Gas attack in Syria kills dozens: US forces launch strike on Shayrat Airbase in Homs (4+ dead)

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

OK I see this is performance for daps and dodging of questions you cant answer.

Here's what I said in my first post:

This is more loose yarns being tied together to fit into a grand narrative. The U.S. tried to arm vetted rebels and the program was largely a failure. They were overpowered and never gained much credibility. Post-2013, the U.S.'s policy was by and large focused on fighting ISIS while dividing spheres of influence with Russia and avoiding direct confrontation with the regime.

I repeated exactly what I said about the U.S. focus post-2013. Where is the change in my position? You introduced the train and equip program as some sort of rebuttal to the idea regime change wasn't U.S. focus. I told you the YPG received far greater financial and military support. This is much greater evidence of what the policy priority is, along with the 7000 plus airstrikes focused on non-regime targets. Again you are engaging in crazy dissonance to claim U.S. focus was on Assad despite this evidence.

US is still arming Al Qaeda in Syria. The policy shift is a lie

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

well they did...only uninformed brainwashed shills think otherwise

You just adopt the opposite of whatever you hear as proof of realty.

You don't know shyt.

Now you're defending Isis. Congrats

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

You just adopt the opposite of whatever you hear as proof of realty.

You don't know shyt.

Now you're defending Isis. Congrats

But you're supporting Al Qaeda's eventual victory tho

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

But you're supporting Al Qaeda's eventual victory tho

This isn't a binary situation. There are other outcomes with other leaders.

 

[thatrapsfan]

US is still arming Al Qaeda in Syria. The policy shift is a lie

So the hundreds of U.S. airstrikes on AQ-targets were false flags huh?

Airstrikes like this were the U.S. attacking their proxy?

US air strikes kill more than 100 'al-Qaeda militants'

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

So the hundreds of U.S. airstrikes on AQ-targets were false flags huh?

Nope. But American foreign policy is nonsensical. Just like this later symbolic gesture via tomahawk missiles.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

This isn't a binary situation. There are other outcomes with other leaders.

Like what?

 

[thatrapsfan]

Nope. But American foreign policy is nonsensical. Just like this later symbolic gesture via tomahawk missiles.

Still cant bring yourself to acknowledging that the U.S. has spent far more resources and attention towards ISIS and not the regime. Its not even debatable but you are dancing all around this fact.

Why would the U.S. apologize for this action, if the regime was their priority?

US military admits it mistakenly targeted and killed loyalist Syrian forces

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

But @4d 6f 6e 65 79 and @thatknickfan - even if you were to support a neo-con inclination to bomb things in the Middle East....what process did Trump undertake? The interagency process matters a lot in big foreign policy decisions, and there doesn't appear to have been any consistent process beyond "Trump thought a thing and therefore did it".

Not consulted, the federal department responsible for foreign relations

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Still cant bring yourself to acknowledging that the U.S. has spent far more resources and attention towards ISIS and not the regime. Its not even debatable but you are dancing all around this fact.

Why would the U.S. apologize for this action, if the regime was their priority?

US military admits it mistakenly targeted and killed loyalist Syrian forces

The allocation of resources doesn't mean that it totally neglected a goal. America may have spent most of its resources fighting the Viet Cong but it doesn't mean that it also wanted to hobble the Viet Minh


America apologizes for a lot of things. It also apologized to Iran in 2016. Big deal.

 

[thatrapsfan]

The allocation of resources doesn't mean that it totally neglected a goal. America may have spent most of its resources fighting the Viet Cong but it doesn't mean that it also wanted to hobble the Viet Minh


America apologizes for a lot of things. It also apologized to Iran in 2016. Big deal.

The apology to Iran was also indicative that the U.S. (then at least) had no interest in entering a war with Iran. It definitely does mean something. You seem to think no focus on regime change or no interes in direct confrontation means the U.S. is an Assad ally or an Iran ally. Obviously not. But the policy decision was that other priorities trumped confrontation.


I suspect that you know you're wrong btw and just being stubborn

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

The apology to Iran was also indicative that the U.S. (then at least) had no interest in entering a war with Iran. It definitely does mean something. You seem to think no focus on regime change or no interes in direct confrontation means the U.S. is an Assad ally or an Iran ally. Obviously not. But the policy decision was that other priorities trumped confrontation.


I suspect that you know you're wrong btw and just being stubborn

The premise of your argument is faulty. America has aided and continues to aid forces which desire the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad.

I suspect you know deep in your heart you're assisting evil, but you are clinging to the neo-conservative tradition of insipid intervention because you crave self-validation through American warfare

 

[Leasy]

Damn that book Confessions of an Economic Hitman is so true right now with Syria situation.

 

[thatrapsfan]

But @4d 6f 6e 65 79 and @thatknickfan - even if you were to support a neo-con inclination to bomb things in the Middle East....what process did Trump undertake? The interagency process matters a lot in big foreign policy decisions, and there doesn't appear to have been any consistent process beyond "Trump thought a thing and therefore did it".

Not consulted, the federal department responsible for foreign relations

This has nothing to do with my argument. I never said I support the strike, only that I dont think the justification for it was invented. I also highlighted that intervention is already ongoing in Syria

But to be clear I dont believe pacifism in every single context is a serious position.

 

[thatrapsfan]

The premise of your argument is faulty. America has aided and continues to aid forces which desire the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad.

I suspect you know deep in your heart you're assisting evil, but you are clinging to the neo-conservative tradition of insipid intervention because you crave self-validation through American warfare

You can't pretend to be a moral arbiter of "evil" , when you regurgitate state propaganda of a murderous regime with the highest kill toll in this conflict.

Also your leftist tactic of throwing on "neo-con" on anyone who doesn't believe in third-rate Cold-War narratives is very lazy, I expected better from you. Nothing I said suggests a neo-conservative point of view.