Stop being retarded. It may be that it works out just fine again, but there's zero reason to assume that as the default outcome. If you attack someone you should expect to be attacked in return.
My stance now is that same as it was then. I disagree with the decision regardless of the outcome.
Not like people waited for the dust to settle before declaring the opposite
No, you have to be vocally opposed to that shit up front when all sorts of messaging is signaling regime change.
Uh huh
Do you deny there was pro-regime change propaganda being circulated?
There always is
I think that directly after attacking someone it's safe to assume that you are in conflict with them until given a reason to believe otherwise.
Like what happened when he bombed syria. Or the houthis.
Wow, it totally never happened before guys
Stop being retarded. It may be that it works out just fine again, but there's zero reason to assume that as the default outcome. If you attack someone you should expect to be attacked in return.
My stance now is that same as it was then. I disagree with the decision regardless of the outcome.
So just ignore past statistical history and just focus on current thing? Sounds familiar
Syria was a failed state in a free for all melee.
The Houthis are a rag-tag rebel group.
No comparison at all to what happened here.