| SvennoJ said: Forgive my ignorance, but isn't blowing up chemical plants rather bad for the environment and any people in the area. The strike may be precise, yet where's that cloud of chemicals going... |
I think because of fire (i.e explosion) then the risk is minimal.
I'm a massive trump hater, but the one and only thing I like about him (and its a stretch) is that he's not conventional. Russia has been really flexing its muscles for the last few years doing things that it shouldn't (assassinations, invading countries, providing support to some very dubious organisations), and getting away with it. Unfortunately most western powers all they can do is put in sanctions. So at least in this way there is some retaliation for the disgusting things that are happening with Russia's help.
I've seen idiots like Nicola Sturgeon moaning that we shouldn't do it, and David Miliband waffling on about we should be using diplomacy and that hipster fool Corbyn basically say we should never get involved in anything to do with Russia (him being a communist probably is the reason), but this has been going on for 7 years. This is at least the 2nd time they've used chemical weapons. At some point you have to say, yes we could just sit at home feeling comfortable and do nothing (and to be fair I can understand that feeling after messing up Iraq) but at what point do you sit up and say, we cannot be scared anymore, we cannot let these things continue, Russia and its allies are really doing some very bad things.
The irony is that western governments probably are not trying to get rid of Syria's leader at this point (that was lost when the rebels were in-fighting and got pushed back), but when Syria do things like this it means we get involved.
Making an indie game : Dead of Day!
