For those against the attack, what should have been done after the chemical attacks?

[Rustyeye77]

Ignore , it's not our business ?
Go to congress ?
Go to UN ?

I'm willing to learn.

[Blues Heron]

1. rah rah rah

here comes the 101st Chairborne Division

[L. Coyote]

62. First, find out who was responsible with certainty. This is what trump recommended.

How do we know the gas wasn't a Russian or ISIS operation intended to entangle the USA, or even a false flag Trump operation?

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or, do we just believe whatever we are told to believe?

"Someone said it looked like a Syrian plane" isn't good enough.

Did trump burn our Constitution and carry out an act of war without knowing the facts?

Was the well-advertised air strike carried out to deflect from #TrumpRussia and to prevent his poll numbers from going below 30%?
If so, was the gas attack part of the plan? Call me cynical, but we all knew trump was going to carry out some kind of major deflection any day.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Authorization for Military Force Against Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

[OregonBlue]

107. Since his family doesn't live there, I was hoping they'd blow up his huge, tacky presidential palace

It really is a symbol of oppression.

[nycbos]

2. There are no good options when it comes to Syria.

After that chemical attack that strike might have been the least bad of all the other bad options.

[Cosmocat]

20. THIS

Correct.

Because we used up all of our moral authority abroad to develop support and a coalition, as well the the domestic tolerance for the loss of our lives and resources to do it, when Bush lied the country into Iraq, we can't put boots on the ground to go into Syria and removes Assad.

SO ... all we could do is punch him in the nose to let him know he at least can't use chemical weapons.

End of the day, as much as W, the republicans and now with 45, our standing is greatly diminished, we are still the country that if possible, has to deal with these things.

[treestar]

3. When President Obama considered it

there were plenty of DU responses against it.

[Littlered9560]

4. Try out ones molling trolling skills on a left wing website?

That's what I'm guessing. Do I win a prize?

[Rustyeye77]

14. That's really insulting.

I won't dignify that response.

[eniwetok]

79. WHAT'S THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ATTACK???

I can find nothing in the Constitution that says the Commander in Chief has the power to attack a nation that poses no threat... and we are treaty bound not to attack nations that did not attack us nor pose no immediate threat to us. There is no UNSC resolution I know of that authorizes this attack.

[Langkous]

5. Try this ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/syria-chemical-attack-trump-response-humanitarian-crisis

[underpants]

6. Good article.

[Yavin4]

30. Those measures are helpful but they're not going to get at a solution

Yes, we should accept refugees, but that's not going to stop the indiscriminate killing.

[Squinch]

81. Neither is creating a lot of potholes next to an airstrip in a Kabuki dance with Putin

that costs you and me tens of millions of dollars.

[frankieallen]

93. more of the same meaningless bullshit.

none of this has done anything to stop chemical attacks, so lets double down and really do it this time.
Please....

[That Guy 888]

97. I doubt tRump's inneffectual strike will stop anything either.

He warned the Russians who in turn warned the Assad regime to move anything that they didn't want destroyed. The airfield was in operation that afternoon.

" so lets double down and really do it this time."

Who should we back in Syria? Will Turkey, Iran and Iraq be ok if Kurds get more independent power in Syria? Should we favor the Sunni or the Shia when "we really do it this time"? How do we separate truly dangerous terrorists from insurgents who received material support from DAESH or Al-Quaeda?

Trump has no strategic vision and our military believes that "the Surge" actually worked. I doubt they have an end-game in mind.

[Recursion]

7. Well, Obama's response to the last one was pretty effective

He pressured Russia to pressure Assad to stop, and Assad stopped until the day after Tillerson let him out of the doghouse.

[LeftInTX]

42. The Trump team was stupid

And Trump's verbal reaction to the gassing indicates to me that he probably didn't pay attention to Assad's previous gassings.

I think Trump thought that Syrian rebels were nothing but Jhadis and ISIS. I know Trump bashed Obama about Syria, but Trump will bash anyone about anything without understanding the details.

[bigtree]

8. take the complaint to the U.N. Security Council

...seek congressional support and approval.

Act in accordance with the will of Congress and in concert with the international community.

[Voltaire2]

15. That would be the right answer.

[old guy]

19. This would have been a much, much better and more sane approach.

What he did was wag the dog.

[kacekwl]

23. Agreed,

When does arrest for war crimes become a possibility ? Is that not an option ? Getting Assad out of power is the goal yes.

