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.
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
Rationalize your bloodlust with whatever platitudes help you sleep at night I guess.
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.