|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
Zurich15352 Posts
On September 06 2013 08:13 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 08:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 06:25 Warlock40 wrote:
I'm guessing France will definitely not act if the US doesn't. I don't understand - why does France need the US to act first? Is it because the French do not want to be seen as taking a unilateral action? One (of several) reasons is that they don't want to embarrass Obama. If France goes in first to enforce Obama's Red Line it will look painfully embarrassing for the US. You must be out of your mind. It will look painfully embarrassing for France if they go first and the US don't follow up lol. And that's the main reason.
Not out of my mind, no.
I said there is many reasons. One of them is that France does not want it to look like they are enforcing Obama's red line. I don't see what is so absurd about this.
|
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering a plan to use U.S. military trainers to help increase the capabilities of the Syrian rebels, in a move that would greatly expand the current CIA training being done quietly in Jordan, U.S. officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Any training would take place outside Syria, and one possible location would be Jordan.
The officials said no decision had been made, but that discussions were going on at high levels of the government. It comes as the Obama administration prods Congress to authorize limited military strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government in retaliation for a deadly Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack.
The proposal to use the U.S. military to train the rebels – something the administration has resisted through more than two years of civil war – would answer the demands of some lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to do more to train and equip the Syrian opposition. President Barack Obama in June decided to provide lethal aid to the rebels, but so far none of that assistance has gotten to the opposition.
Officials said Thursday that talk about a military training mission has increased but that there have been no specific Pentagon recommendations forwarded to the White House on how big it should be or how many troops it should involve.
The CIA has been training select groups of rebels in Jordan on the use of communications equipment and some weapons provided by Gulf states. The new discussions center on whether the U.S. military should take over the mission so that hundreds or thousands can be trained, rather than just dozens.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plan publicly.
Source
|
maybe read up on how Gandhi did things a bit, because that was truly a man of principle, willing to take some personal hurt for the greater good.
yeah gandhi always was willing for muslims to take some personal hurt for the greater good of hindus
gandhi has no place in this discussion or any discussion really the man was a virulent racist, religious supremacist and caste bigot but that's neither here nor there regarding SYRIA
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Meh on gandhi as racist, religious supremacists, and cast bigot. Defining characteristic is that Gandhi was nationalistic. That in of itself does have a flavor of racism to it.
As for the rest, Gandhi had an evolution through life towards more inclusive social reform. These beliefs became subject to his higher priority of nationalism.
A nationalistic/religious/social look might be a fruitful approach to analysing the Syrian Civil War. Doesn't matter so much to the Chemical Weapons attach though.
|
Seems like this is no upside at all for anyone to intervene here. We didn't give a fuck for two years and now suddenly there is the potential that chemical weapons were used on a small number of people and we want to escalate? No thanks. They have a right to civil war without us coming in and telling them how to do it. Are they genociding minorities or endangering their neighbors? Not really.
|
On September 06 2013 09:08 Bigtony wrote:
Seems like this is no upside at all for anyone to intervene here. We didn't give a fuck for two years and now suddenly there is the potential that chemical weapons were used on a small number of people and we want to escalate? No thanks. They have a right to civil war without us coming in and telling them how to do it. Are they genociding minorities or endangering their neighbors? Not really.
Turkey disagrees with you.
But so far Ankara has been unable to win Washington over to its arguments.
“There is not just a gap between Turkey’s rhetoric and its ability to affect things but a gap between the country’s helplessness and the growing negative consequences of Syria,” says Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at Carnegie Europe.
He suggests that if a strike turns out to be a one-off, Mr Assad may even emerge strengthened, deepening Ankara’s predicament.
“In general, Turkey finds itself in a very difficult position. That is why we are very vocal and active when it comes to Syria,” says a Turkish official.
“Even without any operation, we are already vulnerable,” the official continues. “The prolongation of the crisis with no resolution in sight will make it worse and worse every day. The international community should not make it more difficult; any attack or response should not be just a cosmetic one.”
The country’s problems are daunting. Turkey already hosts half a million Syrian refugees – 200,000 in government-run camps; 300,000 in Turkish towns and cities – and about 8,000 more have poured over the border in the past week despite Turkish attempts to limit their numbers.
