No treaties halted nuclear warfare after Hiroshima but the planet has seen no nuclear wars. Without treaties or legislation chemical warfare halted after the awful effects of mustard gas in World War One - until now when Syria has used gas in a civil war. Is it unreasonable to hope that, with no further fighting, the U.S. strike on a Syrian airfield could be the precedent for unwritten worldwide agreement to exclude gas warfare?
1
You failed to remember March of 1988 Iraq. You are forgiven. For the recipient of such a mass gas attack were Kurdish civilians
The losers of World War I.
The losers of World War I.
1
The Halabja gas attack by Iraq on Kurdish civilians killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more.
This happened in 1989 many years after WWI.
But it did happen to the Kurds, one of the geopolitical losers of that war.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
This happened in 1989 many years after WWI.
But it did happen to the Kurds, one of the geopolitical losers of that war.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
1
Amazing how our allies completely disagree with commentor naysayers here.
"Trump's decision to order a missile strike on Syria." Therein lies the problem: A Trump decision, not a U.S. decision.
Unconstitutional: no Congressional declaration of war or equivalent authorization.
No plan: What's the goal? What is plan A for achieving the goal(s)? If plan A doesn't work, what's plan B?
No war tax to pay the total cost.
No plan: What's the goal? What is plan A for achieving the goal(s)? If plan A doesn't work, what's plan B?
No war tax to pay the total cost.
Trump made a big show of suddenly caring for babies and yet didn't think he needed to consult with Congress first, or act within any of the established channels before taking military action, knee jerk is not a compelling reason to act or covering up you own criminal behavior -militarily he is liable to get us in World War III and God help us, nuclear war. I believe that so much is coming out about Russia and his election that he wanted to divert attention away from that.
1
Bombing a few emptied buildings did what to stop Assad from poisoning his own people again? This bombing was all show and no substance.
1
Given recent history, I question the motives of a small guided-missile strike on a remote airbase, which as it turns out - was semi-operational shortly after. What is the policy guiding these actions? Why the sudden turn-around in Syria policy? Also notice...we've stopped talking about the investigation into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia to influence our national election.
He did it for his ego-- he would look powerful and appear a man of compassion.
The man has no plan and it is this type of neglect that could put America into a major war. A major war w/this man at the helm is a nightmare.
The man has no plan and it is this type of neglect that could put America into a major war. A major war w/this man at the helm is a nightmare.
1
like everything else he does, i question his motives.
he has the authority to do limited strikes but i don't see a competent hand at the wheel.
reports suggest the runways were not destroyed. russian jets were taking off there a few hours after the strike. nearly half of the tomahawks did not reach their target - a worrisome statistic if true.
criticizing the "motive" for the attack is, of course, political suicide. babies were killed with poison gas and something had to be done. this attack was, after all, different because of the pictures. we know mr. trump likes pictures. suggesting he may have acted simply to win a news cycle is cynical but it crossed my mind. since little real damage seems to have been done to assad's airforce, no russians or russian gear was harmed, and no real policy changes are anticipated, trump can get in and out and say "this is how leaders act." its good all around. trump apologists can say this proves he's not in bed with putin or why would he do this? putin can grumble, get petulant about the USA and rationalize beefing up assad's hardware, strengthening his hand in the region without showing trump to be his weak stooge. its almost like a win win for everyone all around.
except i don't feel like we're winning. for me, its just the opposite.
everywhere i look i see the (paraphrased) words of poet w b yeats:
things turning and turning in a widening gyre where the falcon cannot see the falconer and the center will not hold. Will not and cannot.
he has the authority to do limited strikes but i don't see a competent hand at the wheel.
reports suggest the runways were not destroyed. russian jets were taking off there a few hours after the strike. nearly half of the tomahawks did not reach their target - a worrisome statistic if true.
criticizing the "motive" for the attack is, of course, political suicide. babies were killed with poison gas and something had to be done. this attack was, after all, different because of the pictures. we know mr. trump likes pictures. suggesting he may have acted simply to win a news cycle is cynical but it crossed my mind. since little real damage seems to have been done to assad's airforce, no russians or russian gear was harmed, and no real policy changes are anticipated, trump can get in and out and say "this is how leaders act." its good all around. trump apologists can say this proves he's not in bed with putin or why would he do this? putin can grumble, get petulant about the USA and rationalize beefing up assad's hardware, strengthening his hand in the region without showing trump to be his weak stooge. its almost like a win win for everyone all around.
except i don't feel like we're winning. for me, its just the opposite.
everywhere i look i see the (paraphrased) words of poet w b yeats:
things turning and turning in a widening gyre where the falcon cannot see the falconer and the center will not hold. Will not and cannot.
I don't agree with anything that jerk does or says. He should never have been elected by the electoral college. It was a ripoff and the man is a bully and a phony. Get him out of the White House before he destroys this country.
2
So many experts on the reasons behind the bombings.
Maybe it's actually about caring that people are suffering and letting the world know that the "NoBombUh America is a Pushover Era" is over.
And if it's about distracting from an investigation over a conspiracy with Russia it doesn't seem like they're very cozy at all based on the Russian response to our bombing.
Maybe it's actually about caring that people are suffering and letting the world know that the "NoBombUh America is a Pushover Era" is over.
And if it's about distracting from an investigation over a conspiracy with Russia it doesn't seem like they're very cozy at all based on the Russian response to our bombing.
Since 9/11, we have been deeply involved, militarily and otherwise, in regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Ukraine. Millions have been killed, maimed, or displaced. whole countries have been destroyed.
For what purpose? What have we gained? Where do we go from here other than deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole?
For what purpose? What have we gained? Where do we go from here other than deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole?
2
Chang the name from Trump to Obama and the more readers here will agree with it.
That I can tell you.
That I can tell you.
1
there is no clear distinction other than the amount of suffering, when innocents
are killed with gas or bombs, or bullets, it is murder and crimes against humanity,
and crimes must be prosecuted. all of the air force installations including runways
and planes of the Syrian govt. should be destroyed. It would be in the best interest of the world community to indict Assad for war crimes.
are killed with gas or bombs, or bullets, it is murder and crimes against humanity,
and crimes must be prosecuted. all of the air force installations including runways
and planes of the Syrian govt. should be destroyed. It would be in the best interest of the world community to indict Assad for war crimes.
it is politically motivated, first Mr.Trump, "l just do not have the heart coaling him President" start with President Obama listening his PH, that did not work, than he went after Mrs.Rice , that did not work, so here comes the missiles, so country will talk about his Russia connection, Syria war is going six years and all most 500.000 people are dead, there were lots of babies and ole persons and women in those numbers, we went Iraq and Afg. and those countries are worst than before we went there, so this think is not over l wander what he is going to do with his pal Palin when he will send his missiles to our ships, our forigen policy hands his son of law, just out of from diappers , it it sad and dangers game he is playing, our country is not in good hands right now
1
The Problem is NOT the air raid. We had to respond some way or the other. It is the lack of participation with our allies. Hey NYTimes! That is the danger. Reminds of the Iraq war and W.
The best attack against Assad overreaching is a coordinated response from the entire world where we are the leader.
Do not think Trump has the ability to do that sort of Presidential Act. That is the story...relying on the military vs. coordinated diplomacy
The best attack against Assad overreaching is a coordinated response from the entire world where we are the leader.
