Is the US concerned about nerve gas attacks in Great Britain?

After you.

And the freedom not to come back.

You sound kind of familiar,,,,,,,,,,were you my first husband? When did you get out?

The Guardian

reuters

It actually didn't take much energy at all to do that. I was, at the time, merely responding to some inspiring behavior on your part, and named the image you set.

Much bigger fish to fry in Britain. In the UK, like in America, Russia distracts from the truth about the real problems each country has. Islam is certainly one of them. And a government refusing to protect your children is another.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12662/britain-parliament-grooming-gangs

The poisoning event in the UK is regrettable. However the UK government has yet to complete its investigation, and it is not yet clear that this represented a new action by Putin or his associates. I don't support the, sometimes shrill, cries here for immediate additional actions by Western Powers against Russia until the facts become evident.

The larger issue here is just what is the interest of the United States and Europe with respect to Russia? I believe the Continental European Powers are very interested in continued close economic relations with Russia, perhaps in the hope of drawing them into the European orbit. In this I suspect they may be looking beyond Mr. Putin, whose regime is likely in its last decade. Their growing dependence on Russian gas, oil and minerals is also a powerful forcing function here. Time is a factor here.

Russia is still a huge country with significant geographic and cultural reach in North Asia. Large segments of their population are of Mongol origin and many are Moslem. Indeed this segment of their population is growing faster than the European one. My point is there may well be internal forces within Russia drawing them away from Europe. The possibility such a choice on their part is one we should consider in making our own policy. Is it in the interests of the Western Powers to see an angry Russia aligned with China and acting with them to disrupt Central Asia and the Middle East? I don't think so.

In any event I believe that a U.S. strategy built around increased economic growth domestically, increased unity and military readiness for this country; and greater unity and significantly improved military readiness among our NATO allies will enable the West to contain any actions Putin may contemplate, while enabling the U.S and Europe to continue a longer range strategy with respect to Russia

These matters, like most in human history, involve the complex interaction of a number of independent factors. Simplistic "explanations" are usually wrong. The supposed Russian conspiracy to defeat the anointed Hillary is merely one of many being cast about here.

I believe President Trump was elected because he appealed to a large segment of the American population frustrated with growing reach of an intrusive government that delivered generally mediocre results in its domestic policies, and a rather feckless foreign policy with respect to external threats. I don't think that Russian interference had much to do with that result at all, However I do recognize that, for those with TDS, and still in denial over their political loss, it may be more comforting to view their loss of political power as the work of an external enemy than to face the facts as they are.

Additionally one can see the Trump election as part of a worldwide rise of populism and resistance to conventional politics: external examples abound in The Philippines, Latin America, Greece, Italy, France, Austria, Hungary and perhaps even (soon) in the UK. Not all of these movements have succeeded in gaining power, and common threads can be hard to see. However all involve the unexpected popular rejection of the conventional politics that preceded them.

Quote georgeob1:
It's the only one that explains why Trump has filled his campaign and Administration with people who are either ideologically allied with Putin, (Bannon), just off-or maybe not even off-the payroll of the Kremlin or closely allied Russian oligarchs, (Manafort), or people who have lied to the Senate or investigating agencies about meeting Russian officials, ("National Security Advisor" Carter Page, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner, "National Security Advisor" Mike Flynn, who was also a Putin employee recently.) Not to mention Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was a head manager of the same Cyprus bank which served as a money laundering depot for the Russian oligarchs.

Then, of course, there is the matter of Don Jr enthusiastically taking a meeting in Trump Tower with a Kremlin lawyer who said they had dirt on Hillary, then lying to the public about the meeting being about adoptions, then not mentioning that the meeting included Manafort and Kushner on the Trump side and a whole busload of Russians on the other, including a Russian oligarch close to Putin, (there really isn't any other kind of oligarch).

So yeah, the Russian conspiracy thing is the only one which adds up, there are no real alternatives.

You used the word "only" repeatedly in that post. In every one its use was demonstrably wrong.

It's OK with me. I guess the sting of the defeat made a little introspection regarding the track record of the last administration and the quality of your candidate and her campaign too much to bear.

By the way, logic such as yours, applied to the anecdotal evidence regarding the behavior of key Justice Dept. and FBI officials involved in the Hillary "investigation" and the much more vigorous Trump one that immediately followed, would easily yield an equivalent conspiracy theory, this time one aimed at vengefully destroying the Trump Presidency. Do you believe that one too, or are you more selective in your prejudgments?

