If we strike Syria and destroy infrastructure how many more refugees will we create? Before bombing Syria it would be a good idea to figure out how to handle more displaced people. Will the Saudis take these people in? Chemical weapons are horrible. But they are just one awful facet of the lives of these folk.
3
Strong, across the board sanctions on Russia until they stop the lies and stop throwing poison around the world. In a decade, they'll run of juice to make the poison. Make sure they really pay for the heinous crimes they commit.
1
Here in Europe,even SKY NEWS, a british Murdoch owned company, is saying that the chemichal incident was provoked by M16 and french secret service to push United States to war.
1
This circus is beginning to remind me of Uncle Sam's bogus WMD accusations against Saddam and Iraq. Fifteen years go by and American media outlets are again clamoring for a war which will lead who knows where. Another "cake walk" for sure. Look how well Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have turned out.
1
Fake news! The chemical attack was staged by the rebels who are losing the war, and the only way to turn the tide against Assad is by getting the U.S. involved. People who passionately call for war should be the first ones sent to the front lines. If they truly believe that fighting Assad is a good cause, why don't they volunteer? People volunteer to fight along ISIS. These war advocates are just cowards.
1
I'm willing to bet that Trump will launch missles into Syria on Sunday, just when James Comey sits down for the first interview to discuss his new book.
2
Yahya Ababneh, a reporter in Ghouta in 2013, reported that Saudi Arabia had supplied al Qaeda with chemical weapons. Jean Zanders, a chemical weapons expert, stated there were “significant” problems in blaming Syria. Theodore Postol and Richard Lloyd undermined every aspect of the sarin claim.
In April 2017, Mr Postol wrote a detailed analysis of the Khan Shaykhun attack. He took apart the “eyewitness” accounts. Philip Giraldi warned that “nearly all the information and physical evidence available from the attack site in Syria has come from anti-Assad sources linked to al Qaeda.”
In February 2018, Secretary Mattis told reporters “the US was aware of allegations of sarin use, but that they had never come up with any such evidence that would corroborate it.”
Now, US and its European allies say they have evidence. But will not produce it. How was the evidence gathered, the inspectors just arrived in Syria. What is the chain of evidence? What was the motive of the Syrian government when Eastern Ghouta was falling? Would some other party benefit from American bombing Asad? Could that third party be radical Islamists—like those that attacked us on 9/11?
Before rash actions are taken, the American people should be given all the evidence before asking us to start another major war.
1
So I guess the President should bomb Syria with 50 bombs all "nice and new and 'smart!'" What a joke it is that he singles out the 50th and last time that chemical warfare was used in Syria to tweet and make an issue out of it. Pretty sad for a President of the United States.
1
Well, if your partner is the Russian Bear, any and all atrocities are at-hand. Putin can destroy the world and Syria is unfortunately expendable simply based on Russian might. Congress should have a say but they are about as powerful as a three year old on a trike. The idea of gassing anyone is a violation of "Never Again" and everyone should weep along with all of Israel. Putin is upset that Russian solders were killed attacking an American installation and is hoping for a fight.
Syria is a failed state. Lebanon is a failed state. Sinai is a failed region within a dictatorship. Gaza is a failed state. Jordan is stable, but is also a monarchy lacking basic freedoms where a 20% Heshemite minority rules over an 80% Palestinian majority.
Looking at the horrors of Syria, what makes anyone so certain that a "Palestine" carved out of Judea and Samaria would be any different?. Why would "Palestine" succeed where these other nations have failed?
Don't forget the US Used CHemical weapons - remember NAPALM, and don't forget our use of cluster munitions in Syria. We are not exactly the good guys either.
Syria might have. In a shouting match at UN, Syrian
ambassador accused USA of using agent orange
in Vietnam and phosphorous in Iraq even depleted
uranium. Although US media will never mention it
but USA and U.K. supplied chemicals and British
technicians built and trained Iraqis in chemical weapons
manufacturing that Saddam Hussein used against Iran.
They all are at the same level of morality.
Nikki Haley is irresponsibly shooting from the hip. Since she's been ambassador, she's done nothing but shout right wing hyperbole at other countries diplomats.
We've entered the Fact Free Zone.
1
I believe a direct attack on Bashar al-Assad is justified.
1
A vitriolic exchange. Oh no. Our leaders are just so rough and tough. What will Assad do? He is just got to be so scared. Quivering in his shoes. Really. Who came up with this humanity thing. And yet. We can always make it worse.
