U.S. Launches Millitary Strike Against Syria (merged)

Do you agree with Trump's decision to strike Syria?


  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
It seems like this ^^^^ is a prepared narrative from the right, regardless of the circumstances involved. As of right now, this is what the Pentagon has confirmed:

"The U.S. military carried out a single air strike in Syria against a single location used by Iranian backed militias. Multiple facilities at this location were struck during the attack. President Biden authorized the strike in response to three separate rocket attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq."

Can anyone explain what is wrong with this? This is not a case of interventionism. It's a response to military aggression against U.S. forces.
The fact is that John Kerry planted his lips firmly on the ass of the Ayatollah which then emboldened them and led to this "necessity"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Ohnoes, you disagree with me. Whatever shall I do? 😂

Idgaf about whether we ding anti American interests in Syria or Iran. Unlike you who is clearly a Syrian sympathizer, I believe the only good terry is a dead terry.
Maybe they wouldn't be terry if we would stop killing their family members.
 
The fact is that John Kerry planted his lips firmly on the ass of the Ayatollah which then emboldened them and led to this "necessity"
It's basically the same thing that played out in January of 2020... and led to Iran shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 - which was never met with a response.
 
Standing idly by is what gave rise to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, taking the fight to them is what keeps these radicals off our shores.
I think it could be easily argued that outside interference from various countries, including the U.S., is what has led to the rise of such militant groups. Other than appeasing "allies", I'm not sure what U.S. interests are being served by keeping a military presence in the region.
 
Standing idly by is what gave rise to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, taking the fight to them is what keeps these radicals off our shores.
Actually invading Iraq and creating a power vacuum did more for that than standing idly by. In fact standing idly by would have been an improvement. Take another gulp of freedom fluid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
I think it could be easily argued that outside interference from various countries, including the U.S., is what has led to the rise of such militant groups. Other than appeasing "allies", I'm not sure what U.S. interests are being served by keeping a military presence in the region.

Religion and our support of Israel is what gave rise to their unmitigated hatred of the west. We're infidels.

You think ignoring them and hoping for the best is a good idea?
 
Troops in Europe and ME when Bush is in office: George Bush is a war criminal and wants to fight the entire world to enrich his MIC buddies.
Troops in Europe and ME when Obama is in office: He is keeping Europe safe, a true hero.
Troops in Europe and ME when Trump is in office: He wants to remove troops because he's a Russian plant and Putin is invading Europe.
Troops in Europe and ME when Biden is in office: He is keeping Europe safe, a true hero.
 
Actually invading Iraq and creating a power vacuum did more for that than standing idly by. In fact standing idly by would have been an improvement. Take another gulp of freedom fluid.

Invading Iraq was a response to them invading Kuwait, an oil rich ally.

Saddam was a butcher who needed to be deposed and you have the luxury of hindsight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
Religion and our support of Israel is what gave rise to their unmitigated hatred of the west. We're infidels.

You think ignoring them and hoping for the best is a good idea?
No, but bombing the family members only creates more terrorist. Not to mention........ It is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz

VN Store



Back
Top