It doesn't just smell, it fucking reeks

avoiding conflict now does not mean future conflicts will be avoided. not avoiding conflict now could be future conflicts are.

it also doesn't accomplish much at all for Assad

Why do we have to spend our money if countries like the UK and France are already apt to upholding the UN.

This isn't our war.

If there was a chemical attack at all, the only one to stand a benefit are islamists looking to use USA as their muscle basically

so no. I don't believe a single fucking word of it.

Assad already has a history of using chemical weapons

And? So do the insurgents

among other things

and I'd assume that Assad would fucking use chemical weapons where it significantly benefits him

I don't think he's an idiot

If the US is required to act for other states to act on a humanitarian issue, then the US has failed.

Not with a won war, and with full russian support behind him

We cannot continue to support states that can clearly support themselves.

and of course, the moment an accusation is made, Israel does a missile strike

Assad may not have directly called for the use of chemical weapons. but he has them. he could have people in positions of power within the military that are out of control. it's entirely possible.

this couldn't be more obviously people scrambling to have an excuse

It's possible but it's unlikely

all Assad does is deny everything as US propaganda

it's far more likely that it was either faked or done by the rebels rhemselves

and uh

easy job at that

given the sheer amounts of BS US propaganda out there

If the US has to intervene for every humanitarian crisis on the planet, we might as well be the global government.

Assad is not some benevolent leader

He's way better than the alternatives

AKA fucking islamists

but then again this is not a question of benevolence

those fucking islamists 😠

it's not about intervening in every humanitarian crises

this is a question of "why would Assad do something that benefits his opponents with a predictable outcome because it literally happened last year"

perhaps you're not familiar with chemical weapons

It's shameful to prioritize the wars abroad over our own.

The whole issue reeks

it's not that. NATO is supposed to be a defense against Russia. if Russia is defending a regime that is using chemical weapons, it makes perfect sense that there would be some kind of military action

Trump was right to have included France and the UK

"defense"

Include

but w/e.

Why not assist?