Do not think Trump has the ability to do that sort of Presidential Act. That is the story...relying on the military vs. coordinated diplomacy
Sometimes you really have to say enough is enough. Quote from Benjamin Disraeli (former British P.M.) "Action may not bring you happiness but there can be no happiness without action" I use this in life , give it some thought
A decision that elicits both profound sadness and a sense of betrayal. Many who voted for President Trump did so because they saw in a victory by Hillary Clinton the prospect for more violence in the Middle East and Iran. It is obvious that the neo-conservative cabal did not take long in getting to the new president with what were undoubtedly the usual horror stories and calls for the "greater good." As usual, their arguments could not stand the light of public scrutiny and thus yet another American president has bought into a form of American exceptionalism that places this country above not only international law but our constitution. The events since 2003 can lead us to only one conclusion--that the widespread violence, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the loss of infrastructure and cultural artifacts across a wide swath of our planet that has taken place is not "collateral damage" but the very outcome planned. Should Assad be removed from power, Iran will be the next target. America will have (Michael Corleone-style) gotten rid of any and all pesky little obstacles to having its way. Compounding the nightmare is the programmed reaction of mainstream media and official pronouncements from our allies abroad. How much balanced coverage did the American media give the debate in the United Nations Security Council for example? There is nevertheless, a ray of hope that emanates from your informal poll of readers 65% of whom are opposed to Trump's decision.
2
In spite of my abhorrence of the Assad regime I voted no.
Time was not an essence. The people murdered by the gas were already dead. The Russian explanation seems feeble. I believe that it may have been proven false. This is an action that our Congressmen should have had the opportunity to vote for or against...and...Not made by a president who needed to boost his approval ratings.
The Middle East is a quagmire. Every nation appears (including the US) to be acting in their own interests. I cannot condone an escalation of our activities in Syria.
Time was not an essence. The people murdered by the gas were already dead. The Russian explanation seems feeble. I believe that it may have been proven false. This is an action that our Congressmen should have had the opportunity to vote for or against...and...Not made by a president who needed to boost his approval ratings.
The Middle East is a quagmire. Every nation appears (including the US) to be acting in their own interests. I cannot condone an escalation of our activities in Syria.
5
We have to remember who we are dealing with. Trump is a master conman. He knows how to create drama in order to distract from other things he is up to. He was starting to feel the heat over his Russian connections, and the change of Senate rules to push his choice onto the Supreme Court. His decision to bomb Syria was made in order to create a distraction and to shift the headlines and the national conversation away from his misdeeds.
3
This air strike was purely for optical purposes. The runways at Shayrat airfield were not hit; the Assad Air Force is using the airfield, again, already. Were the Russians and Assad able to remove their high value assets before the attack? This was a powder-puff Cruise missile attack. Purely for effect; minimal damage done; teaches Assad and Russia that the USA is now all about perception, not substance.
2
Trump's action is illegal under the US constitution and internationally-recognized rules of warfare. It is useless; already the Syrian air force is bombing the same areas it is accused of gassing and scarcely aids any effort to stop the bloodshed and social unraveling in Syria. It demonstrates the essential insanity of the Trump administration: making foreign policy, including decisions affecting the life and death of large numbers of people, on the basis of the president's television viewing is absurd and very dangerous. It makes sense only as Trump propaganda inside the US. It would, finally, hardly be surprising to discover that Trump is making money out of this action, as seems to be the keynote of his entire presidency.
2
This was a politically motivated knee-jerk reaction. People have been dying miserably in Syria for six years. The way to respond is the way Obama did: seek Congressional approval. That’s what presidents should do, unless we’re attacked. There’s no doubt Trump would have gotten Congressional support because he’s a Republican and a member of the majority, unlike Obama, a Democrat, who the Republicans did nothing but thwart for eight years. It may be hypocrisy to support Trump after not supporting Obama, but at least this action would have been done the right way.
And what now? Is this it? Where is our comprehensive Syria policy? There must already be plenty of back room scenarios planned, that’s what our military strategists are for (or else what the heck are they all doing?) so let’s set something forth or we really look like ridiculous bullies who get mad and impulsively drop bombs.
And what now? Is this it? Where is our comprehensive Syria policy? There must already be plenty of back room scenarios planned, that’s what our military strategists are for (or else what the heck are they all doing?) so let’s set something forth or we really look like ridiculous bullies who get mad and impulsively drop bombs.
2
In what way is this attack on Syria different from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941? An act of war, undeclared, never discussed with the legislative bodies who share responsibility for these sorts of actions.
2
I vote "YES." I am a person who, when seeing people being hurt, likes for something to actually be done. The United States and many other countries have been using diplomacy with Assad for a long time and nothing has come of it. It was a one time attack to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again. The Russians were warned ahead of time and little damage was done. It seems to me that it was mostly a warning. At this point there is no way out for Assad. He has to win or he will be executed or exiled and tried for war crimes. I don't see him giving in till he has no other choice. Hopefully now that he is expressing to the world that he sees and understands the situation in Syria he will stop trying to keep out refugees.
1
I feel like Trump just acted like a dad who slaps his kid for getting into the cookie jar – questionable behavior and totally unlikely to teach the kid anything. I thoroughly approved of Obama’s chemical weapons diplomacy, even if Asaad eventualy cheated, though my suggestion was a three-point plan – divest of chemical weapons, set up a safe zone for his people, and mandatory attendance at the negotiating table.
Interesting that McCain has applauded the strike and Trump’s rightmost wingers disapprove.
Interesting that McCain has applauded the strike and Trump’s rightmost wingers disapprove.
1
The US has a limited military role to play in Syria regarding the Syrian Government. We should react militarily against Syrian Government infrastructure, weapons and forces every single time it uses chemical weapons. And we should tell the Russians we will stop this policy only when they take full responsibility to ensure that all supplies of chemical weapons in the Syrian Government's hands are accounted for and destroyed. A simple strategy, simply explained.
2
Question is too simplistic. Should have been: do you agree with the missile strike FOLLOWING the pre-notification that went to the Russians and Syrians.
3
I voted no. While the gas attack on innocent Syrian civilians was a war crime, the reckless and impulsive act of attacking the Syrian government puts the U.S. at unnecessary risk at a time when tensions are mounting with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. We do not need WWIII.
4
the use of chemical weapons is horrific...how many bombs do we have to drop on these people before they understand that violent solutions to political problems are not ok. Why don't these people understand that the american way of torture...waterboarding, chaining people to cement floors in secret cia prisons etc is morally superior to chemical warfare
I voted "no" but that black and white an answer was not easy, nor telling.
Naturally, I'm not for using chemical weapons, and it makes me angry that Assad does that to anyone. But, I voted "no" because the bombing was completely ineffective (the Russians were forewarned and Syrians were again bombing that same area they used chemical weapons against, and flying off the same airway within 24 hrs). It was a knee jerk reaction with little or no thoughtfulness about how to help the Syrian people in the longer run.
With President Trump, I also worry that it was a distraction from his current political problems re the Trump campaign's association with Russia. If there is one consistent trait with President Trump, it's that he uses sensational means for attention and distraction: self-created chaos.
That's all this bombing action seems to me.