[workinclasszero]

38. Bingo!

Or be a cowboy John Wayne, draft dodging yellow coward with the press breathing down your neck about Russian ties and inform your boss Vladimir Putin of the impending strike first so Assad could get all the important equipment and personal off the base beforehand like BLOTUS 45 just did!

[WePurrsevere]

64. I agree. Although it needed a response, this bombing 'show' was not it. nt

[randr]

65. In a perfect world with intelligent leaders this is the appropriate course of action

Given the politicization of the UN and our own Congress this will never happen.
I am inclined to accept TR's advice: Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Again, neither option is in the realm of possibility with the lsos in charge.
And, imho, a big stick should have come down on Assads head long ago.

[Tatiana]

73. Exactly. This is an international problem.

But would they have gotten a resolution out of the Security Council? Wouldn't Russia veto?

I do agree, the U.N. Security Council is the place for these types of decisions to be be made.

[bigtree]

78. it's notable that they didn't try

...imagine Trump organizing an international coalition.

It would take some sacrifice of his ego and tempering of his rhetoric and agenda. That community lives in the real world.

Of course, the fallback isn't that strikes are inevitable because of his deficiencies in valuing diplomacy and international cooperation. The question is what should he do, as opposed, perhaps, to what he's inclined to do.

[Kentonio]

100. You go to the UN, and you present the evidence you have.

Russia always have the possibility to veto, but if you've provided concrete evidence then the international community then change their views towards Russia.

The US is just one country in the world, it has to work within the same diplomatic rules as everyone else. The dive towards unilateral action over recent years has done terrible things to America's reputation globally. How can governments of either party stand up and talk about equality and freedom and human rights when they regularly attack other nations without any international consensus, and refuse to submit to international judicial organizations?

[DonCoquixote]

90. question

when the UN pretty much bowed down to china and russia, then what? I am agaisnt the action, but the Un seems to be little more than do whatever china and russia want

[L. Coyote]

9. Investigate who is responsible first.

Somehow that step has been overlooked.

[nini]

10. If you're willing to learn

The first thing to do is accept the fact the middle east is a clustterfuck with a long history of not much working to change it.

Then you need to acknowledge we have an asshole in the white house who needs a Reichstag moment.

This same asshole wants to ban these same people from coming to this country he wants to "protect" with this military action. That doesn't seem a bit suspicious?

He also warned the Russians to diminish the effect of the strikes.

45 is a master of manipulation. All this positive reaction to this explains a lot on how that deplorable man got so many fooled to vote for him in the first place.

[anneboleyn]

28. EXACTLY. ANSWERED. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can fall for this attack -- no refugees

and "isolationist" Trump criticizes Obama for years re: Syria and never gives a shit about any "beautiful babies" being killed in Syria. Yet in a day or two he reverses his position and suddenly cares and so sends some bombs over. This is so transparent that it's sickening to watch any media at all right now.

[nini]

36. I am stunned at otherwise logical people falling for this on facebook

Say what you want about Trump but he knows how to play people and this is just one more scam against the American people

[leftynyc]

11. There aren't any good options

The IDEAL would be to work with Russia to create a no-fly zone and safe zones for refugees - but that's just a bandaid. The reality is both sides that are fighting suck.

[Jim Beard]

96. Syria is full of Russians now!

[Johnny2X2X]

12. Follow the Constitution!

Congress should have been consulted at the very least. And don't warn them before hand.

Can you imagine if Obama had done this without Congressional approval and he had warned them? They were threatening to impeach him if he did exactly what Trump did.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. I don't think you can make the case for these strikes being unconstitutional.

They seem legal pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. As long as Trump gets Congressional approval within 48 hours of starting the attacks -- and he will get this approval -- the strikes will continue.

The President doesn't need a permission slip to commit American forces to combat. He only needs permission to keep them in combat for a period longer than two days.

[TXCritter]

26. Yes we can

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028904504

30 USC 1541(c) clearly requires a Declaration of War, a statutory authorization or an attack against the US. This case doesn't fit those requirements.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. I think you mean 50 USC 1541(c)

30 USC 1541 has to do with geology.

In any event, you're right. I overlooked that provision of the War Powers Resolution (not a lawyer here). That said, opinion among legal scholars seems divided at this point. There is precedent for the president attacking without having been attacked first.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that the president's ability to wage war should be checked. I'm just not convinced the legal case Lord Helmet is strong at this point. Of course, I could be wrong.

[Orrex]

98. And fuck Trump's rejection of geothermal energy in federal facilities, while we're at it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

99. Damn skippy.

It's pretty telling that you could pull a provision from the USC by accident and still find good reason to criticize Minority President Trump.

