Posted on 04/08/2017 1:33:21 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Didn’t see his say that. I’d guess they would say whoever the Syrian people select. (as long as we agree of course)
Wonderful question. I appreciate your critical thinking. I see so little here among the Sheeple.
Hawks are always going to support military action, because that's what hawks do.
But there are plenty of non-interventionist conservatives like Mark Levin, myself, and many other members of this forum, who support the President in this case.
So the knee-jerk hysteria is infantile, and in total disregard of the salient facts...
I've asked this question frequently. People call me a Putinista bootlicker and tell me to go back to DU.
Israel prefers ISIS over Assad, who has bombers. Israel could pick ISIS off as a matter of routine.
I wonder why?
It isn't supporting military action so much as supporting the WRONG SIDE the pisses me off.
In other words ISIS/Al-Qaeda’s leaders praise the attack..
Looking at this, I see Tillerson saying that first ISIS needs to be defeated. Then Assad needs to be removed through a political process.
Why wouldn't they? We're blowing up the airfields used to wage war against them.
Don't worry though. They may praise the attack but they'd still butcher our children with smiles their faces if given half a chance.
Again, bombing Assad is a hell of a way to defeat ISIS. Assad is supposed to be fighting ISIS, yet to defeat ISIS, Assad is bombed. But I think I get it. It goes thusly: The neighbor cusses you out, the boss chews your butt a new one. You go through the door at home, beat the hell out of the wife and children. Then say to yourself: I just showed those sobs who is the boss. The neighbor and boss say another word to me and they will get again. It works on the same principle of hitting your big toe to cure a migraine.
The military action that was taken against the Syrian govt is in support of the rebels, few or none of which can be differentiated from ISIS. If and when these same rebels prevail in Syria, similar to what was done in Libya, the outcome will be owned by the interventionist. If Israel supports the Syrian rebels, there is no meaningful difference between that and supporting ISIS.
If Trump fires 59 missiles on a Syrian airstrip and a much larger number of missiles on ISIS, then there is of course a meaningful difference between that and supporting ISIS.
But the media doesn't tell you about all the missiles Trump is firing on ISIS, so you don't consider it.
You make no mention of Trump bombing ISIS.
Assad is supposed to be fighting ISIS, yet to defeat ISIS, Assad is bombed. But I think I get it. It goes thusly: The neighbor cusses you out, the boss chews your butt a new one. You go through the door at home, beat the hell out of the wife and children. Then say to yourself: I just showed those sobs who is the boss. The neighbor and boss say another word to me and they will get again. It works on the same principle of hitting your big toe to cure a migraine.
LOL. Sure.
I’m not defending Saudi Arabia. I’m defending our relationship with them. every president since Eisenhower has recognized the importance of this relationship and you’re the moron if you think we can just walk away from that relationship without consequences.
So what your interests then?
Destroying Europe?
Perhaps because there weren't really such? What happened to building 7?
How come the passports of same were found unscathed in the wreckage?
The Pentagon hit was not a commercial airliner. Impossible.
Show me pictures of flight 93 in the field in Pennsylvania.
Why do ALL perps of alleged Muslim attacks show up dead and unable to testify?
These are questions we should be thinking about.
Seems like Europe is destroying itself regardless of my intetests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.