It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Following the use of a “Novichok” nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22, 2018.
www.state.gov...
lol, that's not playing devils advocate, one has to be unbiased for that to hold true, this is just you trying to tie in connections from all possible angles.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: TDawg61
To play Devil's Advocate, wouldn't it look bad if Trump told the State Department to sit on their report only to have it come to light at a later date?
Trump slapping an ineffective sanction on Russia gives the impression he's not in bed with Russia while not actually hurting Russia in anyway.
Like I said, just playing Devil's Advocate. I'm not saying that's what's happening.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Metallicus
At what point should the US step in and condemn Russia for their actions? If the attack happened on US soil would sanctions be justifiable? What if innocents had been injured as a result of collateral damage? What if one of the victims had been a US citizen?
Do any of these scenarios justify "risking nuclear war?"
Also, hyperbole much? Symbolic sanctions that don't have any impact are going to lead to letting the nukes fly? I don't think so.