**Breaking The US has just made the decision to strike Syria....

[jimnyc]

everyone?

i'm not sure how you get that idea.

Perhaps everyone was an overstatement. But seemingly, anyone that disagrees with your anti-government stances and anti-cop stances, ultimately end up with "quotes", and 99% of the time there is no one quoted to backup these "quotes".

[revelarts]

There was an opportunity to teach both Russia and Syria that the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations WILL NOT be tolerated.
That opportunity was taken. It was taken, and as a result, facilities needed by Syria for future such attacks were destroyed. And, this is a BAD thing ?
Revelarts, why do you REALLY hate what was done ? Why do you Lefties always work to support the wrongdoers ?
Please, explain it to me.

Drummond doesn't deny my posted option that the attacks might not be Assad or Chemical. He seems to simply go on and justify the strikes as prevention of future someday maybe attacks. And seems to ask if it's EVER wrong for the U.S. to attack a "wrongdoer".

This was not a bad thing. The international community, for the most part, has agreed that chemical weapons will not and should not be tolerated, and was in need of a response.
IMO, the only issue was once again trying to be nice about it. They should have dropped everything they had and eliminated the entire problem.

eliminating the entire problem is justified, becasue "chemical weapons will not and should not be tolerated"?
So is that the use or simply the possession of ? and what does "eliminate the "entire problem mean? destroy the whole country, destroy the whole Syrian military, kill Assad? what exactly did you mean?
Or was the last part just a joke? Please note these are questions, based on your exact words.

The President, with France, and Great Britain acted IN BEHALF of the U.N. Not Congress.https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/ Chemical Weapons ConventionConvention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) comprises a Preamble, 24 Articles, and 3 Annexes—the Annex on Chemicals, the Verification Annex, and the Confidentiality Annex.The Convention aims to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by States Parties. States Parties, in turn, must take the steps necessary to enforce that prohibition in respect of persons (natural or legal) within their jurisdiction.

Because Assad used or even HAS chem weapons Trump/US must take steps... so attack is justified? right?

I think it was a waste of time, money, etc. It accomplished nothing I am aware of. Don't get me wrong and toss me in the fire with rev. I'm not going to rant about it for 4 pages.Trump had little choice but back up his mouth. I hope he learned a lesson. Words mean things and you can have to support them with action. That applies as well to all the chumps that goaded him into it. As for papokarlo you dumbass commie ... here's some scoop for you. The Syrians ran and hid their air force on Russian bases. The US did not attack Russia. Russia didn't shoot down jack shit because they didn't even try. I wish they had tried, myself. This missile system Putin claims to have isn't doing much collecting dust. In THAT regard? Putin got called and did nothing. Here in the US of A, we call that getting punked.
On further review ... it DID accomplish one, priceless task ... all the right people are crying like little bitches
Anyone besides me notice most of the pissing and moaning is coming from the right? Of course gabby and pete are going to cry. They'd find something wrong if Trump cured cancer. And of course Rand Paul is going to have a hissy fit. Where's McLame? He hasn't weighed in?

justification for attack? Trump had to attack, becasue he ran his mouth. right?

Think about what you just posted. Putin is bragging about his "new" super missile and threatening to shoot all of ours down. Your first clue could have been Syria hiding all its important stuff on Russian bases so it wouldn't get hit. Now how does the crystal ball know it wouldn't get hit? We weren't shooting at Russia and never was going to. Now your government is saying they were old missiles from whenever. So what exactly IS the truth?
The truth is, we fired some missiles and they hit something Russia doesn't give a crap about. If Russia had shot down any, we would know. CNN would be the first one to laugh and call Trump a failure.
So ... for some genius you aren't very bright. Trump got to shoot off some missiles and fulfill his obligatory response, no Russians got hurt so everybody's happy and moving on to the next meltdown. Even though both Putin and Trump were dumb enough to allow themselves to get caught up in a pissing contest that could have gotten out of hand, neither was dumb enough to cross the line. That's how these things work. Every time. There's nothing new here. Your government lies to you and ours lies to us everybody's fat, dumb n happy. Maybe if you'd ever listen instead of talking shit all the time you might learn something from us "old folks" who aren't at our first rodeo.

Trump was dumb but justified? right?
Not wrong or illegal or premature, just dumb.

