Who gains from destabilizing the middle east? Who gains from destroying secular governments there? ............................ One fellow I know thinks that we have a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan because they bracket Iran, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You need to ask your man Trump about that. His spokesman said Trump was actively working to destabilize the Middle East. I don't thin Iran wants a unstable Middle East. They want to control the Middle East. That's why they along with their Russian allies are in Syria. Assad has long befriended both Iran and Russia. Russia and Iran are both just defending their ally. Russia wants military bases for a military it cannot afford. Iran wants an ally and an opportunity to spread its religious theology. Pakistan is trying to avoid becoming another failed state.
Yes and no. That is, yeah, but that's old news. Unocal, pipeline, MidEast oil without Iran, all that. It's not a matter of gaining from instability; rather, it is our failure to achieve proper colonial dominance owing to those stubborn people's refusal to be proper colonial subjects, and all that. The problem is admitting we have a problem.
Assad is Shi'a The Saudis support the Sunni terrorists, so Iran supports the Shi'a (that part ain't difficult)
Of course, it was an act of war. But bombing 20 air fields much more seriously would be a much more horrible act of war. Which was my point - even now, with Trump realizing essentially Clinton's politics, she remains more horrible. Of course, it is intriguing, and suggests that we don't know some things these decision-makers know. I think these things will become clearer after the next fake gas attack, which will predictably happen. And it will happen in quite near future. Neither Assad nor Putin or Trump can prevent this (the CIA may have the ability to prevent this, but Trump does not seem to have control over what the CIA is doing), but all three know this will happen (if Trump did not know this, it will have been explained in detail to Tillerson), and once they all don't want WW III (at least I hope so, nobody can be sure what Trump wants), they had to think about what they will do in case of repetition.
What rock have you been living under? Obama administration officials say that they always believed Mr. Assad might be withholding at least small chemical supplies, and that in public statements, Mr. Kerry and others tried to refer to the elimination of Syria’s “declared” stocks, a nuance often lost in news reports. American officials repeatedly returned to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons with intelligence reports on remaining chemical stocks, pressing for further action. Despite the failure to completely eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, Obama administration officials and outside experts considered the program fundamentally a success. - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/...emical-weapons-destroyed-its-complicated.html
That's too late to have been Trump's inspiration. I'm mildly disappointed - the idea of Trump actually getting the idea from his must-watch TV news feed had a kind of elegant implosion of government to it. Progress. Recognition of events not fitting a narrative.
That wasn't the question I asked. That's the question you want to answer. I'll repeat my question once again. You said: "Looks like the Obama admin knew Assad retained chemical weapons, and Trump being privy to that probably had something to do with the decision. Whether it was good or bad will depend on how he follows up." Where is the evidence the Obama administration knew Assad retained chemical weapons and Trump knew that?
Among others, the Republican Party, in the US. For "secular", read "communist". For "communist", read "defiant of US". Those two questions are in conflict, btw. Destroying non-secular governments also destabilizes the Middle East. It may be (has been so far) just that the secular ones are easier, because dedicated allies are ready to hand - cf Afghanistan in the 1980s. Golan water, more likely. Iran has never been an aggressive, expansionist State - at least, not for centuries. They have been trying to maintain control of themselves, and had their plate full in that effort, since WWII. They are surrounded by aggressive, hostile, and very powerful forces. Right on their borders. Unlike, say, Israel, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, Iran is actually under attack - or siege, or whatever, but violent and military and immediately threatening.
If you're confirmation bias overwhelms your ability to parse simple English, I can't help you. It was public knowledge (albeit not widely and correctly reported) that the Obama administration qualified their answers about Assad being completely disarmed.
LOL... Answer the question comrade or admit you were bullshiting. If it's public knowledge, it should be easy for you to prove.
Already asked and answered. If that doesn't satisfy you, try Google. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
