Will We Again be Trapped in a Middle East Triangle of Hate?

President Trump sent 59 Cruise Missiles into Syria. Unlike Bill Clinton’s feeble attempt at a Cruise Missile strike which hit an empty aspirin factory in Khartoum Sudan, the Trump strike hit the mark.

The missile attack was retaliation for a chemical attack launched by Assad on the Syrian people. As the Assad air strike originated from Shayrat Air Base in Assad controlled Homs Province, this was the logical target for the Trump Cruise Missile attack.

This naturally led to a worldwide mental melt down and conjectures that this is the first official volley of World War III. And who knows – it may be. But I wouldn’t be too quick to jump to that conclusion.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

There are some real bad actors in this conflict and I’m not sure which is worse – Bashar al-Assad or Vladimir Putin. On the surface Assad would seem to be the personification of evil, and he indeed is, but we know he won’t lift a finger without first checking with the Godfather, Putin. Personally, I think this was Putin’s doing.

For the last eight years, old Vlad has basically had the run of the globe, to go anywhere and do anything he wishes without fear of reprisal from Commander Lead-from-Behind, Obama.

Now there is a new sheriff in town and like all bullies, Vlad I’m sure feels he must test the mettle of the Commander in Chief. And what better way to test the true resolve of Trump in the Middle East than a horrific attack. That, and of course, Putin is hell-bent on acquiring the oil from the Middle East – which is why he is puppet-master of both Syria and Iran.

In his book, “The America We Deserve,” published in 2000, Trump wrote:

“My rules of engagement are pretty simple. If we are going to intervene in a conflict it had better pose a direct threat to our interest- one definition of ‘direct’ being a threat so obvious that most Americans will know where the hot spot is on the globe and will quickly understand why we are getting involved. The threat should be so direct that our leaders, including our president, should be able to make the case clearly and concisely…  At the same time, we must not get involved in a long-festering conflict for humanitarian reasons. If that’s our standard, we should have troops stationed all over Africa, and much of Asia as well.”

Well said Mr. President. I agree wholeheartedly, as would the Founders.

All that said, is it possible for the U.S. to lim…

Read the rest of the story at www.iPatriot.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

iPatriot

iPatriot

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend