Message from @dodo.sh
Discord ID: 434801776625975317
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
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 ðŸ˜
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?
or Help?
We are still a leader if we let the NATO states lead themselves from time to time.