Source
|
On September 06 2013 08:33 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 08:13 Boblion wrote:On September 06 2013 08:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 06:25 Warlock40 wrote:
I'm guessing France will definitely not act if the US doesn't. I don't understand - why does France need the US to act first? Is it because the French do not want to be seen as taking a unilateral action? One (of several) reasons is that they don't want to embarrass Obama. If France goes in first to enforce Obama's Red Line it will look painfully embarrassing for the US. You must be out of your mind. It will look painfully embarrassing for France if they go first and the US don't follow up lol. And that's the main reason. Not out of my mind, no. I said there is many reasons. One of them is that France does not want it to look like they are enforcing Obama's red line. I don't see what is so absurd about this.
I don't think you understand the situation properly. In France the president doesn't need a vote of the parliament to start a war (Looks probably weird for American or German people but that's the truth). So why do you think he is waiting now ?
France didn't wait for the US to go in Mali and i don't think Hollande cares too much about Obama's popularity rating (well at least his own ratings are more important lol). The cold hard truth is that this time an intervention isn't really possible without the US.
You have to realize that there aren't many European countries willing to help after that Cameron got humiliated by his MPs. That's why Hollande is backpedalling now and and they are trying to make a meaningless debate at the parliament (which isn't needed anyway as i said).
If the US don't go, Hollande will say "i have to listen to the parliament blablabla, no war". It is just not feasible for France to go alone and waiting for the US decision could save a lot of embarrassment. I don't really see Hollande bombing Syria with Turkey and Saoudi Arabia as its main allies lol.
|
On September 06 2013 09:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 09:08 Bigtony wrote:
Seems like this is no upside at all for anyone to intervene here. We didn't give a fuck for two years and now suddenly there is the potential that chemical weapons were used on a small number of people and we want to escalate? No thanks. They have a right to civil war without us coming in and telling them how to do it. Are they genociding minorities or endangering their neighbors? Not really. Turkey disagrees with you. Show nested quote +But so far Ankara has been unable to win Washington over to its arguments.
“There is not just a gap between Turkey’s rhetoric and its ability to affect things but a gap between the country’s helplessness and the growing negative consequences of Syria,” says Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at Carnegie Europe.
He suggests that if a strike turns out to be a one-off, Mr Assad may even emerge strengthened, deepening Ankara’s predicament.
“In general, Turkey finds itself in a very difficult position. That is why we are very vocal and active when it comes to Syria,” says a Turkish official.
“Even without any operation, we are already vulnerable,” the official continues. “The prolongation of the crisis with no resolution in sight will make it worse and worse every day. The international community should not make it more difficult; any attack or response should not be just a cosmetic one.”
The country’s problems are daunting. Turkey already hosts half a million Syrian refugees – 200,000 in government-run camps; 300,000 in Turkish towns and cities – and about 8,000 more have poured over the border in the past week despite Turkish attempts to limit their numbers.
Source
Here is a crazy for Turkey, why doesnt it use its 400,000 sized army to intervene? Its absurd that countries like Saudi and Turkey, who have big armies full of high tech gadgets are waiting for America to do all the heavy lifting.
|
On September 06 2013 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 09:11 farvacola wrote:On September 06 2013 09:08 Bigtony wrote:
Seems like this is no upside at all for anyone to intervene here. We didn't give a fuck for two years and now suddenly there is the potential that chemical weapons were used on a small number of people and we want to escalate? No thanks. They have a right to civil war without us coming in and telling them how to do it. Are they genociding minorities or endangering their neighbors? Not really. Turkey disagrees with you. But so far Ankara has been unable to win Washington over to its arguments.
“There is not just a gap between Turkey’s rhetoric and its ability to affect things but a gap between the country’s helplessness and the growing negative consequences of Syria,” says Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at Carnegie Europe.
He suggests that if a strike turns out to be a one-off, Mr Assad may even emerge strengthened, deepening Ankara’s predicament.
“In general, Turkey finds itself in a very difficult position. That is why we are very vocal and active when it comes to Syria,” says a Turkish official.
“Even without any operation, we are already vulnerable,” the official continues. “The prolongation of the crisis with no resolution in sight will make it worse and worse every day. The international community should not make it more difficult; any attack or response should not be just a cosmetic one.”
The country’s problems are daunting. Turkey already hosts half a million Syrian refugees – 200,000 in government-run camps; 300,000 in Turkish towns and cities – and about 8,000 more have poured over the border in the past week despite Turkish attempts to limit their numbers.
Source Here is a crazy for Turkey, why doesnt it use its 400,000 sized army to intervene? Its absurd that countries like Saudi and Turkey, who have big armies full of high tech gadgets are waiting for America to do all the heavy lifting.