Chemical weapons attacks are terrible and criminal, it shows what a horrible human being Assad is, but let's not get steamrolled into another Iraq or Afghanistan over this.
This is playing out just like the run up to Iraq war and what a coincidence: John Bolton in involved!
Hey - we started it all by invading Iraq and subsequently destroying the MidEast. How many people dead...and for what? No country a threat to the US.
Please stop this nonsense and just get out. Leave these poor people alone, bring home the troops and start the war crime trials here at home for those who orchestrated this catastrophe (and there are many!)
1
Here we go again. At least with WMD in Iraq there was a plausible story even though it was based on lies and misrepresentation of intelligence data. Assad was winning and Trump announced the US was pulling out - what better timing for Assad to use chemical weapons on children, right?
It's very clear that the evidence for Assad's involvement in the attack is lacking, that the Islamic jihadists (aka "rebels") had the motive and capability to use such weapons and that Assad's interest was orthogonal to doing so. At this point the US is becoming jihadist's air-force against a terrible but secular government - if Trump goes ahead with this stupid war, that is.
1
What is left to be gained by the USA in Syria?
Bomb the heck out of Syria's command and control headquarters including Assad to maintain our world stature. Arm the Kurds with stinger missiles to give them control of their skies so no more barrel bombs filled with chlorine and a Kurdistan in Syria to pay our debt to them and keep ISIS out of Syria. Then, get the heck out of the Middle East because Bush, Obama, and Trump have made an astoundingly bloody mess out of all of our involvements there.
In the future, don't make peace deals with vipers; their nature is to bite and poison.
Begin major diplomacy efforts with the warring principals and end these proxy wars: Saudi Arabia and Iran; India and Pakistan; Sunni and Shia and Wahhabi.
What is left or ever was there to be gained by the USA in Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Yemen?
Nothing, but plenty to be lost and plenty to be blamed for!
Hmmm, Mueller is getting too close...I need a big distraction...can't go to war with North Korea, at least not with talks pending in May. I know, I'll call my buddy in Moscow, see if he can arrange a chemical attack in Syria so I have justification for a military strike to distract the public from Mueller's investigation.
Using chemical weapons isn’t the only kind of war crime. There’s also the invading and occupying without actual evidence of threat kind. Or firing missiles at weddings kind. Or drone attacking civilians far from the battlefield kind. Or using helicopter gunships to destroy hospitals kind.
You’d think countries that exhibited a pattern of the latter would be be more self conscious about accusing others of the former. Or at least demonstrate some level of contriteness by rounding up the perpetrators and shipping them to The Hague in orange jumpsuits.
1
Use of chemicals in war is cowardly.
But so is bombing from afar and use of drones. Cowardly indeed.
If something is worth fighting for and killing human beings, then it is worth risking your life for as well. Otherwise, it is just bullying and abuse of power, something the USA has tended to do for, oh, 50 some years or so.
We can’t always intervene. But this tin pot dictator doesn’t have nukes and can’t retaliate against us.
We can’t sit around when he uses nerve agents and chemical weapons repeatedly to gas children and the world sees them on TV foaming at the mouth and twitching in death. It’s our moral responsibility to act.
There is a chance that Russia may react but I don’t think they will. Our military is much stronger, plus if they do anything, that will prompt even stronger sanctions against them. Their economy has already suffered quite a bit due to existing sanctions and Putin will lose legitimacy if it completely tanks. We have to take the risk, morally and to deter Russia, which has been causing trouble unhindered in Crimea and Syria.
It seems likely that the countries that have been mass murdering Syrians for the last five years are coming up with rationalization to pound the final nail in the coffin for Syria, that is, the destruction of the City of Damascus. It seems like what we have here is a genocide by several countries trying to make it appear there is a conflict.
1
Does the West not have an interest in actively removing the Syria leadership family from power? Does the West have the courage to do so? If not, hitting Syria with a few missiles is a waste. Effectively decimating the ability to use chemical weapons may actually do a lot of harm to those exposed to blown up chemicals. And destroying the whole system once does not prevent Syria from restarting the effort with Iranian and Russian help. So, the only real answer is to push the leaders of Syria out of power. I doubt the West has the courage to do so.
