Lil devils x:
You do realize those "same people" are no longer there right?
Why, because dick cheney isn't there any more? That somehow cleans up the whole intelligence agency of warmongers?
Considering these same agencies supported obama taking 2 wars/interventions to 7 and who are still saying "we need to attack Iran NOW", consider me quite skeptical that this is the case. To say nothing of the fact that there's literally CIA-backed rebels fighting Pentagon-backed rebels with weapons that both agencies gave them.
And even if it IS different people, these intelligence agencies exist for the purpose of interventions and manipulating the "geopolitical chessboard". When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The fact that trump is appointing known warmongers John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to key positions in his administration does not make me sleep better at night either.
That Trump and the US Military would not say that Assad used gas until they had conclusive evidence even though numerous others already were.
I'm confused. Are you giving trump credit as a "moderate reasonable person" here? Or are you implying that he wouldn't attack syria without reason because he doesn't want to make putin mad? Considering trump's attitude, I'm just astounded that the missile strike really does seem to have been a one-off thing, I was not expecting that from a man who is otherwise an impetuous manchild.
As for the military...They're the same people who send out their top generals on TV to call for preemptive war against Iran and other places, so again I'm not sold that they're only in favor of invading in the most extreme of circumstances.
The Military waited until they had further evidence this time as Trump really did not want to do anything about it without further proof. It is not "just" the same agencies either, there were more people involved in this than in the Iraq ordeal.
Where did they get the conclusive evidence? From the independent UN observers that- Oh wait, no, they couldn't, because they did those airstrikes the day before the observers even got to Syria to investigate.
So...where did they get this conclusive evidence? From the "moderate" rebels on the ground who are by this point mostly extreme jihadists, isis and al-queda? Who really really want the US to help them because otherwise they'll definitely lose the war?
And what about the evidence from civilians from the other side of the civil war who say that it wasn't the army that used the chemical weapons, and that the facilities that were hit by the strike were NOT chemical weapons facilities, but things like snake venom labs? Are we supposed to discarded their testimony? Are they paid actors? What?
If there IS such conclusive evidence, why haven't they provided any of it? Why are we relying on CNN sniffing backpacks and saying "oh yeah, there's definitely poison on it, my nose is stinging"?
This is different people, different time, and more agencies and nations involved. Completely different situation than Iraq.
It's the US being pushed to interfere in a civil war between mostly jihadist terrorist types versus a dictator, where the reason for the invasion is a tenuous claim of "illegal weapons", from the same intelligence agencies. Where if the US topples assad's secular government, it'll just lead to fundamentalist jihadist rebel types taking over the country much like Iraq.
It's a lot more like Iraq than is close for comfort.
After all the illegal or pointless wars waged over the last 15 years, I've become VERY skeptical of the military and intelligence agencies saying "we need to go to war!", because more often than not, they're wrong. Or they're just doing it to line the pockets of defense contractors.
Fool me once, shame on them. Fool me twice, shame on me. Unless a country is literally attacking you, or an independent UN group is able to prove that a literal genocide is going on and recommends a peacekeeping mission, you should not be attacking another country.