**For all the Liberals crying about our Airstrikes last night. (No Casualties). Here’s a Obama Fact for you. Obama approved 26,171 bombs in 2016 overseas. 2,500 Us Soldiers died in while Obama was President. https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...obama-20160530 …`America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign`
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...6-obama-legacy

Attacks justified becasue Obama did it too? right?

I realize that I am late to this discussion, but to me it looked like the chemical attack was a deliberate response to Trump's announcement that America would probably be pulling out of the Syria conflict. Assad, possibly with prompting from Putin or from Iran, decided to do the chemical attack as a throwdown toward Trump. I think that Assad thought there would be no response, which on the world stage would be the equivalent of giving Assad/Putin/Iran permission to use chemical weapons all they wanted after America moved out.
Trump had three options, in my opinion:
1) No response - This is sometimes called the 'Obama response' or the 'Spineless response'. Doing nothing prevents any immediate retaliation, but invites more attacks in the future because everyone know you are now spineless. This is like the kid on the playground that gets hit by another kid and never does anything. You can bet another hit is coming.
2) Hyper response - This is the response where you escalate several levels in the hope that your opponent will be sufficiently wounded and shocked that they are afraid to retaliate. The risk is that the opponent isn't wounded or shocked enough, and they just escalate more. This is like the kid on the playground that gets hit by another kid, and responds by breaking the other kids legs. Bad choice here - very dangerous in this case because of the Russian presence.
3) Calculated response - This is where you respond enough to send a message, but not enough to create escalation. I think this was by far the best choice for America here, and I think Trump may have done it. It is key that the strikes were only against Syria, not against Russian forces. It's not a challenge against Putin. I also like the way the strikes specifically targeted chemical weapons. After all, Syria isn't even supposed to have them, and Russia guaranteed that Syria wouldn't have them. It makes it difficult for Putin to manufacture outrage. And maybe the biggest key is bringing in UK and France on the strikes. Now it looks like it is not specifically America that Assad or Putin would be responding to - it is a coalition. And its not a personal challenge from Trump to Putin.
Going back to the kid on the playground analogy, its the equivalent of punching the other kid back just enough that he decides to go elsewhere to find easier targets.
Overall, the worst option would have been the Hyper response, but the No response/Obama response would have been really bad. I think Trump (and Mattis) did a good job of doing the Calculated response.

Trump only had 3 options because Assad Probably... and therefore justified? right?

Cutting through all your elaborate excuses to avoid confrontation, Revelarts ... how would YOU, given a totally free hand to act as you wished, deal with this whole mess ? You've got Assad, who's very keen to use chemical weapons on his OWN people, even kids. You've got Russia, keen to support him in anything he does, no matter how heinous. You've additionally got a Russia that has one hell of a moral blind spot when it comes to chemical weapons deployments generally .. yet, insanely, expects total respect from the international community, regardless ...
Would you - given the total freedom to do so ...
1. Act militarily ? 2. Dream up yet more excuses not to .. probably indefinitely ? 3. Offer 'talks' to work out differences .. which would no doubt be laughed at ? 4. Ignore it all, trust to blind luck, assume SOMEHOW that things would magically work out (e.g the Kremlin gets an attack of conscience) ? 5. Emigrate, join the British Labour Party, who'd very definitely welcome you with open arms .. ?

Checking for evidence and looking for motives are just excuses not to attack, Attacking is justified because xyz... Assad and Russia are bad? right?

Seems to me there are in fact various reason mentioned by folks here that would justify the attacks even IF the "Assad chemical attack" never happened. (which it seems clear now that it didn't)

But hey, maybe i've misread the meaning of the above post in this thread.
Maybe you're saying that most here really weren't promoting up other reasons to attack Syria.
and now they'll all say that Trump's Attack on Syria was 100% wrong since we see now that Assad did not use chemical weapons.
They will all say that Trump should Apologize, and PAY for the damages done, and rebuild all the facilities destroyed. and make other restitution and should never attack Syria or other countries if they are simply accused of chemical weapons attacks.

Is THAT's what i should have taken from all the post Jim?
Somehow I don't think so, and i think my earlier summery was pretty honest.
(and makes for MUCH shorter post)

[NightTrain]

Well, if a journalist went to Syria and decided that there was no chemical attack 3 weeks later, that's good enough for me.