[Orrex]

101. Honestly, I never would have spotted it if not for your post pointing it out

But you're right--throw a dart in the general direction of US law, and it'll hit some statue he's violating.

[still_one]

56. The executive branch should have consulted with Congress, whether it was required by the

Constitution or not.

[still_one]

55. Thank you. At the minumum that should have been done

[uponit7771]

13. Something smart and patriotic? Warning the Russians and Syrians ahead of time wasn't that

[AngryAmish]

16. What Obama did - nothing.

Not our war. Obama was a great President.

[IndianaDave]

106. Actually, President Obama did more than nothing --

He negotiated with Putin to have the Russians ensure the destruction and removal of Assad's chemical stockpiles, which we now know they did not do. Trump should have publicly criticized the Russians - and Putin in particular - for flailing to fulfill their commitment to get rid of those chemical weapons. Then, he should have gone to Congress to get approval for an act of war - as all presidents should do before taking unilateral actions, particularly when there is no direct threat to the United States. Finally, he should have softened his stance on Syrian refugees as a humanitarian act. Unfortunately, Trump seems incapable of doing anything except eating and golfing.

[WoonTars]

17. Nothing. If he wasn't willing to let them in the country when they were alive...

...he doesn't get to start chucking cruise missiles around because they're dead...

[sarisataka]

18. A strike on Syrian AF C3

Installations would have sent the same message, used less misses and been timed to minimize casualties as well.

[stevenleser]

91. While that would have been a much more effective message, the problem with that is...

we want Syrian AF command and control to be as effective as possible against ISIS. Otherwise we have just in effect reduced Syrian Air Superiority in the fight against ISIS.

[sarah FAILIN]

21. Trump said Syria is not our concern

Back when Obama wanted to act in 2013.

Trump should follow his own advice

[WhiteTara]

22. Since when was it okay for us to strike a sovereign nation?

The UN is the place to resolve this and to build consensus for appropriate action.

Edit to add...since when did Trump become King and didn't need approval from Congress? This is wrong on many fronts.

[stillcool]

25. if Trump gassed us...

what would you like another country to do?

[anneboleyn]

29. Why shoot missiles at us and not allow any refugees into their country! Just like Trump!

[Jonny Appleseed]

27. Assassinate Assad

[tavernier]

60. That was my thought.

Or are there others even crazier? That's always the argument. Hard to imagine.

[delisen]

31. Something other than this Lone Ranger strike on one airfield. This was a show attack

I think a president should go to Congress for authorization and that authorization for force against Assad military should be aimed at more than one airfield.

I think this was a "show" attack to give the appearance of something being done and also an attempt to make it appear that Trump is not a Putin puppet.

The way this was done is another step in the Putin-Trump war alliance and continues the weakening of Congress's authority regarding war.

Going to UN is all right but Russia has veto power.

I think Putin agreed to allow this limited strike by Trump in order to keep him in power. Putin has found our Achilles heel and is exploiting it.

[Canoe52]

32. Well first thing, if you are going to call in an air strike

is fucking hit the target.

[Rustyeye77]

44. I definitely agree.

The gang that could shoot straight.

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. Is there actually proof who and what and why about this chemical attack?

[doc03]

34. It played well with the coffee shop crowd this morning.

Some comments: It is about time we have President with some b---s.
Obama always told them in advance what he was going to do?
I haven't seen Republicans doing their thumbs up sign for weeks, this morning they were back.
A Democrat said he was sick of hearing about Russia and unmasking.
Even Nancy Polosi agreed with Trump.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

35. Well, I know attacking an empty airbase with Putin and Assad's prior knowledge....

....is what we shouldn't have done.

[Iggo]

37. Kill! Kill! Kill!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. I'm not quite sure I know how to feel about the strike yet

Depends a lot on what comes next and even how effective the strike may (or may not) have been in knocking out Assad's ability to do further chemical attacks. I think that some people here are a bit put off by the fact that Trumpublicans have been smearing President Obama over what happened in 2013 and his failure to act militarily in spite of intense Congressional opposition and in spite of the fact that a peaceful resolution actually was achieved and held right up until now- when Trump essentially seemed to communicate to Syria/Russia that we were not going to get involved and that we were basically going to leave them alone. Of interest is, how did Syria get chemical weapons (again)?

[JHan]

41. Good questions - on principle I've no problem with intervention.

Unilateral action may be sometimes necessary.