No reason for the USA to get involved. There's no positive outcome.
|
WASHINGTON — President Obama has directed the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets in Syria in response to intelligence suggesting that the government of President Bashar al-Assad has been moving troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons while Congress debates whether to authorize military action.
Mr. Obama, officials said, is now determined to put more emphasis on the “degrade” part of what the administration has said is the goal of a military strike against Syria — to “deter and degrade” Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons. That means expanding beyond the 50 or so major sites that were part of the original target list developed with French forces before Mr. Obama delayed action on Saturday to seek Congressional approval of his plan.
For the first time, the administration is talking about using American and French aircraft to conduct strikes on specific targets, in addition to ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. There is a renewed push to get other NATO forces involved.
Source
|
On September 06 2013 10:54 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2013 09:11 farvacola wrote:On September 06 2013 09:08 Bigtony wrote:
Seems like this is no upside at all for anyone to intervene here. We didn't give a fuck for two years and now suddenly there is the potential that chemical weapons were used on a small number of people and we want to escalate? No thanks. They have a right to civil war without us coming in and telling them how to do it. Are they genociding minorities or endangering their neighbors? Not really. Turkey disagrees with you. But so far Ankara has been unable to win Washington over to its arguments.
“There is not just a gap between Turkey’s rhetoric and its ability to affect things but a gap between the country’s helplessness and the growing negative consequences of Syria,” says Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at Carnegie Europe.
He suggests that if a strike turns out to be a one-off, Mr Assad may even emerge strengthened, deepening Ankara’s predicament.
“In general, Turkey finds itself in a very difficult position. That is why we are very vocal and active when it comes to Syria,” says a Turkish official.
“Even without any operation, we are already vulnerable,” the official continues. “The prolongation of the crisis with no resolution in sight will make it worse and worse every day. The international community should not make it more difficult; any attack or response should not be just a cosmetic one.”
The country’s problems are daunting. Turkey already hosts half a million Syrian refugees – 200,000 in government-run camps; 300,000 in Turkish towns and cities – and about 8,000 more have poured over the border in the past week despite Turkish attempts to limit their numbers.
Source Here is a crazy for Turkey, why doesnt it use its 400,000 sized army to intervene? Its absurd that countries like Saudi and Turkey, who have big armies full of high tech gadgets are waiting for America to do all the heavy lifting. No reason for the USA to get involved. There's no positive outcome. Not really depends on US interests for the region, considering for the past couple years their interest has been in stability. Forcing a quicker resolution may or may not bring that, either way the US better not do anything without a solid game plan for what they are going to do in what capacity.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On September 06 2013 09:26 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 08:33 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 08:13 Boblion wrote:On September 06 2013 08:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 06:25 Warlock40 wrote:
I'm guessing France will definitely not act if the US doesn't. I don't understand - why does France need the US to act first? Is it because the French do not want to be seen as taking a unilateral action? One (of several) reasons is that they don't want to embarrass Obama. If France goes in first to enforce Obama's Red Line it will look painfully embarrassing for the US. You must be out of your mind. It will look painfully embarrassing for France if they go first and the US don't follow up lol. And that's the main reason. Not out of my mind, no. I said there is many reasons. One of them is that France does not want it to look like they are enforcing Obama's red line. I don't see what is so absurd about this. I don't think you understand the situation properly. In France the president doesn't need a vote of the parliament to start a war (Looks probably weird for American or German people but that's the truth). So why do you think he is waiting now ? France didn't wait for the US to go in Mali and i don't think Hollande cares too much about Obama's popularity rating (well at least his own ratings are more important lol). The cold hard truth is that this time an intervention isn't really possible without the US. You have to realize that there aren't many European countries willing to help after that Cameron got humiliated by his MPs. That's why Hollande is backpedalling now and and they are trying to make a meaningless debate at the parliament (which isn't needed anyway as i said). If the US don't go, Hollande will say "i have to listen to the parliament blablabla, no war". It is just not feasible for France to go alone and waiting for the US decision could save a lot of embarrassment. I don't really see Hollande bombing Syria with Turkey and Saoudi Arabia as its main allies lol.
What exactly about "the situation" am I not understanding?
In Europe, France and the UK are the only countries who would ever help anyway. Everyone else is either too weak, or too unwilling (Germany, Italy, Spain) to do anything. All the rest of them staying out of it has very little to do with the UK staying home.