One has to wonder and ask, how would the US or any other nation, respond to a massive attempt to overthrow the legitimate government by (religious) mercenaries sent to do the job by external forces? We've seen how the US government responded to mild internal opposition, like Occupy Wall St. and Black Lives Matter. Like it or not, Syria was a long time ally of Russia during the Cold War years, and has gotten support from Iran along the way. So what? Does that mean it deserved to be destroyed? It was doing quite well before regime change entered the picture. Assad even sat with John Kerry for wine and dinner. The US likes to cover its tracks by using proxies, but stooping so low as to fund al-Qaeda affiliated groups is frankly, disgusting. We've spent billions on this and to whose benefit? Ask Nikki Haley to tell us, because as of now, everyone involved is a loser, including the American public.
1
This has happened, they say, fifty times. Trump responded a year ago, fair enough. Why didn't our vaunted Defense Dept. Homeland Security, or State Dept. insist we develop a policy should it happen again? Instead, we, and our allies if we have any left, are bumbling around for some sort of response.
As long as there is a Security Council, the U.N. is a pretty useless body trying to promote itself as a world body of international conscience and justice.
Sorry, but given out track record of being sure of weapons of mass destruction, not buying it. For all we know these weapons could have been used by ISIS on the civilians under their control.
1
Trump criticized Obama’s “red line in the sand” fiasco, yet he is the one who has made the USA’s leverage in Syria the weakest at any point in time; while still attempting to be a major actor in the region. He has turned his back on diplomacy, abandoned our Kurdish allies to Turkey, and wavered so much our perceived military might is flimsy at best. Will we attack Syria? Will we not? Just a week ago, Trump was talking about withdrawing all our 3000 service men and women there. This weakens our hand at the negotiating table for a new Syria, which would be fine if he wanted the future of Syria to be left to the Regime, Iran, and Russia. The problem is, he still wants to be involved. Chemical weapon use is a war crime, and Trump wants to act as enforcer through tactical strikes. Okay Mr. President, be the enforcer, but know understand you are commiting to US involvement in the region.
Despite having the strongest military in the world and formerly the most powerful diplomatic apparatus until he gutted it, Trump has diminished our bargaining power not just in Syria but the world at large.
This outrage about the use of chemical weapons is strange, after all, when Saddam was America’s man in the Middle East, his use of chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds was met with silence and doesn’t the US still use depleted uranium in its cluster bombs?
1
Strange! It seems forces beyond our control in our own country, are forcing us towards another conflict and war in the Middle East to defend our allies.
With allies/ friends like that who needs enemies???
Shouldn’t we ask ourselves, why should Assad gas his own people when he is winning and invite a US strike???
1
After the U.S. beating on a podium that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the entire U.N. should turn their backs any time the U.S. makes ANY claims about war. Especially with Bolton on board.
1
I'm seeing claims here and no evidence to support the claims for all 50 alleged attacks.
1
Before we take action, I find it imperative that we obtain more information about the so called rebels fighting Assad. Some of them are supposedly allied with ISIS or Al Qaida or other extremist Sunnis groups. Some of them are not. Some of them have been aided by us.
I DEPLORE the news madia for its scanty, indeed almost non-existent, coverage of the politics, affiliations and alliances of the "rebels."
I have been waiting, FOR YEARS, for a news story which might dare to say WHAT PERCENT OF THE SO CALLED REBELS are allied with the West, ISIS, Al Qaeda and any other groups.
If they are primarily composed of Sunni extremists ala Osama Bin Ladin, then I doubt that intervention would be appropriate.
After all, we aided Sunni extremists in their battle with the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that led to the aforementioned crimes of Bin Ladin and his confederates.
6
What is happening in Syria is a tragedy, but I do not think a military strike or going to war is the solution. We may not be using chemical weapons, but dropping bombs on innocent people caught in the crossfire is not really all that different.
If we are going to strike, we should make sure that we are absolutely certain about our intel, and that it has been verified by multiple independent sources (with no ties to the US government). Starting a conflict with Syria is one thing, but the stakes are much higher if Russia or Iran enters the picture. What if we strike and then later learn that the chemical attack was actually carried out by ISIS in order to provoke US military intervention?
Do we really have such a short memory? Our government lied to us about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading Iraq, and we still are active there over 15 years later with 500,000 estimated casualties.
Our country has become so addicted to war and greasing the wheels of the Military–industrial complex that I feel like we never consider alternative, diplomatic approaches.
14
That will continue ( the aggression) until the US gets hit in the gut, again.
Remember 9/11? 19 hijackers, armed with box cutters, nothing more, managed to paralyse the United States. Nobody knew what to do, what comes next, where the attack came from and who did it.
Note very last sentence: "Defense Department officials want TO BE ABLE to present convincing evidence that Mr. Assad’s forces indeed used chemical arms in the Douma assault."