Hopefully he's heading to Iran to clear that up, too.

[revelarts]

Well, if a journalist went to Syria and decided that there was no chemical attack 3 weeks later, that's good enough for me.

Hopefully he's heading to Iran to clear that up, too.

So yes a famous British journalist went to the exact hospital, Talked to the Drs, and some of the "victims" in the video reports.
And have them on record saying it wasn't a "chemical" attack.
I'm not sure why THAT would be enough? sheesh.
And just becasue it's make absolutely NO sense for Assad to do it, well whatever right?

pffts I mean, Trump the U.K. and France have "SECRET", "CLASSIFIED" evidence that there was a chemical attack there.
Plus Trump wouldn't mislead us. or say something different than he said the day before. right?
And We've got "social media" reports too!
so there ya go.

[revelarts]

Another reporter same story.
7 minute mark specifics

[NightTrain]

So yes a famous British journalist went to the exact hospital, Talked to the Drs, and some of the "victims" in the video reports.
And have them on record saying it wasn't a "chemical" attack.
I'm not sure why THAT would be enough? sheesh.
And just becasue it's make absolutely NO sense for Assad to do it, well whatever right?

pffts I mean, Trump the U.K. and France have "SECRET", "CLASSIFIED" evidence that there was a chemical attack there.
Plus Trump wouldn't mislead us. or say something different than he said the day before. right?
And We've got "social media" reports too!
so there ya go.

Rev, did it ever occur to you that 3 weeks is more than ample time to get stories straight in Russian / Syrian controlled areas?

Russia promised us that they'd make sure Syria got rid of their Chem Weapons. Syria promised they'd do it. Clearly, that didn't happen. Whether Syria played the Russians is neither here nor there; the bottom line is that they had them.

Not only that, Rev, this time we blew up their Chem Lab that produced the stuff. And the holding facilities.

I'm kind of surprised that you'd overlook such an obvious cue-in to a conspiracy theory about Doctors that are living there saying what they're told to say. I'm sure Syria could produce a thousand witnesses that say exactly what they want them to say.

"So, Dr. Fatwah, do you like your job as a doctor here?"

"Yes."

"Good. And your family is well? Do they also enjoy having you provide? Do they enjoy being safe?"

"Yes."

"Good. Tomorrow, Comrade, a journalist from the UK will be arriving to investigate the gas attack. Except there was no gas attack, only dust that people mistook for chemicals."

"No chemical weapon attack?"

"Nyet. It was dust. And that, my good doctor, is what you will tell them. Are we clear?"

"Yes."


Seriously, Rev, you don't think after 3 weeks and international condemnation that they wouldn't have produced witnesses?

And why do you think that the Russians & Syrians did not allow access to the site by the UN after the atrocity?


You're so wrapped up in believing that America is evil that you're missing the obvious evildoers.

You are a smart guy. WTF man?

[Drummond]

So yes a famous British journalist went to the exact hospital, Talked to the Drs, and some of the "victims" in the video reports.
And have them on record saying it wasn't a "chemical" attack.
I'm not sure why THAT would be enough? sheesh.
And just becasue it's make absolutely NO sense for Assad to do it, well whatever right?

pffts I mean, Trump the U.K. and France have "SECRET", "CLASSIFIED" evidence that there was a chemical attack there.
Plus Trump wouldn't mislead us. or say something different than he said the day before. right?
And We've got "social media" reports too!
so there ya go.

Well, this is 'fun' ....

Robert Fisk. Yes, I know the name. He's an 'Independent' journalist ... i.e he works for 'The Independent' ... yes ?

The Independent is a British newspaper that originally earned the name. At the time of the Iraq War, though, their reports and editorials veered sharply to the Left. Few, these days, believe that The Independent lacks its own bias.

So anyway --- let's see. How many WEEKS have Syrian authorities, no doubt with Russian help, had, to cover up any and all evidence of a chemical attack .. after both denied permission for foreign journalists and other authorities access to the area ?

How did Fisk know he was dealing with the same people who were there at the time ? How did he verify the bona fides of anyone he interviewed ?

And, how do we judge / conclude the impartiality of Fisk's own reporting, anyway ?

