speaking from a military background, I am stunned at the overreaction to this

[Matty]

We are specifically targeting the base where the gas attack came from

It's a limited response. We aren't bombing assad's palace, we aren't forcing him out.

We are sending a concise message.

You gas your people, you get our wrath and our hellfire.

Here's the thing: Trump can do NOTHING RIGHT to most people on this forum. If he didn't take action, he'd be accused of bending his knee to putin.

Now, without telling putin but warning russian officials ahead of time, the US launches a specific, limited strike and it means the world is going to end because of trump.

FACT: HRC would be doing the same thing right now, and the red avatars on here would be praising her moral, iron-lady like boldness.

[Gass3268]

I would just would have liked a congressional debate and vote before this action, but otherwise agree.

[Fusionmunster]

I never thought I would type this but I 100% agree with marty.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i am absolutely approving his - atm - limited handling of this situation.

but...looooots of left and right "peaceniks" aka people tired of any kind of war and especially the middle east, thought or hoped trump was the opposite to bush/obama and a dove's dove.

[SoLongAtlas]

Same here brother. It's not like he launched massive sorties. This comes from this generation not serving or understanding most military intricacies.

[Classic Conservative]

I agree with the action as of no, Assad's attack was an affront to humanity.

[bmaup1]

I would just would have liked a congressional debate and vote before this action, but otherwise agree.

Wouldn't it have taken too long? Like, we are learning about fillibuster and surely the Senate would just fillibuster to a point of nothing happening, or is war/attacks excluded?

[Hindsight was 2020]

I hate Trump but I agree this was the right move

[Pericles]

For once Donald Trump made the right choice.

[Blue3]

I support the decision.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'm very torn about this. I believe it is, by Trump's standards, a very limited and respectable action. However, I would like to see Congressional authorization before any further action is taken.

[Devout Centrist]

I don't really care, either way. But knowing Trump, this is just the start.

[KingSweden]

This is pretty similar to Clinton's cruise launches in the 1990s, IMO, and what Assad did is much worse than anything Sudan or Afghanistan did at the time

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I hope this doesn't get out of control, but I support this action for what it was. Next steps should depend on how Assad (and Russia and Iran I guess) reacts.

[Person Man]

All we know is that there was the use of WMDs and we "took care of it and only it". We don't know anything else and we don't know what we don't know.

I hope this doesn't get out of control, but I support this action for what it was. Next steps should depend on how Assad (and Russia and Iran I guess) reacts.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't see this as a prelude to war as some do, but I nevertheless oppose this action. It's not our job to be the cops of the world.

[DrScholl]

Clinton isn't President, Trump is. There is no need to mention her name in any of this.

[Barnes]

I hope this doesn't get out of control, but I support this action for what it was. Next steps should depend on how Assad (and Russia and Iran I guess) reacts.

Exactly. This probably won't have much of an immediate effect, so the idea that we're bundling up for nuclear winter are kind of odd.

That's really the thing, to actually kick the strongman out would take a serious intervention on our part, but the atrocities (of not just this week, but why start counting) do illicit some kind of action at least to show that we have some respect for international conventions.

[Barnes]

Well to Nix's point, what is the most important thing to take away from this is how comprehensively Trump's position on just about anything, but especially foreign policy, can change at break-neck speed.  Let's just remember the comments from just last fall about the United States having no place in Syria, the responsibility of the Russians to handle the situation, the idea of Assad as a strong leader, and comments from just the past few weeks that and goal to remove the Assad regime has been abandoned.

That's the real issue here, who Trump is choosing to listen to and what has grabbed his attention will decide any military action, not what he spuriously said during the campaign.

[Adam Griffin]

Be stunned, then. There are plenty of us on the left who never took our marching orders on foreign policy from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or anyone else comparable.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I have to agree. I'm an opponent of most of Trump's actions, but when he does something right I do not hesitate to defend it, just like in this case.

[GoTfan]

I have to agree. I'm an opponent of most of Trump's actions, but when he does something right I do not hesitate to defend it, just like in this case.

I don't.

There's just too much convenience in the whole story to me. Assad had basically won the war, so why does he chemical strike his own people when he knows that the West will attack?

Also, didn't he hand over his chemical weapons two years ago?

Sorry, there's just way to many convenient things in this story for me.

[Klartext89]

I still don't see an explanation why Assad should use chemical weapons. I mean there's nothing to win for him, but lots to lose.

But of course, you're right. Nevertheless I would prefer political talks with Russia BEFORE an attack not afterwards (or never...)

[GoTfan]

I still don't see an explanation why Assad should use chemical weapons. I mean there's nothing to win for him, but lots to lose.

But of course, you're right. Nevertheless I would prefer political talks with Russia BEFORE an attack not afterwards (or never...)

That's what I'm saying. The story was just way too convenient.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I have to agree. I'm an opponent of most of Trump's actions, but when he does something right I do not hesitate to defend it, just like in this case.

I don't.

There's just too much convenience in the whole story to me. Assad had basically won the war, so why does he chemical strike his own people when he knows that the West will attack?

Also, didn't he hand over his chemical weapons two years ago?

Sorry, there's just way to many convenient things in this story for me.

He has been gasing his people for quite a while, and the war is still not won. Also, it's quite clear from the last two years that he did not hand over all of these weapons, or he got new ones. I don't find a reason to doubt this story, but again, I also think that a UN investigation could be in order. This is why the UN is needed- too bad it's in such a bad shape.