webdiplomacy.net

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:34 am**

Hey remember when you all kept saying HRC was a war hawk unlike Trump

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:54 am**

Hey remember when she declared her intent to institute a no-fly zone which was universally regarded as an act of war that would have pulled Russia and the US (two nuclear powers) into direct, active conflict with one other?

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:59 am**

key words: "unlike trump" smh when are you idiots gonna learn to read

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:03 am**

Oh yeah cause attacking a country filled with Russian soldiers who are there specifically to prevent an attack is a great way to avoid direct active conflict.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:08 am**

Trump already has Pompeo boasting about how many Russians were killed in an American strike earlier this year. Trump is likely to seek conflict with Russia in order to demonstrate that he's not controlled by Putin.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:26 am**

Trump is not a War Hawk. If he was, he would have declared war upon achieving office.

He did not. It's taken the state apparatus of the military industrial complex a year and a half to strong-arm him into a position where he's prepared to consider war.

The insults are unnecessary.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:30 am**

Neocon Don is a war hawk.

Remember how he did the same thing almost exactly a year ago?

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:39 am**

@Croak Consider? According to reports, there was 40 minutes of continuous bombing, some in residential areas. If any other nation did this, they would be cast out as a rogue nation. I hope that Russia actually follows through with their promise because letting this go on just lets the military-industrial complex know that they won't face consequences no matter what they do. Assad did nothing wrong, and the coalition tonight knew that full well, which is why they made the strike before any report could come out.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:49 am**

Yes, I too hope for world war three.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:55 am**

Perhaps we need a WWIII so that people start realizing war isn't all fun and games, bombing third world countries with impunity. Perhaps when all is said and done, we'll get the chance to start over again.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:56 am**

leon1122 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:55 am
Perhaps we need a WWIII so that people start realizing war isn't all fun and games, bombing third world countries with impunity. Perhaps when all is said and done, we'll get the chance to start over again.

Yeah because that worked really well the first and second time

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:59 am**

twitter handel @StratSentinel has the best coverage of most of this stuff, looks like the tomahawks have already hit, and apparently Hezbollah are gearing up for a fight with Israel

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:24 am**

CroakandDagger wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:26 am
Trump is not a War Hawk. If he was, he would have declared war upon achieving office.

He did not. It's taken the state apparatus of the military industrial complex a year and a half to strong-arm him into a position where he's prepared to consider war.

The insults are unnecessary.

Yes, because this is totally about the military industrial complex and not Trump trying to distract from the wealth of evidence emerging of his criminal wrongdoing.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:41 am**

Can we throw in some Canadian politic talks on here to freshen things up?

Let’s see what today’s news stories are..

OTTAWA – Parks Canada spent over $150,000 on a phone survey to determine whether or not Canadians enjoyed their experience at national parks in 2017.

It turns out, they did, a lot.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:01 am**

ghug wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:24 am

CroakandDagger wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:26 am
Trump is not a War Hawk. If he was, he would have declared war upon achieving office.

He did not. It's taken the state apparatus of the military industrial complex a year and a half to strong-arm him into a position where he's prepared to consider war.

The insults are unnecessary.
Yes, because this is totally about the military industrial complex and not Trump trying to distract from the wealth of evidence emerging of his criminal wrongdoing.

You know, I'll actually go on Trump's side on this one. He was literally advocating pulling out of Syria altogether a few weeks ago, before this attack happened. And while he's been supportive of the military, its usually been the rest of his cabinet dragging him into military action. Yeah, its a nice sideshow for his domestic issues, which I'm sure made him easier to convince, but I honestly think his first instinct is not for war. That is the nicest thing you will hear me say about him.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:07 am**

leon1122 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:39 am
@Croak Consider? According to reports, there was 40 minutes of continuous bombing, some in residential areas. If any other nation did this, they would be cast out as a rogue nation. I hope that Russia actually follows through with their promise because letting this go on just lets the military-industrial complex know that they won't face consequences no matter what they do. Assad did nothing wrong, and the coalition tonight knew that full well, which is why they made the strike before any report could come out.