Suffering everywhere concerns me, I'd hope that if I suffer under a regime, someone else in the world would care as well.

I think the core of your question is really about war, and the sense of it - whether we ignore conflicts claiming they're none of our business, seek consensus or act unilaterally.

It all depends on the situation. With regard to Syria, this strike is 6 years too late.

Now yeah, lots of leftists will say .. but war is bad!

And yes, many wars are fought for futile reasons, for selfish reasons like profit or nationalistic reasons. But extreme pacifism is not realistic and ignores that conflict is part of the human condition. Throughout History there have been ideas and beliefs worth fighting for - imagine if the pacifists had their way in the 30's?

I am no fan of Assad. He is as despicable as his father. Assad has used every perverse tool in the book to attack his own citizens - from outright slaughter, airstrikes, chemical strikes, to starvation. And even if we don't wish to get directly involved, we won't even accept their refugees. We treat refugees as pariahs and in the age of Trump, millions of freedom-loving Americans voted to bar them entry.

When I read comments in conversations like this, I ask myself what it would be like to live under the brutal heel of a dictatorship, would I pray for intervention? someone to come help? I probably would. My views on this are also colored by my friendship with an Iranian who's had to leave his country - more than anything else in the world he'd love to see an end to the regime there. And there are hundreds of thousands of Iranians like him living in exile. Already this is a complicated picture I'm painting here, where Pacifist or Militaristic solutions don't fit neatly in the landscape, since they're flip sides of the same coin.

Being anti-interventionist doesn't make one compassionate, in the same way being a warmonger doesn't mean you have a genuine desire to protect others. Some wars are necessary and some are not, and it's important to have leaders who understand the difference.

Trump doesn't understand the difference, his motives are not humanitarian, and that is the problem we face.

[ananda]

43. It probably would have helped to keep Russia out of the loop ..

.. and to consult with Congress and inform Americans first.

It would also have helped to do the job correctly, to take out
the planes and actually destroy the chemical weapons sites.

What 45 did was what Nance calls Kabuki theater. The strikes
did no serious damage, and no one was informed ahead of time
but Russia.

It looks like this was designed to allow Putin to tacitly approve
while publicly disapproving, and to give 45 a bump in public
and media approval.

[Demsrule86]

45. An attack that took out the air force and/or did lasting harm to their ability to use their

chemical weapons made sense...but this was a 'we have to do something' attack...and pointless.

[AngryAmish]

46. Ignore it.

[randome]

47. Immediately hire Barack Obama to take charge.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cwydro]

49. Last I heard, he was in Tahiti.

Probably laughing his ass off.

[randome]

50. Laughing one moment, crying the next, I'd bet.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[malaise]

48. Learn the law

He violated the US Constitution and International Law.

Maybe China should invade the US for its treatment of minorities.

[ck4829]

51. Let's ask Rep. Michael Burgess

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028907078

[Blue_true]

52. If we were going to launch missiles, the base should have been left inoperable.

For Syria to be able to immediately launch sorties from it, indicates a waste of time and money on our part.

[still_one]

53. Without a doubt they should have gone to Congress and the UN

[C_U_L8R]

54. Notify congress, not Putin.

And both parties, please.

And actually have a plan more intelligent than making potholes in an evacuated airfield.

Starting with the UN would have been the smart thing to do.

[littlemissmartypants]

57. If only 45 had considered Self-immolation. Sigh. eom

[oberliner]

58. Are you in favor of the attack?

If so, what do you think the next move should be?

[Rustyeye77]

66. I don't know how I feel.

Mixed emotions.

Sometimes you can't let things go unanswered.

Dealing with the UN is a waste of time.

[Rustyeye77]

68. Oberliner

Zyclon B

[oberliner]

69. What does this post mean?

Can you clarify?

[Rustyeye77]

70. C'mon.... You don't know what Zyclon /Zyklon B is ?

[oberliner]

76. I don't know what writing my screen name and "Zyclon B" mean as a post

If you could explain what you meant, I would appreciate it.

[Rustyeye77]

84. Ok

The use of chemical weapons did not start in Syria.

The nazis became quite good at it...sadly. Their gas of choice was Zyklon B.

This was a crime against humanity at the Neuremberg trials.

If Iran or Syria used chemical weapons against Jews , would people here feel differently?

(I'm almost afraid to ask that)

And after much thought, I would want the world to take immediate action. And the innocent people gassed in Syria deserve no less.

Those who forget the past...

[oberliner]

86. When you write that you want the world to take immediate action

What action did you have in mind?