So far…no convincing evidence has been brought forth, it is a suspected use of chemical weapons, but there have been no bodies shown - other on a video - nor any bodies brought to the nearest hospital, nor have any international chemical weapons inspectors visited the site (as the Russian's have asked). And, it beggars belief that AT THIS TIME in a very bad conflict and with an international reputation at it's lowest point in decades, Assad would use chemical weapons right at the same time a cease fire is being sought. So the question should be asked: qui bono? Who benefits from reversing a cease fire; who benefits from a conflict where the final reward would be Syria's oil fields; who benefits from the continual blaming of Putin/Assad for their actions; who benefits from an increased military budget; who benefits from further destruction of yet another sovereign nation in the Middle East?
Any takers?
11
"Ms. Haley’s assertions appeared to be part of a broader Western effort to create the basis for a military strike on Mr. Assad’s forces."
That is the problem. I don't want a war with Russia.
As even this article notes, both sides have used chemical weapons. The same terrorist groups used them in Iraq against the US too, chlorine bombs by the truckload.
Just don't start a war with Russia.
12
If Russia will go to war over this then Russia will go to war anyway, regardless of the circumstance or "stimulant."
Assad is a war criminal. But the proxy war inflicted on Syria by the international regime crowd is an absolute disgrace. 1000s of Syrians were killed as 1000s of jihadists were summoned to Syria with one goal in mind destroy Syria. These ruthless cadres killed far more moderate Syrians and civilians than Syrian soldiers. Now when the war appeared about over these vicious outsiders staged a chemical weapons attack, not their first. The US now has troops and Syria and Trump has threatened to attack. This nightmare seems to have no end.
10
Hello, can you spell Intl. War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague?
Tailor made for this butcher Assad.
4
I believe that would require either Syria would have failing national courts and to be a member party of the Rome Statute (it isn't and neither are we) or to act on a referral from the UN Security Council (where the permanent members including Russia have and use a veto to stop action they do not approve of). So the ICC dealing with Assad seems unlikely to me (unless and until he is replaced by someone who would join the international order and proceed from there). More likely might be to cut some asylum deal if his position ever became untenable.
2
The russian say that it was 'fake'. Which is another way of saying that it was done by the 'rebels' or the Israelis. Assad KNOWS he can't do this and get away. We are sooo naive in the great again USA>
The UN was created after WW-II to prevent future Nazi like atrocities. Today, the creation of concentration camps would look something like this: Its the Jews fault, its Israel's fault.... or maybe Give us proof... with German/Russia voting against it. What a disgusting organization. It is time to end the organization and close the center in NYC.
5
Assad is a butcher just like his father. His regime should be bloodied for their actions. The Russians are in this up to their necks.
3
It would be instructive to get a count of the number of direct and indirect killings by the USSR USA and China vs the killings by Assad, Saddam and the many African 'rulers. I 'bet' the former beats the latter by a large margin.
Why do they need to use Chemical weapons.....they don't....just looking for a fight....and the USA has back down....go after the money...stop the Russians traveling to London Paris NY for example ...
4
So you have no evidence to support that "Assad did it" accusations. But you're willing to risk serious costs, albeit financial for many.
Colin Powell, is that you?
9
Fake news. And just who popularized THAT insult/excuse ??? This is all just bluster. Trump is NOT going to do anything without Putin's permission. Think about that, GOP. Reagan is spinning in his Grave. SAD.
6
"Reagan is spinning in his Grave. SAD."
Reagan turned tail, being smart, and retreated from Beruit.
I've commented several times on what has occurred in Syria, and what we should do, and hopefully there are solid individuals in in our government and that of our allies, who agree, and have the backbone to deal with this, once and for all time.
We must do the following - The United States, France, England, and any other nation wishing to stand up in defense of human rights, must together strike Syria, with cruise missiles, high altitude bombers, and special forces on the ground, and along with crippling Assads airforce, if one can call it that, they must go after command centers, communication centers, and all Iranian and Russian defensive batteries.
The campaign must be as precise as possible, with several sorties against the same sites, and surveillance aircraft confirming the totality of destruction.
After 2 weeks, offer a 48 hour period of cease fire, for Assad to cease his aggression, and help him find a country willing to grant him, and whomever of his circle who wish to accompany him, permanent asylum.
Russia and Iran, contrary to how some think, will stand down, and Israel will go on high alert, ready to strike whomever thinks they see an opportunity.
The time is now; do it, get it over with, stop being indecisive, show a doubting group of adversaries that this American paper tiger can, and will, bite hard.
If we fail to rise to this opportunity, we might as well announce to the world that America is ceding its role as the last superpower, to Russia and China.
6
Great plan, except you forgot one really minor issue. Who do we leave in charge after Assad leaves the country? Sound familiar? Iraq? Afghanistan?
THE ISSUE IS RUSSIA, NOT SYRIA; THE SOLUTION IS FINANCIAL, NOT MILITARY
What Assad does is no more than what Russia makes possible. Russia is Putin. Putin will not care about some Syrian airfields. He will care about more sanctions on his cronies or, possibly on him, himself.
We should fight in Syria by using sanctions on Russians. Cheaper and more effective.
10
While this should be done, we must engage, militarily, against Assad, because if we do not he, Iran, and Russia, will be further emboldened, and conclude we are nothing but a paper tiger.
No reasonable person wants war, but what option is there left, when dealing with psychopathic individuals like Assad; he only understands brute force.
Absolutely. The previous punishment strike didn't stop them using chemical weapons. With all our allies:
Freeze ALL Russian and Syrian bank accounts, and ALL assets.
Forbid dealing with Russian and Syrian state and companies.
No money. No war.
Yes there will be some financial pain on our side, but Russia and Syria will collapse.
Problem now is the Trump administration has little credibility when it comes to truth. Why does the US ambassador to the UN think she should be believed? Reagan said “trust yet verify”, I suggest with Trump we “verify then trust”.
There is a good reason honesty is a worthwhile pursuit.
16
..., just out of curiosity; is anyone buying the Trump Administration’s lies and cover-ups?
It’s quite extraordinary to watch that the Trump Administration has been able to extend its unfathomable incompetence to most functions, certainly including its ambassador to the United Nations.
6
"We cannot depend on the mood of someone on the other side of the ocean when he wakes up, on what a specific person takes into his head in the morning," Arkady Dvorkovich said, according to the Russian state-run news agency RIA Novosti.
Meanwhile, back in the States, We can't depend on that "specific person" to do anything because he is too busy libeling former officials who point out how poorly he is doing at his job.
Any other person in the Republican controlled, right-to-work America would be fired for such a performance and embarrassment.
9
At least we now know where Trump stands on the use of chemical weapons:
49 times or less -- whatever, we're going home. 50 times? Strong response soon. Or maybe later. New missiles. Probably. But definitely a nickname. And tweets. Lots of tweets.
That Mattis is more worried about Trump's response than Assad, tells you all you need to know about Trump's ability to execute on anything more complicated than a tweet.
11
Apparently, Haley is getting information from dubious sources. Colin Powell performed the same act in 2003 and resulted in total destruction of Iraq and it historical artifacts. It is mind-boggling how she jumps to conclusions without facts.
17
The gas attack took place this past Sunday. We’ve now had the customary week of saber-rattling and Twitter posturing. By now the Pentagon has probably identified a handful of largely unoccupied airfields, “command and control” nodes and fertilizer or pharmaceutical facilities that “might be” chemical weapons storage locations and only have a skeleton crew manning them over the weekend.
During Saturday evening dinner at Mar-a-Lago there will be a 500 million dollar spasm of cruise missile strikes against these “targets”. It will be the middle of the night early Sunday morning in Syria. Syria and Russia will have been warned in advance. There will be a handful of deaths…very small by Syrian civil war standard…after which Trump will thump his chest and talk it up among his Mar-a-Lago guests that evening. The US military will get the target practice and the US citizenry will get the check. Totally stage managed, high-end, geopolitical performance art…and probably the best anyone hope for from a range of perspectives. No…this WON’T be the start of WWIII. Just another bonfire of thousand dollar bills amid a continued and mounting civilian death toll.
The US response will follow a familiar well-worn narrative that all 5 past presidents have followed and put their unique individual spins on over the past 4 decades.
21
This is what happens when the "leader" of our country is a lying reactionary. Our country no longer has the respect it once had, it's credibility is questioned and as a consequence we are no longer effective as a member of the security council.
6
The will of major Powers is exposed to deal with the crisis.
1
Lies. What started as a civil war has been a war of defense from what the U.S. call "moderate rebels" (or ISIS) for years. Assad has every right to defend his country. The United States needs to back off. We ruined Iraq, we ruined Libya, let's stop destroying countries and start setting a good example to the rest of the work. But first that would mean accurate reporting, which clearly is not happening here.