Naturally, I'm not for using chemical weapons, and it makes me angry that Assad does that to anyone. But, I voted "no" because the bombing was completely ineffective (the Russians were forewarned and Syrians were again bombing that same area they used chemical weapons against, and flying off the same airway within 24 hrs). It was a knee jerk reaction with little or no thoughtfulness about how to help the Syrian people in the longer run.
With President Trump, I also worry that it was a distraction from his current political problems re the Trump campaign's association with Russia. If there is one consistent trait with President Trump, it's that he uses sensational means for attention and distraction: self-created chaos.
That's all this bombing action seems to me.
6
I voted yes. Not sure it will any good but America stood by and 450k dead. It's terrible that we never helped.
1
the US killed a million people in iraq
2
Trump-approved missile airstrikes against a Syrian airbase appears to be a morally justified reaction to the Bashir Assad's chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. The repercussions of this preemptive military assault on already combustible Middle East tensions, global geopolitics and escalating terrorist action will remain unclear for some time. Unadulterated hostility has incited the Syria’s sponsors, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, to hurriedly declaring his ill intention within hours of the strikes. It behoves us to remind Putin that his bloody minded retaliation of suspending the US-Russia agreement on information exchange to avoid mid-air collisions over Syria risks of loss of lives of innocent air passengers, including some of his own countrymen. This will gestate a conflagration that shifts battlelines from a ground-based civil war into the limitless sky.
I agree with his ascension of threat to national security since this is a perfect story to divert attention from the the overheated Senate=House inquiry!
A recipe for foolproof foreign policy success: keep them guessing, keep us guessing, keep yourself guessing. There are rarely simple solutions to complex, multifaceted problems and they tend to create much room for miscalculation. How does one tactical action tie into the much bigger strategic picture? Do we all have to guess?
Real military actions can have real, long-lasting consequences:
http://thewaryouknowcurat.wixsite.com/the-war-you-know-
Real military actions can have real, long-lasting consequences:
http://thewaryouknowcurat.wixsite.com/the-war-you-know-
The NYT leaves out the most important fact why we are in Syria. The UAR and Big Oil want to lay a Pipeline through Syria to compete with Russians supplying Europe. Gee, wonder why the NYT and all of MSM never mention this?
2
No, I do not support the President. To think he was criticizing President Obama for wanting to act without congressional approval, and all his comments about what to do about Syria. The sad part is the American media which I thought had learned their lessons from the jingoistic support they gave to the wars in Iraq, the removal of Gaddafi it seems is part of the problem.
The media after the attack were full of support for this action when they should be forcefully pushing for the contradiction of this action where refugees from Syria are not allowing into the country.
Then there is the case of administration officials talking from both sides of their mouth. Some advocating regime change and others tailking about more actions on Syria. Question is if Assad today magically steps down, who in Syria can take his place? These are the things most people wonder outside America.
From all indications, Assad who I still think is a bad man, kept Christians and other religious groups safe from religious persecution. I don't think any new leader of Syria would be able to do protect all the religious groups in Syria.
And as far as I am concerned this destruction of an ancient country like Syria is part of a greater plan by powers outside Syria to systematically bring chaos to countries in the region they feel is a threat.
Sad, but I know it's true.
The media after the attack were full of support for this action when they should be forcefully pushing for the contradiction of this action where refugees from Syria are not allowing into the country.
Then there is the case of administration officials talking from both sides of their mouth. Some advocating regime change and others tailking about more actions on Syria. Question is if Assad today magically steps down, who in Syria can take his place? These are the things most people wonder outside America.
From all indications, Assad who I still think is a bad man, kept Christians and other religious groups safe from religious persecution. I don't think any new leader of Syria would be able to do protect all the religious groups in Syria.
And as far as I am concerned this destruction of an ancient country like Syria is part of a greater plan by powers outside Syria to systematically bring chaos to countries in the region they feel is a threat.
Sad, but I know it's true.
3
President Obama kept us out of Syria for very good reasons: first, it is a quagmire of sectarian violence; second, competing national interests (Russia, Turkey, US) have no hope of resolution; third, Americans are tired of foreign wars.
Trump has just signed the death warrants of thousands of American troops and has opened the US to terror attacks on an unprecedented scale.
This is a nightmare created by a childish bully whose understanding of international affairs is entirely based on the interactions in a grade school lunch room.
Trump has just signed the death warrants of thousands of American troops and has opened the US to terror attacks on an unprecedented scale.
This is a nightmare created by a childish bully whose understanding of international affairs is entirely based on the interactions in a grade school lunch room.
5
While it was definitely an error on President Obama's part to threaten action after a chemical attack in Syria but not follow through, war never resolves issues. It will harden the Syrian government's position and might drag us further into this civil war. Syria needs a diplomatic solution. Maybe this will push The Syrian government to discuss peace. Though I doubt it. We no not need another war just so our leaders can pound their chests and say,see how tough I am. Old men who never went to war condemning more young men to die prematurely.
2
On moral grounds you can make a case for taking action, but by what legal grounds does he have authority? What near term threat to the US was dealt with? Syria is a sovereign nation, despicable yes, but Congress has not declared war on Syria, and what has this got to do with fighting ISIS?
1
A retired USAF pilot I know expressed only puzzlement at the US Syria strike, at any Air Field strike, that would leave runways intact and any aircraft at all unscathed. What kind of 'message' was that? That our military doesn't know when it should use the far more effective runway-busting missiles? That we think our 'strategic' destruction of a few service hangars would be an awe-inspiring deterrent in a war zone? Likewise, the choice to spare risk to our pilots is absurd when our pilots have been successfully dropping bombs there all over the place for years. None of this makes sense. Not the 'access' excuses for not using US air power. Not the obvious inefficiency of using 'naval' power when our pilots are so practiced & skilled in doing just this kind of mission. We could have obliterated that Air field. Why didn't we? If we must 'send a message'--let it be one that permits only one interpretation: that the use of chemical weapons is an act of war that will guarantee a lethal response by the US. The only true deterrent in a war is the experience of destruction and death--not the possibility of it. What's a 'warning'? Just another chance for them to do the same thing. Don't let them. Give them only the warning they gave the victims of their chemical weapons. If a military message must be sent, do it the right way with the most effective might (not just a fireworks display), with congressional approval, & with a cogent military objective that supports a clear policy goal.
2
Excellent.
1
Leaders are required to improvise rapidly on occasion, even be guided by emotion. However, this president operates strictly on gut-think, and that does make for leadership. His advisors are another matter. They knew such an action
-would get hurrahs,
-would make the president look like a tough guy and get the Russia scandals off his back for a few days;
-would get Xi of China off the front page,
-would project an aura of power to Xi of China (good luck with that, Xi doesn't blink).
I voted No. This tactical throwing of Tomahawks makes no sense in light of ending the civil war in Syria, and ending the humanitarian crisis there. The president's volte-face on Syria is political gut-think with no strategy. First the guy denies Syrian refugees the ability to come to the USA, then he cries crocodile tears for them. Despicable.
-would get hurrahs,
-would make the president look like a tough guy and get the Russia scandals off his back for a few days;
-would get Xi of China off the front page,
-would project an aura of power to Xi of China (good luck with that, Xi doesn't blink).
I voted No. This tactical throwing of Tomahawks makes no sense in light of ending the civil war in Syria, and ending the humanitarian crisis there. The president's volte-face on Syria is political gut-think with no strategy. First the guy denies Syrian refugees the ability to come to the USA, then he cries crocodile tears for them. Despicable.