This might be of interest - think of it as a glimpse of Fisk's mind, and, indeed, as others who deal with him, view him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

Osama bin Laden
Fisk interviewed Osama bin Laden on three occasions, reporting the interviews in articles published by The Independent on 6 December 1993, 10 July 1996, and 22 March 1997. In Fisk's first interview, "Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace," he wrote of Osama Bin Laden: "With his high cheekbones, narrow eyes and long brown robe, Mr Bin Laden looks every inch the mountain warrior of mujahedin legend. Chadored children danced in front of him, preachers acknowledged his wisdom" while noting that he was accused of "training for further jihad wars".

During one of Fisk's interviews with Bin Laden, Fisk noted an attempt by Bin Laden to convert him. Bin Laden said; "Mr Robert, one of our brothers had a dream...that you were a spiritual person ... this means you are a true Muslim". Fisk replied; "Sheikh Osama, I am not a Muslim. ... I am a journalist [whose] task is to tell the truth". Bin Laden replied: "If you tell the truth, that means you are a good Muslim". During the 1996 interview, Bin Laden accused the Saudi royal family of corruption. During the final interview in 1997, Bin Laden said he sought God's help "to turn America into a shadow of itself".

Fisk strongly condemned the September 11 attacks, describing them as a "hideous crime against humanity". He also denounced the Bush administration's response to the attacks, arguing that "a score of nations" were being identified and positioned as "haters of democracy" or "kernels of evil", and urged a more honest debate on U.S. policy in the Middle East. He argued that such a debate had hitherto been avoided "because, of course, to look too closely at the Middle East would raise disturbing questions about the region, about our Western policies in those tragic lands, and about America's relationship with Israel".

In 2007, Fisk expressed personal doubts about the official historical record of the attacks. In an article for The Independent, he claimed that, while the Bush administration was incapable of successfully carrying out such attacks due to its organisational incompetence, he is "increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11"

So, Revelarts, tell us about Fisk's journalistic integrity, and of how he definitely does NOT have his own agenda !

[aboutime]

Rev. Are you now, or have you ever been a relative, or friend of Maxine Waters? Hillary Clinton? Pee Wee Hermann? or Vladimir Putin?

The reason I ask, and give you the opportunity to clear up, and answer my question is....Since you are the SELF-DECLARED expert on the Chemicals used in Syria. You need to assure us that your dependence on WANNABE Journalists for your Documented, Unverified Information is worth so much as a hill of beans.

[Elessar]

(and makes for MUCH shorter post)

1 half page list of research quotes and three others of shorter quotes?

When will you quit preaching with quotes and speak on your OWN terms?

[revelarts]

Rev, did it ever occur to you that 3 weeks is more than ample time to get stories straight in Russian / Syrian controlled areas?

that's a possibility but it's an assumption isn't it NT
why should i assume that?
when the only reports from people on the scene is that there is no evidence.
one of the children that was shown as a victim has been on "social media" and shown to be healthy.
so that also leads to the idea that there was NOT a chemical attack.

add to that that the last time the U.S. claimed that Assad used chem weapons and we attacked him for it it was found to be false as well. Not to mention the "bad intel" we got on Iraq.
How many times does the U.S. govt have to cry wolf before we start to question their reports NT.
Plus Mattis initially said bluntly that he DID NOT have any evidence of the chemical attack... other than "social media" reports. which came from Assads enemies.
should we blindly believe those? is that smart NT?

Russia promised us that they'd make sure Syria got rid of their Chem Weapons. Syria promised they'd do it. Clearly, that didn't happen.

So did Obama.
And so did the U.S.--Bush Senior and Chenny-- in Iraq after the 1st Iraq war. And it seems it was the case, except for a few hundred old basically useless canisters found over 8 years+ of invasion and occupation.

So Clearly? how clearly can we know anything about Assad's chemical weapons?
And if there was no chemical attack. what exactly is the evidence that they have chem weapons?
the U.S. gov't tells us so. well OK. we should not question that.
personally I question just about EVERYONE.
But I would not be surprised that Assad had Chemical weapons OR Chemical weapons facilities. But so far I've got NOTHING to prove it. except pictures of bombed buildings?

and Whether Syria played the Russians is neither here nor there; the bottom line is that they had them.
Not only that, Rev, this time we blew up their Chem Lab that produced the stuff. And the holding facilities.

if there were chem weapons INSIDE wouldn't they spread after being blown up?
And as i said All i've got to go one is pics of bombed buildings.
But again the problem here is that the EXCUSE Trump used to "destroy" that stuff is the NON- fact that Assad used them.