16
Skeptical doesn't begin to describe my opinion. I couldn't find Nikki Haley's report any less credible than if Colin Powell presented the "evidence" from the deck of the USS Maine while anchored in the Gulf of Tonkin. Deception as pretext for war is pretty much standard practice for the USA. We have zero credibility.
24
"Ms. Haley’s assertions appeared to be part of a broader Western effort to create the basis for a military strike on Mr. Assad’s forces."
Yes, yes they are. The world is pushing back against Russian provocation, and the provocations of their allies Iran, Turkey, and the illegitimate leader, Assad. I think we've done enough waiting. In this time, Russia has only grown bolder and more aggressive.
With great power comes great responsibility. If we want to be major world powers we need to act like it. It's not ok for this to happen.
I understand that American foreign policy has not been kind to the civilians in the territories that they occupy. Nevertheless, there is a war happening, and the Western world is the real target. Russia is using the remains of what was the Syrian population as collateral damage to keep their warlords busy and soothe Assad's ego. It's only a Cold War on this side of the ocean.
We are failing at our duties, and a lot of other people are paying for it. What's the point of being a super power if all you ever do with it is bluster and make a big fuss on the Internet?
3
No, it's actually Russia helping prevent another country from fallling to restrictive, regressive, Islamic fundamentalists.
We tried the ballot box in Egypt and Iraq, didn't work out the way we wanted. Killing people is a much older and more effective method. Sad.
I fear that the so called leaders who are involved here, are only distracting from their own grave largely self inflicted domestic problems. Assad, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Putin, May, Macron, Trump. They sell weapons don't you know? They won't end wars. So, do we want to help them bombing more and make things worse for all of us? Really?
3
Perhaps, Ambassador Haley, our take on Syria would carry more weight if we also called for an investigation into wanton civilian deaths caused by indiscriminate air strikes from our ally Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
That part of our method of warfare in the Vietnam Conflict included chemicals weapons such as various types of deadly defoliants as Agent Orange, Blue, Pink, etc., to target not only the foliage but also the sources of food supply of "suspected" enemy sympathizers ( with as many as 400,000 victims ) is remembered by many.
22
it doesn't matter if it was once or 50 times that these weapons were used a robust strike is justified. the russians are claiming the uk staged this attack which signals desperation to cover it up.
coupled with a substantial military strike diplomatic and economic isolation will send russia/syria/iran a strong message. the hard part will be the latter as fear over the possibility of a much larger war will be gripping and the business ties will be hard to unravel and give up.
9
coupled with a substantial military strike diplomatic and economic isolation will send russia/syria/iran a strong message.
So we want to be the world's reckless policeman, giving other countries "bloody noses" and by doing so, take sides in a civil war we can barely comprehend? A much larger war would be all but guaranteed, not just a possibility. Is the end game "sending messages"?
9
even us in Italy,Germany ,Greece,Portugal and Spain are claiming the same : This incident was staged by UK M16 and french secrete services to push Usa to war.
Nikki Haley devalues the existence of every Syrian who has suffered in ways we can't imagine by trotting out the tired "fake news and lies" accusation against the Russians.
The last war we started was done so on faulty intelligence and no one was held accountable. If the Trump administration is flirting with war - and it is very difficult to take their efforts as more serious than that - this matter must go before Congress, be debated and then voted on.
44
It seems from all but Russian, Iranian, and of course Syrian, reports that there's little doubt the Syrians have been using chems against it's own people. So yes her assertion of Russian lies is quite on target. And by association anything the Iranians and Syrians would say in agreement. Thus that would be fake news.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/russia-account-syria...®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
Something, anything should've been done long ago to stop the murderous rampage Assad has been waging on civilians. Sans any chemical weapons.
4
The US has a near perfect record of ignoring genocide. That makes us evil. Read Samantha Powers book, " A Problem From Hell". Well documented.
4
Even Obama partially understood the consequences of using chemical weapons only he believed in "contracts" with dictatorships such as Russia, Syria and Iran (so did Neville Chamberlain). Unfortunately, because we have an idiot as a president we can't enforce any of these contracts and Putin is taking advantage of the situation. If you did care about the Syrian suffering (600,000 dead and millions in camps in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon) you would push for the fall of the Assad regime and the push of Russia and Iran out of Syria, before a war with Israel (more dead). But then you clearly are so full of hatred toward the Trump admin. that you exalt the Russians ... weird logic given their interference in our elections, Putin being a dictator, the recent gas attack in the UK etc... Strange indeed.
3