4
I think this was staged and coordinated between Pukin and 45 to try to give the illusion that they are not working together and to support there was no connection to the election results. I believe innocent Syrians were gassed to provide 45 an opportunity to "show his strength as Prez and negate any Pukin connection." I believe that 45 will be shown to be Pukin's puppet - he' being (willingly) played by Pukin. Our democracy/republic is in serious jeopardy. I am waiting for the Congress to recognize this and impeach this traitor.
2
I voted no because of the weak response to a heinous crime, I would have prefered a complete destruction of the al-Shayrat airfield runway and planes in addition to increase in economic sanctions and Navy blockade of the Latikia basin and port, if we are going to send a message send a strong one as the political repercussions will be the same.
Killing is not the solution.
Long term diplomacy, and slow STATESMANSHIP FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, you know, the one Trump is gutting so there can never be anything but a military response.
Long term diplomacy, and slow STATESMANSHIP FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, you know, the one Trump is gutting so there can never be anything but a military response.
2
He's showing off, but I'm not impressed. Didn't our Air Force just drop bombs (misilles?) that destroyed buildings and killed some 300 people in Syria (was it Raqqa?) about 2-3 weeks ago.
2
Although i loathe Trump and all that he has don,e i do agree with his decision if for nothing else it gave that poor, distraught father who was in the process of burying his small twin daughters, after losing other members of his family, the thought, 'somebody noticed, somebody cares.'
1
The first thing I agree with since the inauguration. In line with David Brooks musing on the PBS News Hour last night, a new and unpredictable antagonist on the world stage could be quite effective in giving pause to future atrocities.
1
I believe that President Trump needs to follow this action in Syria with allowing Syrian refugees into the country. Now he has a first hand look at the horror that these beleaguered people face if they stay.
I also profoundly believe in humanitarian intervention in the affairs of another country if they are murdering their citizens as Syria is doing.We have blood on our hands if we turn our heads and allow innocents to die.
I also profoundly believe in humanitarian intervention in the affairs of another country if they are murdering their citizens as Syria is doing.We have blood on our hands if we turn our heads and allow innocents to die.
1
I recall leaving a message to the White House, saying President Obama's decision not to bomb Syria was my proudest moment of his presidency. I grew up listening to President Johnson saying we had to do something to stop the communists in Viet Nam. History does have a way of repeating itself.
2
Trump's action is all too typical of the way American foreign policy has been made for decades. Weak-minded sentimentality instead of hard-headed rationality. Massive ignorance guided by magical thinking. Too sad.
Dats how USA does things and has been doing.. It did not take a hour to decide the culprit.As if they were waiting to get a legitimacy to strike...Reminds me of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq... My request is plz just go for war when ever where ever u want.. u r the big brother..nobody has guts to oppose u.. just dnt hide behind democracy,liberty.,humanitarian action etc etc... dat will save a lot of people from false flag operations in ur as well as other countries..
Yes, but it will not stop Assad. He is even more ruthless than Trump. Once you start down that road you can't turn back.
Chemical weapons are 'beyond the pale.' Trump had to send a message and for that matter the free world had to send a message about these weapons. I disagree with Trump on nearly everything else he has said or done as President, but on this one I support his action.
while my first inclination as to vote yes because Assad, despite being a physician, has wreaked havoc with the country and murdered huge numbers of his citizens, he deserves retribution. But as observed in the many thoughtful and critical comments, this is typical "grandstanding" by our noble leader and there are innumerable unintended consequences for which we may not be prepared.
But some action should be made by a coalition to extract Assad from power yet keep Syria from total chaos if not already there.
But some action should be made by a coalition to extract Assad from power yet keep Syria from total chaos if not already there.
I think the attack on a vacant air base in Syria was an impotent act intended to distract people from important issues (investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election, congressional ethics), and a rather feeble maneuver to lift his awful approval rating. Also think he's been itching to get those tiny little fingers on a launch button, any launch button...all the power!
3
I vote no, because Trump has no larger policy or strategy for "what now?"
A woman doctor working in Syria, being interviewed by Charlie Rose last night (Friday) said there have been 200 chemical attacks since 2013, and there was ANOTHER attack a day after our missiles hit Thursday!
So what is Trump going to do now? Send more missiles? Invade? Do nothing? This is a quagmire, and not a time for impetuous, unthought out military acts. We need to so something, but need a bigger plan.
A woman doctor working in Syria, being interviewed by Charlie Rose last night (Friday) said there have been 200 chemical attacks since 2013, and there was ANOTHER attack a day after our missiles hit Thursday!
So what is Trump going to do now? Send more missiles? Invade? Do nothing? This is a quagmire, and not a time for impetuous, unthought out military acts. We need to so something, but need a bigger plan.
1
This was an action by Trump taking advantage of an emotional story on tv to boost his poll ratings from 35%, get good press coverage and get a deal with Putin when Tillerson goes to a prior planned trip to Moscow on tuesday.
Look at what Trump has done past and present.
Has he ever expressed concern about babies and children being killed by the bombing raids by Assad in the past six years or even since the attack on friday and saturday? No.
Has he lifted the ban on Syrian refugees into this country? No.
Has he shown concern on the emotional story on tv of babies and children dying by a famine in Yemen? No. Has he rushed any aid there? No.
Look at what Trump has done past and present.
Has he ever expressed concern about babies and children being killed by the bombing raids by Assad in the past six years or even since the attack on friday and saturday? No.
Has he lifted the ban on Syrian refugees into this country? No.
Has he shown concern on the emotional story on tv of babies and children dying by a famine in Yemen? No. Has he rushed any aid there? No.
2
I voted. Yes, I don't agree with a lot of what Trump
Stands for . But, I am thrilled he took an aggressive
Approach to the terrible crime that was done to the
Innocent people in Syria .
Stands for . But, I am thrilled he took an aggressive
Approach to the terrible crime that was done to the
Innocent people in Syria .
2
It's a distraction that TRump hopes will take away from the Russian connection. I have a hard time believing he all of a sudden had sympathy for the Syrian people. He never cared before - Alleopo...what about the famine in South Sudan? Those pictures are horrific too. Sorry, as much as I am horrified by Assad, I'm a skeptical cynic when it comes to TRump's motivation here. There is more to the story.
2
We need to blow Asaad and the military capacity of Syria and that of ISIS, ISIL, Al Quaeda and their colleagues back to the Stone Age.
The entire Middle East, and parts of Africa, needs to be cleaned up thoroughly fore and aft. No native, indigenous people over there show any capacity to govern, rule, run anything, of bring themselves up from sand, dust, mud, rocks or any of the natural conditions on the ground which we see our U. S. troops and NATO allied troops marching through, working in or fighting in.
The best thing to do with the Middle East is to re-colonize it by the Western Imperial powers in league with some of the Asian Tigers. China and other Asian nations would not put up with the fools of ISIS and Al Quaeda.
The entire Middle East, and parts of Africa, needs to be cleaned up thoroughly fore and aft. No native, indigenous people over there show any capacity to govern, rule, run anything, of bring themselves up from sand, dust, mud, rocks or any of the natural conditions on the ground which we see our U. S. troops and NATO allied troops marching through, working in or fighting in.
The best thing to do with the Middle East is to re-colonize it by the Western Imperial powers in league with some of the Asian Tigers. China and other Asian nations would not put up with the fools of ISIS and Al Quaeda.