Now that’s funny.

Tell us why it is funny, be specific.

That's the word I was looking for "regrettable". When our allies are attacked with chemical weapons of mass destruction, it's regrettable.

Robber baron capitalists don't care about human rights, they don't care about international law, corruption or democracy all they care about is money.

There's a lot of money to be made in Russia what with all that oil sloshing about.

That's why they repeat the Kremlin's lies.

Like who? Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerburg? They sure say they care. Aren't you listening?

There is no doubt that Mrs. Clinton ran a stumble-bum campaign, and didn't even get off her dead ass until well after the convention. She acted as though it were some kind of coronation, and as the election was hers to lose, there is no doubt that she and she alone lost it. She wasted Mr. Obama's considerable political capital in Florida in the closing days of the campaign, when she obviously wasn't going to win there. If Mr. Obama had visited Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania rather than Florida, there was a good chance that those states--which voted for him in two elections--would have put her in the White House.

The proposition about alleged failures of Mr. Obama's administration, however, are just puerile partisan sniping. He inherited an economy in serious crisis from Mr. Bush, and his policies and actions brought the economy back, as well as increasing employment. That employment which crashed in the last year of the Bush administration, has only come back slowly--and of course, Plump's administration is taking credit for it. Mr. Obama, who had voted against the goofy military adventure to Iraq when he was in the Senate, promised to end American involvement there, and he kept that promise, withdrawing American troops. The drone attacks for which he was constantly criticized--often more from people of the alleged American left--did not send American troops needlessly in harm's way. Personally, I only regret his drone attacks against Yemen, which was pretty blatant pandering to the "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia.

The rightwingnut complaints and criticisms against Mr. Obama are almost entirely ideological bleating and crypto-racist hatred. His administration hauled the country out the sub-prime mortgage morass (the culprits of which had already gotten out with the ill-gotten profits) and hauled us out of the Iraqi morass. Blaming Mr. Obama for Islamic State, a prime meme that conservatives whine about constantly is absurd on the face of it. The so-called Al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into Islamic State after the death of al-Zarqawi, while Mr. Obama was still in the Senate. (Remember that he voted against that idiot military adventure in Iraq.) It is doubtful that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi could have created such an organization without the invasion.

Mr. Obama cleaned up two horrible messes which he inherited from Mr. Bush, and he kept a quiet, steady hand on the helm for his eight years in office. Plump has come in, running a clown car of nut cases through the White House, encouraging white supremacist neo-Nazis (when I see creeps carrying Nazi flags and giving one another straight-arm salutes, I don't consider neo-Nazi an unreasonable label; what did Plump do? Said he was sure there were good people on both sides for Dog's sake), and has managed to start several trade wars which are just going to cost Americans billions without accomplishing anything.

With absolutely no unequivocal accomplishments in the present administration, I understand why conservatives bleat about Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Anything which diverts the discussion from Plump and company is their desperate motto.

I don't think Hillary ran an effective campaign, she won the popular vote, lost the electoral college but I wonder if she had been elected would we really have seen any progress. She wouldn't have appointed the con artists to her cabinet, but the alt-right would have been relentless and the congressional investigations would have gone into overdrive. If you thought congress lost it's mind when the American people put a black man in the White House, heads would have exploded if that particular outrage was followed by a woman in the White House. I know the line that is used "oh we aren't racists, we just think he's a weak leader and we don't even think he counts as a real American" , reminds me of that line "Some of my best friends are colored people, but would you want your sister to marry one" They just swapped out the hot button words with benign words....it still means the same thing. The only people they are fooling is theirselves.

They still get mileage out of Hillary as the bugaboo, because fear is so effective.

I'm fascinated by how Hillary can remain their main target when Trump already won the presidency. It's similar to when Trump attacked Obama for five years that he was born in Kenya. What normal person does such things?

Mostly, I'd say it's because they want to talk about anything but Plump. I am ambivalent--I don't really know if they hate Mrs. Clinton more than they hate Mr. Obama. There's so much for them to agonize over, and for the establishment Republicans, the prospect of the mid-terms must be giving them ulcers. In modern times, the party that wins the presidential election usually loses the subsequent mid-term. With support for Plump already tepid in the Republican establishment, and an anxious mid-term prospect, I think predictions of the election and the future of both the "big two" are just not possible.

The hate comes from the supporters of those two. To say anything else is a lie, and has 0 basis in reality. Period.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44768229