Plus there are other nation that HAVE illegal weapons, heck WE HAVE chemical and bio weapons. We SOLD some to Saddam and he used them on his own people and we Supported him for some time after he did that.
Also last i Checked attacking another nation out of the blue is an ACT of war.

I'm kind of surprised that you'd overlook such an obvious cue-in to a conspiracy theory about Doctors that are living there saying what they're told to say. I'm sure Syria could produce a thousand witnesses that say exactly what they want them to say.
"So, Dr. Fatwah, do you like your job as a doctor here?"
"Yes."
"Good. And your family is well? Do they also enjoy having you provide? Do they enjoy being safe?"
"Yes."
"Good. Tomorrow, Comrade, a journalist from the UK will be arriving to investigate the gas attack. Except there was no gas attack, only dust that people mistook for chemicals."
"No chemical weapon attack?"
"Nyet. It was dust. And that, my good doctor, is what you will tell them. Are we clear?"
"Yes."

Great story, any proof to go with that man?
like Maybe, a few others that were used by Assad and the Russians that way. who've confessed to lying for him before?
My problem with it in general is that I've found more occasions where Assad was SET up negatively by "media reports" than by Assad getting people to lie for him. Can you show me any confirmed FALSE media reports that make Assad look good.
Even when he does something RIGHT, like Fight ISIS and AQ he gets bad reportage for doing it the wrong way.
And there have been several occasions where he was blamed for things that the rebels were doing. Even the initial reports that Syrian troops attacked the public that started the "civil war" is now suspect.
So yes Great STORY and it's possibly but IMO it's unlikely and there's NOTHING that backs up that story except the BELIEF that Assad and Russia are bad guys. which they are , but it doesn't mean they've done everything we can imagine.
Heck i can MAKE up a story where the REBELS have kidnapped the Dr's family and killed them and he saying it wasn't chem attacks becasue he knows it will hurt their cause.

But the thing that's REALLY Suspect here is not WHAT MIGHT be motivating the words, but the very real way that this story is NOT being reported by the MSM in the West. Any guesses or made up reasons why they wouldn't. We both can make up reasons why or why not. But bottom line, the fact is they AREN'T, who does that help? Assad or Trump UK and France?

Seriously, Rev, you don't think after 3 weeks and international condemnation that they wouldn't have produced witnesses?
And why do you think that the Russians & Syrians did not allow access to the site by the UN after the atrocity?
You're so wrapped up in believing that America is evil that you're missing the obvious evildoers.
You are a smart guy. WTF man?

Sheesh, I don't think America is "evil"
Lord have mercy.
I think America has done some things that are wrong and wicked in it's history and recently and it CAN DO BETTER.
Do you agree? But also that Syria and Assad have done things that are evil as well.
Heck the US. and Assad have done evil TOGETHER! When after 9/11 the US gov't sent "detainees" and "suspects" to Assad to be tortured!

NO Country is an Angel NT. You're a smart guy and you know this. And just because i make a point of calling out Americas flaws to be corrected doesn't mean i hate America.
But if we're going to ACCUSE another nation used chemical weapons it needs to be PROVEN PUBLICLY without room for question. Iraq should have taught us THAT much. And at this point the proof points to Assad's innocence For THIS event.

But NT if you have some solid proof or reliable reports otherwise I'm open to see it.
But I won't be convinced by people repeating "he's a bad guy". And scolding me for not taking the U.S. gov't's word for it.

So NT, why do you want to assume that every crime Assad is accused of ...and that you can imagine is TRUE?
And believe that every word from Trump, the DoD and U.S gov't is without flaw and should never be questioned?

[NightTrain]

All you need to know is that the UN Chemical Warfare Experts are not allowed in.



Certain journalists are.



Are your Conspiracy Senses tingling now?

[aboutime]

All you need to know is that the UN Chemical Warfare Experts are not allowed in.



Certain journalists are.



Are your Conspiracy Senses tingling now?

It's not nice to question our resident experts on WMD's, and Foreign Affairs normally run by Government, Qualified, Real Experts who would simply LAUGH at Rev, and our distinct Crew of Trolls like petey who KNOW EVERYTHING about NOTHING.

