Do you support the missile strikes on Syria?

[Frodo]

Whatever Trump's motivations (include burying -for a time- news stories about his election campaign's collusion with Russia), I support these limited strikes in response to Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons that he was supposed to have handed over to Russia years ago.

I just wish we had intervened at least five years earlier.  Still, it's worth reminding Assad that if he uses WMDs, there are consequences for it. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

We should all be listening to whatever Nikki Haley is saying since she telegraphed this and seems to be sending more messages today.

[user12345]

Yes.

[White Trash]

Nope. The United States is not the global sheriff.

If the US is going to go isolationist (worked so well in the past, right?) and give up its spot as the most powerful nation in the world, please do tell us before so that we can ally Russia or China.
Sincerely, your endangered allies.

I don't want to have to bleed out in a sand dune simply because my nation's executive thinks that it is politically advantageous for me to do so. Sorry I care more about the safety of my countrymen than I do about our geopolitical standing.

I am all for supporting our allies in non-military terms, but these needless interventions are starting to reek of Vietnam and Iraq.

[MasterJedi]

Nope. The United States is not the global sheriff.

If the US is going to go isolationist (worked so well in the past, right?) and give up its spot as the most powerful nation in the world, please do tell us before so that we can ally Russia or China.
Sincerely, your endangered allies.

I don't want to have to bleed out in a sand dune simply because my nation's executive thinks that it is politically advantageous for me to do so. Sorry I care more about the safety of my countrymen than I do about our geopolitical standing.

I am all for supporting our allies in non-military terms, but these needless interventions are starting to reek of Vietnam and Iraq.

It's a global world whether you like it or not. Just because something happens somewhere else doesn't mean it doesn't affect the US. Everything is interconnected.

[Lincoln Republican]

Yes.  Absolutely.

We have to stand up to these thugs Putin and Assad.

Obama wimped out.

Trump has guts.

[afleitch]

Yes.  Absolutely.

We have to stand up to these thugs Putin and Assad.

Obama wimped out.

Trump has guts.

I know. Obama should have ignore congress...

[ApatheticAustrian]

obama decided that the nuclear deal was more important to him.

trump hasn't blown it up until now.

[SunSt0rm]

Yes, Obama should have already acted in 2013

[ProgressiveCanadian]

More bombs = peace obviously.

[Goldwater]

More bombs = peace obviously.

Who said anything about peace?

[Blue3]

We can't be world policemen, and expect to solve every problem in the world, or even get involved in everything in the world. But when something reaches a certain magnitude with an immediate crisis, we need to do something. When it became clear years ago that tens of thousands (even without WMDs) were dying in Syria, we needed to do something.

And with hindsight, it might have also prevented ISIS from filling the vacuum, the international refugee crisis stemming from Syria, and the xenophobic/isolationist/anti-Muslim backlash that has rushed the Nationalist Right to power across Europe and the United States.

I'm not passing final judgment on this yet... but from what we know so far, I support it. It was limited, precise, and relatively fast in response to the chemical attack. It attacked the specific airfield that was used in the chemical attack, it seems. I need more information. Right now, it seems like a good move. We need to stand up to mass murder. Hundreds of thousands have died in Syria. The victims are as human as you and me. My empathy doesn't end at our borders. Assad has attacked his own people unchallenged for too long.
 
 

[Pyro]

Absolutely not. The U.S. does not engage in military action for humanitarian reasons.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We can't be world policemen, and expect to solve every problem in the world, or even get involved in everything in the world. But when something reaches a certain magnitude with an immediate crisis, we need to do something. When it became clear years ago that tens of thousands (even without WMDs) were dying in Syria, we needed to do something.

And with hindsight, it might have also prevented ISIS from filling the vacuum, the international refugee crisis stemming from Syria, and the xenophobic/isolationist/anti-Muslim backlash that has rushed the Nationalist Right to power across Europe and the United States.