Our over hyped non reaction to Syria over the past years was proven to be likely the best of no good solutions.
Spending millions of dollars to avenge the use of Sarin by destruction of Syrian assets may well be the response but the execution was "just terrible". We should have started with reaching out and demanding action by the UN. We should have shown our people our full verification it was Asaad and let the press savage his regime. Most importantly, the Russians took responsibility for the enforcement of the 2013 no chemicals or WMD in Syria deal, why doesn't our free press illustrate and make a roaring stink about the Bull Ship enforcement. Then Trump could bomb late Sunday afternoon next week and get the cynical PR value he constantly seeks. He would have separation from the Bannon paddling, less Jerrodmania, a better covered Chinese pic nic etc.
People that think he seems a media manipulation master are learning this guy has horrible instincts tied to intractable mottos and slogans.
Eventually we learned that those vitamin supplements didn't grow hair, cure the heartbreak of psoriasis and solve sexual orientation issues all in one pill.
Spending millions of dollars to avenge the use of Sarin by destruction of Syrian assets may well be the response but the execution was "just terrible". We should have started with reaching out and demanding action by the UN. We should have shown our people our full verification it was Asaad and let the press savage his regime. Most importantly, the Russians took responsibility for the enforcement of the 2013 no chemicals or WMD in Syria deal, why doesn't our free press illustrate and make a roaring stink about the Bull Ship enforcement. Then Trump could bomb late Sunday afternoon next week and get the cynical PR value he constantly seeks. He would have separation from the Bannon paddling, less Jerrodmania, a better covered Chinese pic nic etc.
People that think he seems a media manipulation master are learning this guy has horrible instincts tied to intractable mottos and slogans.
Eventually we learned that those vitamin supplements didn't grow hair, cure the heartbreak of psoriasis and solve sexual orientation issues all in one pill.
7
I voted Yes but with this qualification. I am concerned that Trump acted without considering what might come next. That he acted on impulse based on the terrible pictures. I am fearful of what he might do the next time, and there will be a next time, something happens to set him off.
2
I think this is usually called "grandstanding." Something usually associated with egotistical college football players.
1
I voted yes, because I think a response was necessary. It was a reluctant yes, however, because I don't think the decision was thought out or part of any larger plan, and I'm sure the question, "What next?" was never asked before the bombing was ordered.
1
I voted no for a number of reasons:
1. If the strike were part of a coordinated strategic plan, this would be more acceptable but this was not the impression given by President Trump. Although I mourn for innocent young lives, I expect our leader to have a more nuanced and neutral approach.
2. This strike was not in response to an imminent threat to our security and thus it should have gone to Congress for action.
3. It felt as if the strike was a dramatic flair to show power to the Chinese and to demonstrate that Trump could act on the "red line" in a way that Obama chose not to. The mere fact that there was a 50% success rate for the strikes Syrian airbase is functional enough to be back to work tells me that drama was the goal. And this type of drama is too comfortable for our President and not appropriate to foreign policy.
4. If there are strikes, negotiation must follow. Waiting to see this.
1. If the strike were part of a coordinated strategic plan, this would be more acceptable but this was not the impression given by President Trump. Although I mourn for innocent young lives, I expect our leader to have a more nuanced and neutral approach.
2. This strike was not in response to an imminent threat to our security and thus it should have gone to Congress for action.
3. It felt as if the strike was a dramatic flair to show power to the Chinese and to demonstrate that Trump could act on the "red line" in a way that Obama chose not to. The mere fact that there was a 50% success rate for the strikes Syrian airbase is functional enough to be back to work tells me that drama was the goal. And this type of drama is too comfortable for our President and not appropriate to foreign policy.
4. If there are strikes, negotiation must follow. Waiting to see this.
8
While I am completely appalled at this week's events in Syria, I have been appalled by them for a very long time. The current president previously had absolutely no compassion for Syria, between his twitter rants to stay our of Syria, his attitude toward Bashar al Assad, and his banning of refugees from the region. The sudden 180 turn, notifying Russia first, and the seemingly ineffective use of $80b-worth of missiles in one shot seems "trigger happy" and suspicious at the same time. This was a thoroughly unilateral move with no coordinated actions or long term resolution. It looks to be a total waste and an extreme effort to divert attention from all the scandal building up in this administration. The future under this president frightens me deeply.
12
I almost never agree with anything Trump does. In this, I am certain that the action taken was in the right direction. I do believe the protocol; for taking such actions is sufficient for preventing the president from overstepping his authority. None of these thugs (Assad and Putin) will take anything less than military action seriously. So how many more have to be murdered before the rest of us take what they are doing seriously?
1
I voted Yes because the use of chemical weapons on unarmed civilians requires a firm response. However, I remain deeply concerned whether President Trump has the ability to develop a combined diplomatic and military strategy that will avoid further deterioration in the Syrian tragedy. The Obama strategy of calling for Assad's removal but which lacked the means to carry out that wish helped create this mess. A no-fly zone was a reasonable tactic that would have saved many lives.
2
Whether the attack on Syria was a good thing or not (and I don't think it is), the question now is If Trump can act unilaterally to launch a major strike like this, what will he do next? Now that he's "tasted blood" (and I'm sure that's gone to his head) who's to stop him from attacking, say, North Korea or Iran without Congressional consent?
5
This is so "wag the dog" it's embarrassing. We will not be tricked, deceived, or distracted.
18
Honestly, I have never believed when a politician of any kind said a military action in a place far, far away, against an "enemy" that was no closer to attacking the shores of our country than the penguins of Antarctica when any of them said military action was in the "vital national security interest” of the United States.
War is good for an economy when we go all in, as we did in WW-2. War has not been good for or to the country in any way in any of the conflicts since, including Korea. Why the current president thinks bombing a despot is now a good idea, when as a candidate, he excoriated then-President Obama NOT to bomb the same despot for the same reasons is beyond me.
I guess the view is different from that side of whichever desk is in the Oval Office. But it still does not make missile strikes a good idea, especially in a country strongly supported by Russia and Iran, two countries that really could do damage to the shores of the United States.
War is good for an economy when we go all in, as we did in WW-2. War has not been good for or to the country in any way in any of the conflicts since, including Korea. Why the current president thinks bombing a despot is now a good idea, when as a candidate, he excoriated then-President Obama NOT to bomb the same despot for the same reasons is beyond me.
I guess the view is different from that side of whichever desk is in the Oval Office. But it still does not make missile strikes a good idea, especially in a country strongly supported by Russia and Iran, two countries that really could do damage to the shores of the United States.
4
It all seemed way too fast for such an action that was apparently taken unilaterally without official support of our allies or our own Congress. I feel it sets a dangerous precedent and Congress should stop being hypocrites, when Barrack Obama wanted to do something similar he sought wider approval only to face obstruction from the GOP in Congress to make him look weak an indecisive. Now that the president is ostensibly a member of the GOP suddenly it does not matter that he takes such unilateral action. I also think it cannot be understated that the timing of this strike is highly advantageous politically for the administration as it provides cover from domestic failings and a rapidly progressing investigation into Russian connections. What better way to obfuscate dealings with Russia than to attack one of its allies seemingly against their wishes? I definitely think that there is more than meets the eye with the development in Syria this week. Vladimir Putin and Bashar Al Assad have proven themselves to be uniquely crafty and brutal in their political machinations. For all we know this strike played directly into their hands by not doing any real damage and by making the US appear as a hot head that reacts without taking proper consideration of its actions. Also, what if a tomahawk missile hit chemical weapons? With the rapidity of the strike, I am skeptical proper intelligence was gathered and considered to avoid such a calamity, only luck seems to have prevailed.