This covers them pretty well IMO.

[NightTrain]

And so did the U.S.--Bush Senior and Chenny-- in Iraq after the 1st Iraq war. And it seems it was the case, except for a few hundred old basically useless canisters found over 8 years+ of invasion and occupation.

Don't even think about going there; I've smoked you on that bullshit and I'll do it again.

[revelarts]

All you need to know is that the UN Chemical Warfare Experts are not allowed in.
Certain journalists are.
Are your Conspiracy Senses tingling now?

If that were the only fact sure..
But the OPCW did go to Douma and elsewhere they say.

OPCW Fact-Finding Mission Visits Second Site in Douma, Syria
Wednesday, 25 April 2018

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 25 April 2018 — The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) deployed to Damascus on 14 April 2018 to gather facts in connection with the reported use of chemical weapons in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic on 7 April 2018. Security arrangements for the team’s deployment to various locations in Douma were made by the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) in liaison with the Syrian authorities and the Russian Military Police. Due to the security situation the team was only able to visit Douma on 21 April. The team also interviewed some people related to the Douma incident, who were brought to Damascus.


Today, the FFM team carried out a visit to a second location in Douma. It also collected samples at this site. These samples will be brought back, together with other samples, to the OPCW laboratory in Rijswik. They will be split and dispatched for analysis by the OPCW designated labs.

Meanwhile, the OPCW Technical Secretariat was informed by the Russian delegation to the OPCW that it will organise a briefing for States Parties in The Hague on 26 April. The delegation would bring some Syrians to speak about the reported Douma incident. In line with Director-General’s earlier requests to States Parties to share information on the Douma incident, the Secretariat advised the Russian delegation that these persons should be first interviewed by the FFM. It was also recommended that such a briefing take place once the FFM has completed its work. Nevertheless, the Russian delegation stated that it would go ahead with the briefing and that its intention was not to interfere with the FFM’s work.

The FFM will continue to carry out its independent and impartial mission based on interviews with relevant people, its findings from the site visits, analysis of the sample results, as well as any other information and materials collected.

The Director-General is confident that the OPCW FFM will continue to enjoy the support of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention. ...

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/op...n-douma-syria/

the alleged Chemical attack was on April 4, Seems the reporter made it to area in on the 17th maybe 16th, 4 days earlier than the OPCW, (not a 3 weeks earlier).

So how much time does it take to set up families and Dr's to lie to everyone NT?

If this is ALL i need to know, then I'm still not convinced of your great made up story.
Is it possible, sure, is a stretch yes it sorta is frankly.
what else you got to toss at what you consider my "Conspiracy Senses"

because those senses often work off of MULTIPLE pieces of hard information. Not just the idea that someone is a "bad guy", and a somewhat suspicious timing of access to a war zone.

Some people think that Trump is a RUSSIAN Puppet but i DO NOT. Even though there are some very minor but odd things he's done in connection with Russia. Overall I think the accusation of the Russian Conspiracy are PURE BS.
even though i think that Trump is WRONG on many fronts i just don't ASSUME very thing he' does or says is bad.
i didn't think so about Obama , OR BUSH. And I don't BUY into every "conspiracy".
EACH CASE stands or falls on it's merits. Not simply on the rep of the alleged perp.


But hey i've been pretty forth coming in my replies even though you've accused me of several things are you going to answer my questions.

Why do you want to assume that every crime Assad is accused of ...and what you can imagine is TRUE?
And do believe that every word from Trump, the DoD and U.S gov't is without flaw and should never be questioned on this chemical weapons situation?

[NightTrain]

Sheesh, I don't think America is "evil"

I think you do.

The only time I hear from you is when you're revved (!) up about some nefarious plot to kill people because our country is inherently evil.

You always subscribe to some bullshit conspiracy, killing brown/black/yellow/tan people for oil or natural gas or something without regard for the real reasons that the shitbag countries have been killing innocent people or sponsoring terrorism for decades.

It's always America that has nefarious reasons for engaging, for you. Nevermind that there is a legit reason for hammering a dictator engaging in chem weapons attacks against civilians minding their own business in a war zone.


Not once have you waved the American Flag and said, "these bastards deserved it, go USA!!!"

Not once.