Literally tons of nations do that, and are not cast out as rogue nations. Russia has invaded Ukraine, with few tangible negative consequences. Saudi Arabia has invaded Yemen, with few tangible consequences. Those with power get to do what they want. Welcome to realpolitik. Russia's threats were just posture - because they knew they couldn't actually stop any Allied attack.

Saying Assad did nothing wrong is laughable. He is the only one to have the materials, method (helicopter) and motivation (end stalled negotiations on evacuation of the area/strike fear) to conduct the attack. Every other party lacks one of those. Moreover, it is about time Russia and Assad faced consequences for not honoring the deal with Obama. The deal was for the full removal of the chemical weapons arsenal, yet there have been dozens of chemical attacks since then. Punishment was necessary. If red lines are allowed to be crossed, and basic international agreements not followed (treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons in warfare, agreement between Russia, Syria and US to remove chemical weapons from Syria) then the international order breaks down. And if the order breaks down, and there are not consequences for actions, we get situations where Russia thinks its okay to assassinate someone in another country.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:11 am**

goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:01 am

ghug wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:24 am

CroakandDagger wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:26 am
Trump is not a War Hawk. If he was, he would have declared war upon achieving office.

He did not. It's taken the state apparatus of the military industrial complex a year and a half to strong-arm him into a position where he's prepared to consider war.

The insults are unnecessary.
Yes, because this is totally about the military industrial complex and not Trump trying to distract from the wealth of evidence emerging of his criminal wrongdoing.
You know, I'll actually go on Trump's side on this one. He was literally advocating pulling out of Syria altogether a few weeks ago, before this attack happened. And while he's been supportive of the military, its usually been the rest of his cabinet dragging him into military action. Yeah, its a nice sideshow for his domestic issues, which I'm sure made him easier to convince, but I honestly think his first instinct is not for war. That is the nicest thing you will hear me say about him.

If your first instinct isn't to shoot someone who made you mad, but you still end up shooting them, it doesn't change that fact that you ultimately shot them.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:21 am**

Right, but if your first instinct isn't to shoot them,you can't be called trigger-happy

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:21 am**

goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:07 am

leon1122 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:39 am
@Croak Consider? According to reports, there was 40 minutes of continuous bombing, some in residential areas. If any other nation did this, they would be cast out as a rogue nation. I hope that Russia actually follows through with their promise because letting this go on just lets the military-industrial complex know that they won't face consequences no matter what they do. Assad did nothing wrong, and the coalition tonight knew that full well, which is why they made the strike before any report could come out.
Literally tons of nations do that, and are not cast out as rogue nations. Russia has invaded Ukraine, with few tangible negative consequences. Saudi Arabia has invaded Yemen, with few tangible consequences. Those with power get to do what they want. Welcome to realpolitik. Russia's threats were just posture - because they knew they couldn't actually stop any Allied attack.

Saying Assad did nothing wrong is laughable. He is the only one to have the materials, method (helicopter) and motivation (end stalled negotiations on evacuation of the area/strike fear) to conduct the attack. Every other party lacks one of those. Moreover, it is about time Russia and Assad faced consequences for not honoring the deal with Obama. The deal was for the full removal of the chemical weapons arsenal, yet there have been dozens of chemical attacks since then. Punishment was necessary. If red lines are allowed to be crossed, and basic international agreements not followed (treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons in warfare, agreement between Russia, Syria and US to remove chemical weapons from Syria) then the international order breaks down. And if the order breaks down, and there are not consequences for actions, we get situations where Russia thinks its okay to assassinate someone in another country.

So why is it necessary to punish this small scale chemical attack yet overlook a genocide happening on a larger scale elsewhere in the world, or any other number of horrific acts? Does these agreements we have say "if you break the rules we'll bomb the shit out of your country and people"? And acting like Syria is the villain in this is oversimplifying. They've been pushed to this in an attempt to resolve something created by outside forces. The US is largely responsible for the war in Syria as it is, and us interfering in this way has done nothing to help Middle East stability. Just the opposite.

And the very simply answer to "Those with power get to do what they want." is that just because they can, doesn't mean it's right.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:22 am**

goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:21 am
Right, but if your first instinct isn't to shoot them,you can't be called trigger-happy

Oh gotcha, I'm sure that's a lot of comfort to the person who's been shot.

webdiplomacy.net

War hawk

War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk

Re: War hawk