I'm not passing final judgment on this yet... but from what we know so far, I support it. It was limited, precise, and relatively fast in response to the chemical attack. It attacked the specific airfield that was used in the chemical attack, it seems. I need more information. Right now, it seems like a good move. We need to stand up to mass murder. Hundreds of thousands have died in Syria. The victims are as human as you and me. My empathy doesn't end at our borders. Assad has attacked his own people unchallenged for too long.
 
 

Mine does. I have too much to worry about in my own family. My brother didn't survive heroin addiction only to get drafted and killed in a third world war that I know you're too chickenshit to fight.

Absolutely not. The U.S. does not engage in military action for humanitarian reasons.

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

Well, most people can't correctly name the deadliest war since WW2.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

Well, most people can't correctly name the deadliest war since WW2.

Well, most people don't care about black people. It's a sad reality but institutionalized racism in western culture isn't just a SJW talking point (though it is often used as one to blunt free speech). I'd be happy to take in Congolese refugees for the very reason that we have nothing to do with that conflict overtly (we did kill Lumumba or whatever his name was, backed Mobuto, etc) and thus the grudge isn't as strong as it is in Syria.

Look at that six year old on Twitter, the media's darling, six year old Bana. Cute kid. My heart bleeds for her. All of the tweets from her mom are angry tirades about how it's our fault that Syrians are dying for not doing anything. If she hates this country (the mom-the girl doesn't know what the hell is being done with her obviously) so much, why should we resettle her? We didn't start it and we have no reason or right to end it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

Well, most people can't correctly name the deadliest war since WW2.

Well, most people don't care about black people. It's a sad reality but institutionalized racism in western culture isn't just a SJW talking point (though it is often used as one to blunt free speech). I'd be happy to take in Congolese refugees for the very reason that we have nothing to do with that conflict overtly (we did kill Lumumba or whatever his name was, backed Mobuto, etc) and thus the grudge isn't as strong as it is in Syria.

Look at that six year old on Twitter, the media's darling, six year old Bana. Cute kid. My heart bleeds for her. All of the tweets from her mom are angry tirades about how it's our fault that Syrians are dying for not doing anything. If she hates this country (the mom-the girl doesn't know what the hell is being done with her obviously) so much, why should we resettle her? We didn't start it and we have no reason or right to end it.

I'm not particularly familiar with this girl or her mother, but much of (not all, but much of) the criticism made against the United States for inaction is rooted in the West's responsibility in destabilizing these countries in the first place.  That's why it is absurd for Trump to deny people refugee status while perpetuating the conditions which started the migrant crisis.  The West, and the United States in particular, have ceded any credibility they might have had over matters pertaining to war and peace, and that's why any 'good-intentioned' attempt by the United States to make nice overseas deserves to be challenged and questioned.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

Well, most people can't correctly name the deadliest war since WW2.

Well, most people don't care about black people. It's a sad reality but institutionalized racism in western culture isn't just a SJW talking point (though it is often used as one to blunt free speech). I'd be happy to take in Congolese refugees for the very reason that we have nothing to do with that conflict overtly (we did kill Lumumba or whatever his name was, backed Mobuto, etc) and thus the grudge isn't as strong as it is in Syria.

Look at that six year old on Twitter, the media's darling, six year old Bana. Cute kid. My heart bleeds for her. All of the tweets from her mom are angry tirades about how it's our fault that Syrians are dying for not doing anything. If she hates this country (the mom-the girl doesn't know what the hell is being done with her obviously) so much, why should we resettle her? We didn't start it and we have no reason or right to end it.

I'm not particularly familiar with this girl or her mother, but much of (not all, but much of) the criticism made against the United States for inaction is rooted in the West's responsibility in destabilizing these countries in the first place.  That's why it is absurd for Trump to deny people refugee status while perpetuating the conditions which started the migrant crisis.  The West, and the United States in particular, have ceded any credibility they might have had over matters pertaining to war and peace, and that's why any 'good-intentioned' attempt by the United States to make nice overseas deserves to be challenged and questioned.

