Do you support the missile strikes on Syria?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Honestly...I don't know. Nobody was killed and it sends a message to Assad I guess.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'm waiting to see what Bernie Sanders says.

[MT Treasurer]

No.

[Confused Democrat]

If theres a clear objective and strategy, then yes.

[Sumner 1868]

No. The War on Terror needs to end ASAP.

[SteveRogers]

I'll repeat what I said in the other thread: If tonight's strike damaged Syria's ability to use chemical weapons against its citizens, then I support the strike. But that doesn't mean I can't have grave concerns about what that means for our country and for Syria going forward. If the strike got the message across, then great. But if it doesn't dissuade Assad, then how far are we prepared to escalate things next time he does it? Do we have a plan? How many times can we dip our toe into this conflict before we get sucked all the way in? The potential for mission creep is real, and given Trump's leadership style its not unreasonable to worry about whether he has thought this thing through.

Basically I support this strike in principle, but its way to early to say whether I support our new policy towards Syria.

[RINO Tom]

Yes.

[7,052,770]

If Obama had ordered it, I'd probably be a Yes, so I guess I should give Trump the benefit of the doubt until he screws it up.

[swf541]

Yes I support it and want more also there was casualties according to the syrian gov

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do we know for sure no one was killed? Tillerson says Russia was not warned.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/apr/07/us-syria-response-donald-trump-assad-pentagon-live?page=with:block-58e70581e4b0e0ec04efe8a2#block-58e70581e4b0e0ec04efe8a2

[swf541]

No people are citing a pro regime hack from twitter as a source and the syrian gov reported losses

[Crumpets]

I'll just quote what I posted in the other thread. Short answer: neutral, for now.

If we in any tangible way diminished the ability of the Syrian military to use chemical weapons against their citizens, then I support tonight's strike. But that doesn't mean there aren't reasons to have grave concerns about what this means for the United States going forward. What do we do next time Assad commits an atrocity? How many times can we dip a toe into this conflict before we get sucked all the way in? Do we have a plan going forward? You can support this strike in principle and still have serious reservations about the implications.

I agree with this. I'm trying to withhold judgement until the dust settles both literally and figuratively and we can find out 1) if we actually achieved any military goals and 2) whether this "warning shot" so-to-speak effectively hampered Assad's enthusiasm to use chemical weapons.

The wild card is Russia, and whether this changes their stances of "Assad must be defended pretty much regardless," and "meh, Trump's okay compared to these other guys." This is the first time those two mindsets have been at conflict with one another.

[The_Doctor]

Yes. Concerns about a long term strategy to deal with the Assad regime's crossing the red line again but support it, yes.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The mission was executed flawlessly, I'll concede, but I still oppose it. I'm worried that the President who said the new policy of the land is "America First" now suddenly is embracing internationalism because of media pressure. To me, that is the most frightening aspect of this, followed by the fact that Russian troops are also operating on the ground.

[Reluctant Republican]

The mission was executed flawlessly, I'll concede, but I still oppose it. I'm worried that the President who said the new policy of the land is "America First" now suddenly is embracing internationalism because of media pressure. To me, that is the most frightening aspect of this, followed by the fact that Russian troops are also operating on the ground.

I largely agree with this. I don't see an upside to getting involved in this, other than poking a hornet's nest and ticking off Russia. There's no real benefit to us to justify the cost. If we absolutely need to be aggressive with anyone (and I'd really rather we'd not) It should be North Korea. That would be extremely costly, but at least there I believe it can be argued that NK poses or could pose a clear and present danger to us. Syria does not strike me as being at the same threat level.

I'd just rather we not go back to the Bush years, and seeing how all my least favorite people in the GOP have come out strongly in favor of these strikes, I don't really see the upside.

I remain unconvinced if it's good politics from Trump. He'll probably get something of a bump, but  a lot of the true believers will at least be... demoralized. I glanced at Breitbart which tends to be nearly 100% lockstep with him and they're rather annoyed. Dangerous line he's walking here.

[Hermit For Peace]

My gut tells me yes, on a humanitarian level this needed to happen.

But it certainly opens the door to the unknown....

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't like letting tyrants commit mass-murder in complete impunity. I guess that makes me a TERRIBLE NEOCON or something.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

These missile strikes are so dumb.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I will say that this exercise did manage to relieve one of my bigger fears I had about Trump, which was his competence as a Commander-in-Chief. I think the operation was a stunning success based on the initial reports, which is reassuring. Worst case scenario, we'll have someone who knows how to deal with the generals.

[Dr. Arch]

No.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I don't like letting tyrants commit mass-murder in complete impunity. I guess that makes me a TERRIBLE NEOCON or something.

A reckless foreign intervention based on idealistic principles of muh democracy and muh human rights? Sounds like neoconservatism to me .

[swf541]

Seeing the aftermath of the Syrian attack ie killing of a brigadier general etc, i support this even more than i did an hour ago.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I would have used the silent ninja assassination technique personally.

The interesting thing will be to see what Russia say about the attacks.

[Dr. Arch]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

[swf541]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

No but i do support punishing a regime gassing its civilians with sarin gas and slaughtering its civilians