishness and shielding their 70-80k/year from the government imo.

If you heard a candidate say that and voted for him/her anyway, you are crazy. It doesn't matter what your main reason was.

Moral people don't vote for politicans who say things like that.

No way is she too friendly with Assad, she just doesn't think we need to start a war over this ****. But I know the drill, everyone who doesn't want to march to war immediately is anti-American. Been there, done that. It's been like this for 15 years.

Richard Spencer is a ****ing idiot nazi and just because he says something you can't attribute Gabbard to being in cahoots with him. Wow that is a ridiculous point to use to slander her.

Also the claim that she latched on the Bernie wave as if she is just some opportunist is hilarious. **** outta here. She resigned from her position at the DNC because she was opposed to the way Bernie was getting railroaded in the primary AND as a military veteran she is not for preemptive go it alone war like the rest of the neoliberal establishment Democrats.

One ****ing politician has the slightest bit of moral fiber about anything and she is accused of supporting dictators, of being anti-Muslim, and associating with nazis.

Absolutely nothing crazy about thinking like this at all.

I already said I don't want to go to war so why do you keep LYING about my position? Is it because you can't defend your position on substance?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.5784e1d99ac1

By the way, I do believe that we perhaps need to go to war in Syria in order to protect our interests: energy resources and control of the land around them. But let's at least agree that this is what war is about.

Instead we're going to kill thousands more as retribution for 75 people dying in a gas attack? Yeah ok that makes a ton of sense, just like it did in Iraq.

Moderate rebels is an oxymoron.

Yes, the U.S. is funding and arming al-Q and ISIS because it destabilizes the established regimes because as I've said WE need to control the land and resources for military strategic purposes.