Having had my humble opinion that Trump was silly attacking Syria sneered at, I was gratified to read that none other than Daniel Pipes presented the same view in an article entitled 'No to bombing Syria'.

Pipes says: “Direct American involvement implies favoring one side against the other, when BOTH ARE HIDEOUSLY REPUGNANT.”

All the Abbott-haters will remember how they sneered at that perceptive man when he said the same. The idiot, Charlie Pickering made much of it last night on his weird program.

Pipes and Abbott (and little old me) are right. Trump massively showed that he sided with ISIS, or the equivalent of it, by sending 60 missiles at $US110,000 a pop into Syria, achieving nothing except emboldening terrorist Islam.

As Pipes rightly says, “...there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution (that) requires that American forces fight in every war around he world.” He believes that enemies of the United States – the Syrian government and the 'rebels' – should be left to fight each other to exhaustion.

In my view, Trump and America should be concentrating solely on destroying the North Korean regime, which is a real threat to the world.

> Pipes says: “Direct American involvement implies favoring one side against the other,
> when BOTH ARE HIDEOUSLY REPUGNANT.”

It's highly misleading to refer to "both" sides when it's a six sided war.

...or if you include America and Russia, an eight sided war.

The cost of the missiles was a little over 1 Million dollars each.

PhilipS. Probably true. The $110k would just be the purchase price. The $60 million would have been better spent on humanitarian aid.

Humanitarian! What sort of humanitarian are you, you and Abbott are in the same bed, enjoying the fruits of life.

The first time I have ever seen anyone talk 15 different sorts of shat in the same sentence.

doog,

I didn't say that I was a humanitarian. I am not. Don't pretend to be. Where on earth did you get the idea that I was? Still obsessed with Abbot I see.