What should the US role be?

[Rustyeye77]

87. I keep answering your questions.

What's YOUR thoughts ?

Does the use of chemical weapons bother you ?

I believe it's a crime against humanity...no different than the nazis. The innocent people in Syria deserve no less.

My belief..bomb the shit out of their chemical weapons munitions.

We can't be everything but we can take a stand against chemical weapons. I refuse to forget the past.

What's your opinion?

I'm look foward to your opinion.

[oberliner]

88. Thanks for the response

I appreciate you sharing your insights.

I would point out that the US was neutral in WWII until Germany declared war on us. If Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor, it is quite likely that the US would have stayed out of that war completely. Certainly Germany's horrific actions against its own Jewish population was not the impetus for US participation by any stretch of the imagination.

In terms of Syria, my view is pretty much in line with Obama's who recognized that there were essentially nothing but bad options and hoped that by bringing the Syrian atrocities to light (via, for instance, testimony at the UN) might shame Russia to withdraw its support for Assad. Unfortunately, Putin does not seem to have been moved by such considerations.

The question, then, remains, are we willing to accept the possibility of war on a potentially massive scale where US forces could conceivably be engaged in active combat with Russian forces over Syria? This could lead to high numbers of American casualties, along with continued Syrian civilian casualties, and an exacerbating refugee crisis (unimaginable as that seems).

Maybe what the Syrian government is doing right now is heinous enough that the answer is yes. But the reality of what such a war might look like is somewhat terrifying.

[Squinch]

82. You're not even trying to hide it, are you?

[jmg257]

59. I'm with Her - take out their airforce and air fields. Although MUCH easier said than done

what with Russia air assets all over the place.

Concentrated missile strikes is small small 'reasoned' response, as a taste of what could be, without putting Americans in harm's way.

[randr]

61. I think the attack was an appropriate military response given the gas attack

Our military is not only our means of national defense, they are also the only force capable of maintaining international law.
I suspect members of the Joint Chiefs confronted Trump and informed him the attack would be carried out. Why they have let other such actions by Assad go by I am not sure. It may be that lsos has put us in a position where we are forced to establish some authority given the distrust we now have among world leaders.
The lsos has merely used the situation in his favor, enhanced by the lack of concern by Repub House members. The difference of reaction from the House is that they know this type of action makes the CinC look like he is in command. They denied that to Obama and are willing to give it to the lsos.
It is difficult to call out this strike as criminal, especially if congress refuses to establish their authority in the matter, and, the strike can be seen as a reaction to an even greater crime in international terms.
The use of the situation to distract us from criminal investigations of the lsos is inexcusable; with blame falling equally on the MSM. Holding a fake security council meeting at a golf course is a new low in American history.

[Mc Mike]

63. Immediately increase sanctions against russia.

Immediately reverse course on Syrian refugee ban.

[kcr]

67. I don't think you ignore atrocities like that

But Trump warned them ahead of time and then basically wasted millions of dollars of missiles for no reason just to look good and accomplished nothing in order to distract from the investigations of his collusion with Russia. While refusing to admit the very people he's supposedly helping as refugees. If this had been an actual president doing something actually helpful, it would be a different story. I'm sure there would be plenty still against whatever action it was, but you would see more like me.

[David__77]

71. Nothing specifically in response to that incident.

...

[Lee-Lee]

72. An enforced no fly zone would have been much better

short and long term.

It eliminates Assads ability to deliver those weapons and only requires use of force if he violates it.

Given them 48 hours and after that only allow flights along designated paths between airports or in and out of the country. Anything else gets shot down.

The same strategy proved very effective at containing Saddam for all the years of the Clinton Administration.

[tblue37]

74. Investigate to figure out for sure who was responsible for it. nt

[Odoreida]

75. Nothing.

The USA should stop trying to be world cop.

It *always* makes matters worse.

[mvd]

77. Agree

I am generally for no action at all unless the US is in imminent danger. A strong denunciation and aid to refugees would be my plan.

[Squinch]

80. Well, let's see... what has WORKED in the past? A few things:

1)Pressure Russia to pressure Assad to divest of chemical weapons
2)DON'T signal through the Secretary of State that we don't really care what Assad does to his people.

That bought us 3 and a half years last time. How about something along those lines again?

And PS, that worked. Do you think making potholes NEXT TO an airstrip, not even ON the airstrip, is going to keep Assad in check for the next 3 and a half years?