17
I agree with Derek here. Much to hasty , hypocritical, and sets a dangerous precedent. I am very scpetical of the motives and can't help but remember what Trump said 3 months ago about taking their oil if we have the opportunity again.
Is he setting Syria up for regime change and to steal their oil? Time will tell.
Is he setting Syria up for regime change and to steal their oil? Time will tell.
6
Although I voted "no," because I believe that this strike will neither shorten the war nor help the Syrian people, it amazed me to think of the "optics" of the decision: Trump ordered the strike despite the danger of hitting Russian soldiers and at the same moment that the Leader of China was standing at his side. Russia and China, our 2 great rivals, already convinced of Trump's violent unpredictability, have now been shown his toughness, his power, his fearlessness (this is the appearance; the reality may become different. Thus the decision may be more effective at instilling respect despite being ineffective at ending the horror.
2
I voted yes on the air strike, but I'd rather have been able to vote I'm not sure. Now that Trump has used a missiles to carry out an attack in Syria, people need to know what his strategy is -- the bombing was a tactic, but what's the (long-term) strategy?
3
My thoughts exactly. Trump had painted himself into a corner so he had to do something of consequence. At least in his mind.
Whether or not this action will be consequential in the long run remains to be seen. As of now nobody knows Trump's strategy in dealing in the Middle East. Most of all Trump himself.
Whether or not this action will be consequential in the long run remains to be seen. As of now nobody knows Trump's strategy in dealing in the Middle East. Most of all Trump himself.
5
There is no clear YES or NO vote. It's all about policy and military justification. Trump has neither the interest, focus, leadership nor intellect to understand complex issues. This struggle with the script he read to "explain his rational for the missile attach was shameful.
10
Why not bomb Assad instead of warning the Russians and wasting $100,000,000 on bombing (a probably empty) airfield?
10
Gosh, didn't you know? This is "Shock and Awe, Act II" Next, he will climb out of a submarine, or strap on a parachute and sit in a helicopter, or climb into a lifesaver on the deck of a navy ship. It's all just more of the republi-circus. Got your tickets? Great show!
1
Dear NYT: report what happened and then get back to the Russian/trump investigation. Please reprint your CIA article from the day of the missile strike in case people missed that article because of the ensuing distraction. Thank you.
17
ZOOM! There goes that pesky Red Herring, flying past again! See it??!
1
I totally agree with the missile strike. A stop sign had to be erected. However, what I do regret is this lingering thought of the of the possibility that the missile strike was triggered by some other consideration; i.e. a PR stunt to make it appear that Trump U.S.-Putin Russia ties are somewhat less than what they really are. To quote President Trump "Sad".
3
We can't continue to ignore the atrocities that are being committed in Syria. The last administration tried that and only made the situation worse and politically more complex. The strikes show that the President acted dicesively and warned the Syrian regime that such attacks will not be tolerated by the civilized world. We can't allow or should not allow more atrocities like the many that occurred in the 20th century. We should listen and pay heed to the words of Elie Wiesel his warnings in the Perils of Indifference.
2
Attacking a foreign nation, which we are not at war with, is unjust. Not long ago many in government signed a letter stating any use of force in Syria must have congressional approval. What happened to this stand? We are on a slippery slope to tyranny and the people need to speak up to preserve our rights, responsibilities and freedoms!!
2
We take a short break from Happy Week with a public service announcement:
Question everything; seeing isn't always believing; and the road to Damascus connects Washington and Moscow.
Back to Happy Week. You're welcome.
Question everything; seeing isn't always believing; and the road to Damascus connects Washington and Moscow.
Back to Happy Week. You're welcome.
8
He's looking for the bump! Just like everything the man does, this action was a Trump-centric move to own the news cycle. Cruise missiles, especially fired at night, are serious eye candy and make great headlines. Russian collusion scandals, failing immigration bans, nuclear option used by his party in Congress to steal the vacant Scalia seat. The list goes on and on. Trump is beset on all sides by disaster. The turd of his domestic agenda is circling the drain with his dismal approval ratings. But that drain is stopped up by so many failed attempts.
Of course! Who wouldn't support going after Assad after finding out he gassed his own people? Except that we already knew he does that! For example, in August, 2013 hundreds of people suffocated to death in rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian capital, with many hundreds more suffering from convulsions, pinpoint pupils, and foaming at the mouth. UN investigators determined that ground-to-ground missiles loaded with sarin were fired on civilian areas while residents slept. The Syrian government was the only party to the conflict known to possesi Sarin gas.
Question is, if we already knew Assad was capable of doing this (we all knew!) why wasn't bombing those "bad hombres" on Trump's first-day-in-office schedule? Why did the Trump administration support Assad for so long? And realistically, how does unilaterally firing a few cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase do anything to undo the damage or prevent it from reoccurring?
Of course! Who wouldn't support going after Assad after finding out he gassed his own people? Except that we already knew he does that! For example, in August, 2013 hundreds of people suffocated to death in rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian capital, with many hundreds more suffering from convulsions, pinpoint pupils, and foaming at the mouth. UN investigators determined that ground-to-ground missiles loaded with sarin were fired on civilian areas while residents slept. The Syrian government was the only party to the conflict known to possesi Sarin gas.
Question is, if we already knew Assad was capable of doing this (we all knew!) why wasn't bombing those "bad hombres" on Trump's first-day-in-office schedule? Why did the Trump administration support Assad for so long? And realistically, how does unilaterally firing a few cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase do anything to undo the damage or prevent it from reoccurring?
1
He had to let enough time evaporate between his action and the time he TWEETED that Obama should NOT do this. The short memories have made this transition and he needed another distraction, so he pulled one out of his Merlin-bag and threw a curve ball that blew up a forewarned Syrian dictator. Mission accomplished.
I am no fan of President Trump. In my view he is a disingenuous, obfuscating, opportunistic charlatan. Nor was I, particularly, a fan of President Obama. I can recall when fewer than 2000 people had been been killed in this Syrian conflict and I believed then that international action was overdue. Like President Clinton failed to do in the early days of the Bosnian conflict, President Obama failed to take action in Syria when he could have reduced or eliminated death and suffering, strengthened the United States' standing in the region, blocked the expansion of Russian influence, and potentially increased the potential for more peaceful regional coexistence. I believe that President Trump's action was ineffective and self-serviing and will not be followed by any substantive, continuing our meaningful US-led effort. The United States should not be in the business of active regime change - as effected by George W Bush in Iraq - but we're should be in the business of promoting peace and stability when and where we can around the world. This is the way of a great nation. And, by the way, will most likely have the effect of strengthening our influence, enhancing our safety and that of the world and be an exemplar for our form of government.