The US had virtually zero involvement in Mali from the very beginning, so of course France didn't have to wait for a US reaction, since there wasn't one going to come ever. That France didn't hesitate there only strengthens my point.
I can only repeat: Not embarrassing Obama is one reason France is waiting. That it would be difficult for France to do anything effective without the US is of course another important factor. But the main reason they are hesitating right now is not military impotence but political considerations towards mainly the US.
|
On September 06 2013 08:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote + maybe read up on how Gandhi did things a bit, because that was truly a man of principle, willing to take some personal hurt for the greater good. yeah gandhi always was willing for muslims to take some personal hurt for the greater good of hindus gandhi has no place in this discussion or any discussion really the man was a virulent racist, religious supremacist and caste bigot but that's neither here nor there regarding SYRIA
It is always brilliant how a person takes one line that is the least relevant out of an entire post and starts bitching about that. I am talking about non-violent protest...It is idiotic to take military action in a country where we all know there isn't a military solution. Think about it, will military action by the US bring peace closer, or push it further away? So no Obama is o so concerned about these 500 children, compared to the 500.000+ that die of malaria yearly? Or the thousands of children that already died in Syria? Or the hundreds that are still dying and will be dying in Afghanistan or Iraq, but where the US is pulling out? It is not about these children, or the other citizens that died...
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On September 06 2013 17:05 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 08:36 DeepElemBlues wrote: maybe read up on how Gandhi did things a bit, because that was truly a man of principle, willing to take some personal hurt for the greater good. yeah gandhi always was willing for muslims to take some personal hurt for the greater good of hindus gandhi has no place in this discussion or any discussion really the man was a virulent racist, religious supremacist and caste bigot but that's neither here nor there regarding SYRIA It is always brilliant how a person takes one line that is the least relevant out of an entire post and starts bitching about that. I am talking about non-violent protest...It is idiotic to take military action in a country where we all know there isn't a military solution. Think about it, will military action by the US bring peace closer, or push it further away? So no Obama is o so concerned about these 500 children, compared to the 500.000+ that die of malaria yearly? Or the thousands of children that already died in Syria? Or the hundreds that are still dying and will be dying in Afghanistan or Iraq, but where the US is pulling out? It is not about these children, or the other citizens that died...
What? What are you even talking about, and how is it relevant to this thread?
|
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
I don't follow US internal politics at all (maybe Kerry went ahead and said he had intell and now obama has to deal?) but i'm more inclined to side with Russia's view on this. Russia is allied with Syria atm but clearly that is purely out of self interest and they would be greatful for an excuse to turn around and back US behind solid proof, but all signs point to the US being full of shit again
So now its going to be US either making a huge international incident which could lead to cold war esque tensions and destabilize the region even further by taking action without UN sanction. Or they find a way to back out while saving face allowing them to keep as much of their credibility as possible despite not acting when they promised they would.
Or they fail both and have to deal with countries that will no longer take anything they say seriously and will be empowered to push the US further
|
On September 06 2013 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 09:11 farvacola wrote:On September 06 2013 09:08 Bigtony wrote:
Seems like this is no upside at all for anyone to intervene here. We didn't give a fuck for two years and now suddenly there is the potential that chemical weapons were used on a small number of people and we want to escalate? No thanks. They have a right to civil war without us coming in and telling them how to do it. Are they genociding minorities or endangering their neighbors? Not really. Turkey disagrees with you. But so far Ankara has been unable to win Washington over to its arguments.
“There is not just a gap between Turkey’s rhetoric and its ability to affect things but a gap between the country’s helplessness and the growing negative consequences of Syria,” says Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at Carnegie Europe.
He suggests that if a strike turns out to be a one-off, Mr Assad may even emerge strengthened, deepening Ankara’s predicament.
“In general, Turkey finds itself in a very difficult position. That is why we are very vocal and active when it comes to Syria,” says a Turkish official.
“Even without any operation, we are already vulnerable,” the official continues. “The prolongation of the crisis with no resolution in sight will make it worse and worse every day. The international community should not make it more difficult; any attack or response should not be just a cosmetic one.”
The country’s problems are daunting. Turkey already hosts half a million Syrian refugees – 200,000 in government-run camps; 300,000 in Turkish towns and cities – and about 8,000 more have poured over the border in the past week despite Turkish attempts to limit their numbers.
Source Here is a crazy for Turkey, why doesnt it use its 400,000 sized army to intervene? Its absurd that countries like Saudi and Turkey, who have big armies full of high tech gadgets are waiting for America to do all the heavy lifting.