Oh, wait! He used that same airstrip the next day to launch a bombing raid. So it didn't even buy us 24 hours.

If you're willing to learn, you don't have to work too hard to find a better strategy than the one you appear to be saying was justified.

[panader0]

83. Humanitarian aid.

[yurbud]

85. How do you know for sure Syria used chemical weapons?

They are winning and they know certain circles among the US elite are itching for an excuse to escalate the conflict.

The 2013 gas attack that was blamed on Syria turned out to have been done by the rebels with the help of Turkey.

[oberliner]

89. A rebel held area was attacked from the air

And people died from chemical weapon exposure.

That same rebel held area was just attacked again from the air by Syrian forces.

What other explanation could there be?

[yurbud]

92. the rebels had chemical weapons on the ground, which is possible since they were the ones

who had them in 2013 attack.

[oberliner]

94. OK

But how does that offer an alternate possibility for how those people were killed?

[yurbud]

95. an airstrike hits munitions and they explode

[Warpy]

102. All of the above were possibilities

especially since we don't know for certain who lobbed the gas into that village. Stockpiles are all over the country in areas that have changed hands several time over. At the beginning of this mess 6 years ago, it would have been fairly easy to point the finger at Assad.

That isn't the case today. Now all sides have at least a few of those things.

That's why we had trade sanctions against Russia, to put pressure on Assad to try to end this thing. In comes Asshole, buddied up with Putin for all his help in the election, then shoots without thinking after his daughter gets weepy about all those poor babies.

Anything would have been better than what Asshole did.

[lies]

103. Something meaningful... except

First the garbage Trump did accomplished zero, so if you want to stop chemical attacks - which is frankly a bit of a red herring - accomplishing zero isn't the place to start.

Second, the US is doing much much much much worse in Yemen:

Half a million children could starve to death in Yemen war

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/half-a-million-children-are-dying-of-starvation-in-yemen-says-un-w3hk693m3

So, if Americans actually gave a single fuck about starving children.....

Finally, Syria is a problem created by the US. What SHOULD happen is the US troops should go put their boots on the ground and stay there until the problem THEY created is resolved. EVEN if means hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

That's the real truth, but we all know that the US government and populace is utterly ok with mass starvation in Yemen, and unwilling to send troops to their deaths to solve a problem it created.

So instead we shoot 100m in millions at an abandoned airfield and claim we're some sort of moral supermen. Oh and refuse to take refugees in meaningful numbers. That's America.

Ugly hypocrisy at it's worst.

[Historic NY]

104. Watched and waited until they were certain...

who, what, where, why and how Assad conducted the attacks. You just pack sarin gas into a closet.

Then again this came out this morning....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4397074/Assad-General-revealed-pilot-dropped-sarin-bomb.html

[nikibatts]

105. Not a damn thing!

Thousand are being slaughtered in the Congo every day. Families broken up, women tortured, raped. Children forced to shoot parents. All kinds of atrocities and no one is giving a shit. The media doesn't report, our government doesn't care but we pretend how feeling bad over photos of poisoned children makes us super compassionate, protectors of morality and savior of the world...but only the world that has oil and poses a threat to Israel.

FUCK that! We are hypocrites of the highest order!

[yurbud]

108. stop our allies from funding beheading "rebels," and ask our politicians what it is

they really want from Syria, so we can decide if it's worth killing people.

While average Americans care about dying children, those billionaires who determine our foreign policy and buy politicians to execute it do not.

Otherwise, we would not have dropped a single bomb anywhere after turning Iraq and Libya into sectarian dystopias of chaos and death.

Likewise, if we cared about human rights, democracy, respecting the borders of neighbors, and even supporting terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, we would not be supporting and arming Saudi Arabia, the worst of the worst in all those categories.

When you look at history, few wars have humanitarianism at their base with the possible exception of our Civil War.

And even the "Good War," was incidentally good. A lot of average Americans were glad to take out the racist Nazis and rightly so, but our elites saw it as an opportunity to pick up the pieces of the decaying British Empire.

If those at the top of our government hated fascists, they wouldn't have installed them in power in so many governments AFTER World War II, and backed them whenever the locals wanted higher wages, unions, land reform, or real democracy.

[JCMach1]

109. While awful- how many countless

Attacks on civilians have there been in Syria? A few tomahawks does nothing about that. In fact, bombings continue unabated.

[Rustyeye77]

110. So we do nothing?

We cant even draw a line on chemical weapons.

[JCMach1]

111. Didn't say that- just pointing

Out the hypocrisy in the decision.