1
As we slide into yet another war, it might be important to remember (our memory seems amazingly short to me these days) that the only war we have won in my lifetime (other than Grenada which didn't count) was George HW Bush's war to liberate Kuwait. The two important factors in that was were 1. building a strong international consensus/coalition and 2. having a clear goal and then actually doing what we said we were going to do and no more. Where is the coalition? where is the plan? where is the end to the testosterone? and did anybody but me notice that Trump succeeded in deflecting our attention from the important issues...again
6
Since Donald Tramp was NOT elected to be president of the USA, he has no right to let loose US armed forces on any "enemy", whether real or imagined.
6
Good point!
Duh Donald out-double-crossed Vladimir.
No more Mr. Nice Guy, Right Vladi?
So, isn't it time for you to give us a taste of all those audio/visual recordings you have hidden away of Donald being naughty? You know: palsy-wowsy with the Russian beauty queens? You 'n' him hatching plans with Steve "Bar none" to take over a couple of choice industry segments on the NY Stock Exchange board?
Or are you chicken?
I got it: betcha Obama left you a trove of Pootie Tootie clandestine phone and video stuff and of your and Donald'sx conversations with Stevie Barnone.
Chickening out, aren't you. The Great Putin...
Scared.
No more Mr. Nice Guy, Right Vladi?
So, isn't it time for you to give us a taste of all those audio/visual recordings you have hidden away of Donald being naughty? You know: palsy-wowsy with the Russian beauty queens? You 'n' him hatching plans with Steve "Bar none" to take over a couple of choice industry segments on the NY Stock Exchange board?
Or are you chicken?
I got it: betcha Obama left you a trove of Pootie Tootie clandestine phone and video stuff and of your and Donald'sx conversations with Stevie Barnone.
Chickening out, aren't you. The Great Putin...
Scared.
2
I prefer that a missile strike anywhere for any reason is the result of a well thought out foreign policy and not an emotional response from the person with their finger on the trigger.
1
The attack was consequential only in that it reminds all the involved parties that there is a new US administration to account for. I am willing to wait to see what use this will be put to and judge based on the end result.
1
Too little, too late, and largely meaningless in its impact on Syria's air force's ability to wreak havoc on its citizens. And given the proven and pervasive dishonesty of Mr. Trumpolini, the move is suspect as a PR gimmick, devised in express or tacit collaboration between him and his Russian pal, as suggested in "The Last Word" on MSNBC last night.
1
I think the strike was political theater with zero deterrence value designed to distract from the Russia investigations against Trump. It is useless to focus on a tactical response when an overall strategy is required and that is something Trump doesn't have. And Trump doesn't care about the babies. If he did he'd be allowing Syrian refugees in the country.
2
Military force should always be the last resort, not the first option. While I think something should have been done about Syrian Atrocities, an organized well coordinated response from the international community would have been more effective. Also, I do not trust Trump or his motives. I believe his actions were politically motivated and I believe he is looking at taking Syrians oil as he had indicated a couple of months ago. "We should take their oil if we have another opportunity" Syria is the most volerable and I believe he is targeting it for regime change and stealing their oil.
5
Why does the view persist that the United States alone has the obligation to stop the carnage?
If outside intervention is necessary, then an international coalition should be assembled for that purpose and Congress should approve the U.S. participation. France, Germany, and England feel the impact of the refugees from Syria more than the U.S. Why are their leaders not out front calling for such an international effort?
Iraq demonstrated that the U.S. is incompetent to be the arbiter of conflicts among groups of which we are profoundly ignorant. As Secretary Gates asks, after the dust settles, what happens next? Not even our best informed and most astute leaders know the answer.
If outside intervention is necessary, then an international coalition should be assembled for that purpose and Congress should approve the U.S. participation. France, Germany, and England feel the impact of the refugees from Syria more than the U.S. Why are their leaders not out front calling for such an international effort?
Iraq demonstrated that the U.S. is incompetent to be the arbiter of conflicts among groups of which we are profoundly ignorant. As Secretary Gates asks, after the dust settles, what happens next? Not even our best informed and most astute leaders know the answer.
1
Why are we banning Syrian refugees on one hand and yet protecting them with missiles strikes on the other? Since Trump is known to lie, I do not believe his stated rationale.
2
This country never learns. How did "regime change" work out for us in the dozens of areas in which we've meddled? I suppose defense contractors, Trump's approval ratings and ISIS can benefit, but what about the innocent citizens of the countries we so cavalierly destroy?
1
The use by Syria of chemical weapons has been prohibited by international law for over 100 years. As I understand it, Syria and its clones have been using chemical weapons for years, and will probably expect to continue making and using them in future - as will so-called rebels groups. I understand that weapons such as Sarin are easy to make. Trump sent a clear message to 'remind' Assad he had indeed 'crossed the [legal] line'. The Russian videos of the damage done by 59 missiles show that targets were carefully selected: the airport runways are intact. The fact that the Russians were advised in advance of the planned attack seems to have prevented loss of life, directly or collaterally. Militarily I believe the attack successful and correct. For now, it can be interpreted as a stand-alone' warning.
I am very aware of the R2P - Responsibility to Protect - convention of the United Nations (2005) which not only permits but promotes action by the international community where a population is being abused by its government. I do not understand why this convention has not been activated against Assad. Doing so would have meant discussion with other nations before the attack (as to strategy), and partnership in action against Assad (as to future action).
I am very aware of the R2P - Responsibility to Protect - convention of the United Nations (2005) which not only permits but promotes action by the international community where a population is being abused by its government. I do not understand why this convention has not been activated against Assad. Doing so would have meant discussion with other nations before the attack (as to strategy), and partnership in action against Assad (as to future action).
4
There are pros and cons to the airstrike. An issue of deep concern in this event, I believe, is the idea that the President acted on instinct. Clearly, his emotions dictated his actions.
Is there a well thought out follow- up plan? Who's to say!
Is there a well thought out follow- up plan? Who's to say!
1
Don the con is the last person on earth I want making that decision. He's impulsive, stupid and wrapped up in the simplicity of "military strength is good."
2
Many speculations have been offered regarding motive. Some are quite plausible. Plausibility is not sufficient for confirmation. Whether this action was part of a strategy or an act of impulse will show in time. Putting aside the foregoing, If this strike results in the calculation by Assad that using CWs again carries a price tag that is too high, then this action was a good move.
Congress alone is granted war making authority. However, Congress has uniformly ceded its responsibility on this matter to the presidency, certainly in my lifetime, and I'm 73. Congress has recently, in ceding its responsibility done so for partisan reasons--thereby acting in a more gutless manner than usual. The other day Trump didn't even bother, it appears to let them know he was going to unleash some Tomahawks...but he let the Russians know didn't he. Several have argued Trump lacked the authority to strike...as much as I dislike Trump I would argue otherwise, and on several levels. I.e. the 2001 "authority" granted Bush that has provided cover for the 16 years of our battling in the ME. Also under the "clear and present danger" principle. Arguable: yes, absolutely, but who chooses to argue using Sarin gas anywhere is NOT a clear and present danger? So here we are sticking ourselves further into the quick sand of the ME, Trump gets a boost in his terrible poll numbers, deflects the noise around his love affair with Putin and Congress further diminishes its worth in the authoritarian autocracy that America is becoming....ok, my morning rant is done.
