Do you support the missile strikes on Syria?

[Crumpets]

I'd be very curious to see a partisan breakdown of this.

[Pericles]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

[Klartext89]

Leftists and Neocons with their shared Russia psychosis cause they can't handle their respective election defeats are running the whole world in WW III!

Because of all this Russia nonsense talk Trump has to do it...

I'm not in support of it because the risk is too high.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

[Klartext89]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

Yeah let's get ISIS and their Turkish Sultan partner in charge!

Honestly, I don't see a single use for Assad in "going chemical" against women and children. It's smelling like fake like a fish after 2 weeks in the sun...

[Goldwater]

Frankly, I think we should have gotten involved much sooner. My main concern at this point is that we waited too long for any meaningful change to be made.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Frankly, I think we should have gotten involved much sooner. My main concern at this point is that we waited too long for any meaningful change to be made.

Agreed with this too, the Russians are too deep in. Unfortunately, in Syria, the Trump administration will need to work with the devil. But this current attack shows that they are intending to put their weigh back in, and that the Assad slaughterhouse will not be tolerated, so I think that it can be a step in the right direction. Of course, just continuing to constantly bomb without any other step will not do, and will only add another layer to the Syrian slaughterhouse.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I do not support military acts of aggression, so no.

[EnglishPete]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

Yeah let's get ISIS and their Turkish Sultan partner in charge!

Honestly, I don't see a single use for Assad in "going chemical" against women and children. It's smelling like fake like a fish after 2 weeks in the sun...

[Intell]

No, it is also of disgust and hypocrisy, that anyone on the left is supporting, resistance my ass, just wreck havoc and create a stupid proxy war against russia that will result in even more destruction and the death of the Syrian People.

[parochial boy]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

Yeah let's get ISIS and their Turkish Sultan partner in charge!

Honestly, I don't see a single use for Assad in "going chemical" against women and children. It's smelling like fake like a fish after 2 weeks in the sun...

Calm down dear, you're having hysterics

[EnglishPete]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

I think it would have been better if the US and other western countries had supported Assad in his war against terrorist rebellion. That way the Syrian government could have won the war years ago, peace would have been restored to Syria. That would also have mean that there would have been no rebel forces to produce transparent, made for TV, false flag attacks to blame on Assad and hence no demand for missile strikes on Syria.

[EnglishPete]

No, it is also of disgust and hypocrisy, that anyone on the left is supporting, resistance my ass, just wreck havoc and create a stupid proxy war against russia that will result in even more destruction and the death of the Syrian People.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In principle I approve.

I'm a bit concerned though that it could get out of hand due to the fact that Trump is more inexperienced/incompetent than Dubya ever was. I hope that McMaster manages to keep Trump (and the world) out of trouble.

[Klartext89]

I agree with EnglishPete and Intell (strange coalitions are forming).

[America Needs R'hllor]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

I think it would have been better if the US and other western countries had supported Assad in his war against terrorist rebellion. That way the Syrian government could have won the war years ago, peace would have been restored to Syria. That would also have mean that there would have been no rebel forces to produce transparent, made for TV, false flag attacks to blame on Assad and hence no demand for missile strikes on Syria.

Supporting Assad is utterly unjustifiable. No, his acts of cruelty aren't made up, that's ridiculous. And supporting him would be an outright betrayal of an American ally, Israel.
President Obama should've gotten involved much earlier, to make a deal with Putin that replaces Assad with a regime Russia, America and the Syrian people can at least tolerate.

[Tender Branson]

Lean Yes.

But the situation in Syria is so fu**ed up right now, I'm not sure this will mean anything.

[EnglishPete]

I agree with EnglishPete and Intell (strange coalitions are forming).

[EnglishPete]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

I think it would have been better if the US and other western countries had supported Assad in his war against terrorist rebellion. That way the Syrian government could have won the war years ago, peace would have been restored to Syria. That would also have mean that there would have been no rebel forces to produce transparent, made for TV, false flag attacks to blame on Assad and hence no demand for missile strikes on Syria.

Supporting Assad is utterly unjustifiable. No, his acts of cruelty aren't made up, that's ridiculous.

You mean like Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators wasn't made up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Nothing like a bit of murdered babies atrocity propaganda to launch a good war eh?

[Leinad]

     I do not support military acts of aggression, so no.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I am going to lean towards no on this one. We should stay out of the Middle East unless we are attacked in my opinion, but it was handled well if we had to do this, as long as we don't send ground troops in I suppose this is O.K.

[Shadows]

Insanely stupid decision & is only going to help theocratic Al Qaeda & ISIS who have used chemical attacks too to take control of Syria. And what happens with Russia, they are going into direct confrontation & have suspended the Air safety agreement.

If this starts World War III, you guys should feel some guilt. Most of the Clinton supporters still take no blame for election Trump & the carnage that Trump is doing, hopefully they man up after this mess !

[Beet]

Some people don't understand that Al Qaeda and ISIS will never take over Syria for one reason: their ideology is unpopular. In fact, after decades of rising popularity of the hijab in the ME, some women are now throwing them off and burning them. On the other hand that maniac could be in power for decades, just like his father was after Hama.

[Klartext89]

I am going to lean towards no on this one. We should stay out of the Middle East unless we are attacked in my opinion, but it was handled well if we had to do this, as long as we don't send ground troops in I suppose this is O.K.

This.

[Shadows]

Some people don't understand that Al Qaeda and ISIS will never take over Syria for one reason: their ideology is unpopular. In fact, after decades of rising popularity of the hijab in the ME, some women are now throwing them off and burning them. On the other hand that maniac could be in power for decades, just like his father was after Hama.

ISIS & Al Qaeda already have taken a large part of Syria. Many moderates have fled as refugees & this is now a sectarian violence too, the Shia vs Sunni divide, Assad has a big Shia bloc while many radical Sunni groups are affiliated with ISIS & Al Qaeda. Libya fell to chaos, no1 though that would happen or Iraq.

Do you know that Iran was a secular democratic country once? Look what it is now - These killings, corruption & conflict creates a situation of war & panic & breeds uber religious forces - Like Khomeini came with the Iranian Revolution. In the beginning the Iranian Revolution had a lot of moderate & even some secular people. Slowly Khomeini eliminated them all. Same will happen here as most of the non-Kurdish rebel parts are totally aligned with Al Qaeda or ISIS.