Saw a video with John Kerry claiming the arabs (I'm assuming Saudi Arabia?) would fund any US intervention in Syria.Bizarro.
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.html
Please just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there.....
|
On September 06 2013 17:31 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 17:05 Domus wrote:On September 06 2013 08:36 DeepElemBlues wrote: maybe read up on how Gandhi did things a bit, because that was truly a man of principle, willing to take some personal hurt for the greater good. yeah gandhi always was willing for muslims to take some personal hurt for the greater good of hindus gandhi has no place in this discussion or any discussion really the man was a virulent racist, religious supremacist and caste bigot but that's neither here nor there regarding SYRIA It is always brilliant how a person takes one line that is the least relevant out of an entire post and starts bitching about that. I am talking about non-violent protest...It is idiotic to take military action in a country where we all know there isn't a military solution. Think about it, will military action by the US bring peace closer, or push it further away? So no Obama is o so concerned about these 500 children, compared to the 500.000+ that die of malaria yearly? Or the thousands of children that already died in Syria? Or the hundreds that are still dying and will be dying in Afghanistan or Iraq, but where the US is pulling out? It is not about these children, or the other citizens that died... What? What are you even talking about, and how is it relevant to this thread?
It is relevant because of the way Obama is trying to sell these acts of war to the world. The main components of the speeches that are coming from the white house are:
1) Empathy with the Syrian people/victims
2) Chemical weapon treaties
3) The need for a military penalty over a diplomatic one
1) I am just debunking the first point because the way the white house shows empathy is more aligned with their personal goals. In general, governments are faced with deaths all over the world, and choose where to act and where not to act. I don't believe it is about the victims, because if this premise is reason enough for the US to act, then they would be acting in many more places in the world.
2) There is still much debate about the chemical weapons, who used them, etc. When there are so many countries that are not convinced that this is the right way to act, why does the US already call for military action? There will be major consequences to military action by the US. Maybe these chemical weapons will be destroyed, but the conflict will escalate. Also the US spitting in the face of the UN and saying that it does not work when things don't go their way is not the best basis for cooperation.
3) Everybody knows that this situation is already dire. The Assad regime has most support and is winning however. This might not be the outcome the US/West wished for, but it is the reality of the situation. Even if these chemical weapons will be destroyed, Assad will still win. But then we are in a situation where I don't think the West will have any means to protect the minorities that will be subjected to Assad's vengeance. The diplomatic solution will not be a popular one, but as it stands now, it will involve Assad's regime in some way.
|
On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2013 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:On September 06 2013 09:11 farvacola wrote:On September 06 2013 09:08 Bigtony wrote:
Seems like this is no upside at all for anyone to intervene here. We didn't give a fuck for two years and now suddenly there is the potential that chemical weapons were used on a small number of people and we want to escalate? No thanks. They have a right to civil war without us coming in and telling them how to do it. Are they genociding minorities or endangering their neighbors? Not really. Turkey disagrees with you. But so far Ankara has been unable to win Washington over to its arguments.
“There is not just a gap between Turkey’s rhetoric and its ability to affect things but a gap between the country’s helplessness and the growing negative consequences of Syria,” says Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at Carnegie Europe.
He suggests that if a strike turns out to be a one-off, Mr Assad may even emerge strengthened, deepening Ankara’s predicament.
“In general, Turkey finds itself in a very difficult position. That is why we are very vocal and active when it comes to Syria,” says a Turkish official.
“Even without any operation, we are already vulnerable,” the official continues. “The prolongation of the crisis with no resolution in sight will make it worse and worse every day. The international community should not make it more difficult; any attack or response should not be just a cosmetic one.”
The country’s problems are daunting. Turkey already hosts half a million Syrian refugees – 200,000 in government-run camps; 300,000 in Turkish towns and cities – and about 8,000 more have poured over the border in the past week despite Turkish attempts to limit their numbers.
Source Here is a crazy for Turkey, why doesnt it use its 400,000 sized army to intervene? Its absurd that countries like Saudi and Turkey, who have big armies full of high tech gadgets are waiting for America to do all the heavy lifting. Saw a video with John Kerry claiming the arabs (I'm assuming Saudi Arabia?) would fund any US intervention in Syria.Bizarro. Show nested quote +
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there.....
That is absolutely horrible :/.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there.....
How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad.
|
nuclear launch detected...
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