2
There is no credible evidence that Assad is the one who used the sarin gas. It seems the first and strongest allegation of that was from Turkey, but why should anyone believe the government (or the journalists) of Turkey, a country with one of the worst human rights records in the history of the world? And Turkey has its own agenda regarding Syria, one that does not include Assad in any capacity. An international organization that monitors chemical weapons has recently stated that Assad had no chemical weapons of any kind. And since his government forces were making progress in that particular region, why would he then attack his own people there with nerve gas? Remember how our own government and our intelligence community (and the media in general) all cited the presence of chemical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as an excuse to invade? And a very short time later we learned there were no such weapons there. I'm smelling the same species of rat here.
2
Whether you agree or not with their strategy, isn't there enough ammunition for Syria to use to carry out their mission, why must they use horrific tools as well such as the poison gases that are banned by the world community , a line must be drawn and messaged conveyed for humanity and morality , that this is not acceptable
1
No one has the permission to murder the innocent, especially babies, young and the elderly.
A grotesque political theater is being played out with Assad, Trump and Putin the prime actors who are stage managing Syria into a hell hole with the whole world watching ..,just watching.
Governments and politicians create the reasons for wars and civilians pay the price.
Our Congress wears diapers and taxpayers pay for their messes,; see Vietnam, Iraq, Alfghanistan...and the beat goes on.
A grotesque political theater is being played out with Assad, Trump and Putin the prime actors who are stage managing Syria into a hell hole with the whole world watching ..,just watching.
Governments and politicians create the reasons for wars and civilians pay the price.
Our Congress wears diapers and taxpayers pay for their messes,; see Vietnam, Iraq, Alfghanistan...and the beat goes on.
2
Particularly when time is not of the essence, I think military force should be authorized by the Congress based on the facts of the matter, and by the UN when appropriate, and only on the basis of a plan to accomplish significant objectives that credibly lead to a desired outcome. In this case there was no known security need to rush a response. It is quite likely that the Congress would have formally supported a strike or strikes, but they should also have looked beyond the strike and insisted on clear objectives and the plan to achieve them and made sure this strike was a measure consistent with the same. This sort of asserted Presidential power by both Democratic and Republican presidents is dangerous and unnecessary. I expect that an overwhelming personal emotional response to an event is not the best context for determining effective policy and actions although it may do wonders in overnight popular opinion polls.
7
Trump's Syria bombing was not out of grief for those dying children. It was to end the constant media pressure over his Russian scandal. So now he has made America Great again by bombing Assad's airport and he will just ignore the Russian scandal. He will do anything, anything to maintain his position.
22
I think a lot of rational people would agree with Jim's comments. Donnie, the draft dodger, has been wanting to bomb somebody ever since he was elected. It concerns me that he seems to take putting our military troops on the ground in Syria so lightly just to show how macho he is. The people of the middle-east have been fighting each other and outsiders since the beginning of time and peace in that region of the world will probably never happen.
1
I believe you're right. I am skeptical about every decision he makes.
2
I'm disappointed the bitterness and division have gotten so acidic in our country that you would think our President would conduct a military attack to divert media attention. While I disagreed with many of Obama's policies and actions, I never charged they were motivated for personal gain.
1
Seeing those people dying in Syria is one of the most horrendous things I've seen. But Trump's strike just makes it worse. He is just one knee jerk reaction after knee jerk reaction and his incompetence is on display in everything he does. At the very least he's painted a bigger target on every US soldier in Syria, but an executive order Muslim ban of Yemen the day before the strike in January most likely put offside those very people who most likely then leaked details of the strike which then ended with the killing civilians and Navy Seal, who had a life, didn't teach him anything, except to use his widow for his own applause. What troubles me is there was no threat the US, yet he did this strike without congress debating it and nutting out the probable knock on effects. I fear what four years of his incompetence will do, from military to environmental to not caring for the poor, sick and elderly in America. I find it ironic that he wants to build the military to "protect America" while he has no compunction in killing thousands, possibly millions by no healthcare and no clean water and air. I have no words to say how much I hate Trump.
5
As a Syrian, my dream is to go back home where there's peace, which will never happen as long as Assad, ISIS or any fighters have strongholds in Syria. I, like many people in this part of the world, don't believe America is going to salvage the wreckage in Syria. It's been playing games and trifling with the lives of millions of people who once had hope that it would stand with humanity. Trump didn't hit those targets out of compassion or sympathy with the 'beautiful babies', he did it for himself. More than half a million people have been killed and more than ten millions have been displaced. If America hasn't felt for them, I doubt it has any scruples to care for the others were killed by the chemical weapons, or any other weapons for that matter.
15
We have no obligaation to save the world. If the Syrian people were so adverse to the Assads then they should not have let them gain the power they did.
This is an opportunity for Trump to get his approval ratings up. Americans historically rally around the president during such conflicts. It was either Syria or North Korea that we would attack. With N. Korea the stakes are too steep. This was much safer. I'm expecting Trump's approval ratings will suddenly go up.
2
As long as Putin did NOT help choreograph it!
1
Pounding others into a moral mold believed superior to the poundee's mold is uncalled for. It's mighty weak justification for using lethal, destructive force unilaterally. This is particularly true when the moral compass of the commander-in-chief pounder is known to be defective.
The U.S. missile strike this week in Syria might discourage Syria from future killing sprees with chemical weapons. If the U.S. again just sat on its hands as did Obama, the phony threat president, there is higher probability that Syria would try the chemical tactic again. Idle threats never work, with countries or with children. Obama never could shake his "bluffer" label; we'll soon know if Trump's tactic works better than the Obama bluff.
If the United States is to retain its moral stature in the world, we are required to take action against barbarism. We should have done it three years ago, as we should have when the Hutus were slaughtering the Watusis in Rwanda in 1994. Moral considerations aside, North Korea, Russia and China might be less truculent today if we had.
Daniel Allan
Las Cruces, NM
Daniel Allan
Las Cruces, NM
1
No no a thousand times no. Doesn't matter if this one action is viewed as "right." What follows will be wrong.
3
Trump's strike needn't suggest that the US would intervene in all internecine conflicts around the world, but we do have a long and mostly distinguished history of punishing and trying to halt crimes against humanity such as genocide. With Russia taking the side of the criminal, intervening and reassuring the world that international justice must ultimately prevail if the planet is to survive, and murder, especially mass murder, must be halted and punished, must have seemed to the president like a no-brainer, an ideological win-win situation that paints the bully Putin in the worst possible light, so I'm inclined to agree with the strike with the caveat that if it doesn't bring Assad to the bargaining table, his own life is on the block next.
2
…but this is not a simple yes-no question. My cynicism overtakes my reason when I say that Tillerson gave Assad the green light to do as he pleases two days before the chemical attack, which then allowed Trump to show how compassionate and how tough he is. The real story about Obama's not punishing Assad militarily for crossing the "red line" is that he respected the Constitution and went to Congress--which did not approve of such action. Trump remains a disaster.
15
How is Trump's solution any better than Obama's? It's not. In response to the 2013 attacks, and deprived of Congressional approbation for a military attack, Obama engineered a cooperative solution with the Russians that resulted in the destruction of most of Assad's chemical weapons stockpile. And there were no further chemical attacks - until Trump. Now we have a unilateral escalation that has damaged relations with Russia, that will neither harm nor defeat Assad, and which makes no provision for the elimination of the chemical weapons themselves. It may make us feel better that we have "taken action". But it does nothing whatsoever to solve the problem and it substantially increases the risk of unintended conflict with the Russians. This is a tinderbox and Trump is throwing lit matches.
10