Well, yes, Iraq was the genie that flew out of the uncorked the bottle, but if we start letting Bana's mother walk over us because of Bush's lie than God knows what else we'll have to let slide.

The mother is a very popular Twitter star who exploits her traumatized little girl with political messages. CNN in particular hangs on their every word.

[Blue3]

We can't be world policemen, and expect to solve every problem in the world, or even get involved in everything in the world. But when something reaches a certain magnitude with an immediate crisis, we need to do something. When it became clear years ago that tens of thousands (even without WMDs) were dying in Syria, we needed to do something.

And with hindsight, it might have also prevented ISIS from filling the vacuum, the international refugee crisis stemming from Syria, and the xenophobic/isolationist/anti-Muslim backlash that has rushed the Nationalist Right to power across Europe and the United States.

I'm not passing final judgment on this yet... but from what we know so far, I support it. It was limited, precise, and relatively fast in response to the chemical attack. It attacked the specific airfield that was used in the chemical attack, it seems. I need more information. Right now, it seems like a good move. We need to stand up to mass murder. Hundreds of thousands have died in Syria. The victims are as human as you and me. My empathy doesn't end at our borders. Assad has attacked his own people unchallenged for too long.
 
 

Mine does. I have too much to worry about in my own family. My brother didn't survive heroin addiction only to get drafted and killed in a third world war that I know you're too chickenshit to fight.

Absolutely not. The U.S. does not engage in military action for humanitarian reasons.

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

There's not going to be a Draft or World War III from this. Jesus, calm down. You're acting unhinged.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nope. The United States is not the global sheriff.

If the US is going to go isolationist (worked so well in the past, right?) and give up its spot as the most powerful nation in the world, please do tell us before so that we can ally Russia or China.
Sincerely, your endangered allies.

"Endangered allies" or parasites who are almost as bad as the Russians when it comes to meddling in other countries?

We can't be world policemen, and expect to solve every problem in the world, or even get involved in everything in the world. But when something reaches a certain magnitude with an immediate crisis, we need to do something. When it became clear years ago that tens of thousands (even without WMDs) were dying in Syria, we needed to do something.

And with hindsight, it might have also prevented ISIS from filling the vacuum, the international refugee crisis stemming from Syria, and the xenophobic/isolationist/anti-Muslim backlash that has rushed the Nationalist Right to power across Europe and the United States.

I'm not passing final judgment on this yet... but from what we know so far, I support it. It was limited, precise, and relatively fast in response to the chemical attack. It attacked the specific airfield that was used in the chemical attack, it seems. I need more information. Right now, it seems like a good move. We need to stand up to mass murder. Hundreds of thousands have died in Syria. The victims are as human as you and me. My empathy doesn't end at our borders. Assad has attacked his own people unchallenged for too long.
 
 

Mine does. I have too much to worry about in my own family. My brother didn't survive heroin addiction only to get drafted and killed in a third world war that I know you're too chickenshit to fight.

Absolutely not. The U.S. does not engage in military action for humanitarian reasons.

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

There's not going to be a Draft or World War III from this. Jesus, calm down. You're acting unhinged.

There were Russian ground troops there an hour before the strike asshole. You have to be a sociopath. Why are you allowed to educate children? You can't even cite a source properly on the forum and now you seem to be completely enthused by a conflict that doesn't have to occur.

[Beet]

I think I'm shifting on this issue again. What's done is done, but there should be no more intervention in Syria. What good can weakening Assad do, now? The sooner he crushes the rebels, the sooner the war is over. That is the humane option at this point... to let evil win. Sad, but it is what it is. Anyway, I don't want Trump starting to see war as the solution to his political problems. That's not the right path.

[Shadows]

Humanitarian is about as legitimate a word as "bipartisan" in American parlance. What this is (not through Trump, but from the broader, established foreign policy elites) basically amounts to colonialism.

Why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? They literally funded, aided, and abetted 9/11. Why aren't we invading Equatorial Guinea? Does Blue3 even know about the Great African War that has been underway for decades?

