The timing of this is so ridiculous that I would easily assume that the rebels committed a false flag chemical attack. But given Russia's behavior, I can't be sure at all. In fact, because of it, it seems like Russia and Syria planned it or helped execute it. Which go back to "why?".
Chapter VII of the UN Charter was part of this now veto'd resolution
What is your comment on the OPCW findings in 2016? This is an absurd game of semantics, where the goalposts are shifted till infinity to avoid ever admitting Assad uses chemical weaponsBut they still don't know do they? It's only 'pattern', 'likely'...
Assuming Assad did do it...
He got Jaysh Al-Islam to surrender Douma for... a bunch of missiles and air strikes destroying his military installations, hundreds of soldiers, and other damage.
He's some special kind of an idiot.
Cmon breh are you serious? Are you claiming the veto was about stopping a potential UN approved intervention?
What is your comment on the OPCW findings in 2016? This is an absurd game of semantics, where the goalposts are shifted till infinity to avoid ever admitting Assad uses chemical weapons
If that's the case, then why the Russia veto?This is a false flag perpetuated by the revels all the way. This exact same time last year another chemical attack took place and that also was done by the rebels. But yet we are headed for war and it seems for certain this time
If that's the case, then why the Russia veto?
Oochie Wally or One Mic for the RT truthers? First they were claiming it was a self inflicted rebel attack, now they've got their marching orders that it never happened.
The entire US mission right now is a face-saving operation. There isn't going to be a full-scale war and i highly doubt the generals risk picking targets that would create the potential for an escalation with the Russians. There will be some targeted strikes to make it appear like the US won't tolerate chemical weapons usage, but nothing will change on the ground.I'd go even further than the previous poster and say not only do I doubt this latest story, I don't think the United States should go to war even if it is true.
Wasn't is the case in Libya where It was initially an humanitarian mission to stop atrocities and quickly escalated to a regime change mission?\The entire US mission right now is a face-saving operation. There isn't going to be a full-scale war and i highly doubt the generals risk picking targets that would create the potential for an escalation with the Russians. There will be some targeted strikes to make it appear like the US won't tolerate chemical weapons usage, but nothing will change on the ground.
The wild card, of course, is that psychopath Bolton. Who knows what he is advocating right now and whether or not Trump is listening...