Well, most people can't correctly name the deadliest war since WW2.

Well, most people don't care about black people. It's a sad reality but institutionalized racism in western culture isn't just a SJW talking point (though it is often used as one to blunt free speech). I'd be happy to take in Congolese refugees for the very reason that we have nothing to do with that conflict overtly (we did kill Lumumba or whatever his name was, backed Mobuto, etc) and thus the grudge isn't as strong as it is in Syria.

Look at that six year old on Twitter, the media's darling, six year old Bana. Cute kid. My heart bleeds for her. All of the tweets from her mom are angry tirades about how it's our fault that Syrians are dying for not doing anything. If she hates this country (the mom-the girl doesn't know what the hell is being done with her obviously) so much, why should we resettle her? We didn't start it and we have no reason or right to end it.

Patrice Lumumba, got killed for no good reason like Mossadegh in Iran or Salvador Allende in Chile because they are embracing socialism or wanted to nationalize oil etc which BP didn't like - All democratic elected peaceful leaders who posed no threat, never attacked their own people or gassed them. And they were replaced by a US backed brutal dictator who massacred many people, indulged in corruption. General Pinochet was horrible & barbaric. If there was no Shah, then would be no Khomeini & Iranian Revolution!

And you are right about Saudia, they are literally funding radical Islam throughout the world, providing universities of radical Islam for new terror groups to come about. And Trump went into Yemen to bomb people to placate Saudi - He had too many newcons taking over foreign policy.

Graham, McCain, Rubio are asking for 7-10K troops & a full out war. Nikki Haley has already said this is only the start  & US is prepared to do more. The funny thing is all these people who cut meals &
Graham rebuked Tucker saying there is no price for national security. Now look at another 100B $ military increase in the next budget because Trump will be rebuilding the military & will be cutting all domestic programs to bomb Assad !

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The victims are as human as you and me. My empathy doesn't end at our borders.

My empathy does not end at our borders either, which is why I oppose bombing foreigners.

[pbrower2a]

Too early to tell. Americans may feel good about themselves for doing something against a tyrant who violated a standard that even Pol Pot and Idi Amin dared not violate. We do not yet know whether the strikes were adequate or whether they were reckless or misguided. If the President were someone other than Donald Trump I might not have this misgiving.

[EnglishPete]

I think I'm shifting on this issue again. What's done is done, but there should be no more intervention in Syria. What good can weakening Assad do, now? The sooner he crushes the rebels, the sooner the war is over. That is the humane option at this point... to let evil win. Sad, but it is what it is. Anyway, I don't want Trump starting to see war as the solution to his political problems. That's not the right path.

Don't worry. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this was all done because there's a peace deal in the pipeline. Russia has expressed outrage at this action but I think that's all Kayfabe. The Russians were given plenty of warning of the attack and it did limited damage. I know the Syrians are saying some people were killed but its possible that even that is a lie designed to make Trump's attack seem genuine.

Trump wants a deal in Syria which involves the defeat of Isis, the end of the war and Assad out of power (thus enabling him to claim a win that eluded Obama). The Russian's want a deal that defeats Isis, brings an end to the war and, crucially, enables them to keep their naval base in Syria). There's a deal to be done but for political reasons Trump can't do this deal without first making some kayfabe 'beef' with Putin over Syria.

Many of the President's supporters (and many of his opponents) are unhappy with this action but by expressing their anger and disappointment they are paying an unwitting part in the kayfabe. Their reaction incourages the establishment Republicans and Democrats in their reaction oh "hurray let's support the President. He made big rockets go boom boom". Trump will need some support from the latter group for a Syrian peace deal. The former will eagerly support such a deal anyway. To get the support of the latter he needs to make them think he's been 'acting tough with Putin'

In the scenario expect more 'beef', maybe more rockets go boom boom, followed by a peace deal where Assad leaves Syria and Russia keeps its Naval base.