Why don't we just end it all over in the Middle East? Bomb it all. Forget the money we give to all the apes over there! Excluding Isreal.

Now what?

Will

Her page has disappeared. How convenient.

Must have gotten advice from her sister Jane Fonda.

Yes. End it all or stay out completely.

Mike

Well were those kids gassed or some of the ones caught up in the strikes? Anytime bombs be dropping innocents be dying. While the hole gas thing is horrid, I would love to see proof Assad did it, I mean we said hey we're leaving! All sudden gas attack? Assad knows good and well we will stay if he drops gas attacks, he has nothing to win by doing so?? He is not an idiot. Anytime we start a policy innocents get gassed, Assad has nothing to gain by gassing his people, except our missles falling on him and our continued involvement? That he doesn't want.


Something shady about this entire deal ---

Exactly. There are also terrorist groups over there being funded by the US who have a lot to gain if the US gets more involved, so they're the ones who have a reason to show images of civilians being gassed. If you start looking at alternate news sources, like ones coming out of Syria, there's a lot of info on it.

And the rest of you need to do a little more research on Syria. It wasn't a third world country until the war started, and even now, it's not "mud huts."
Sorry if the link's not working for you guys. It's working fine for me.

The only nation to nuke whole cities says not to use chemical weapons in a war.

The point I was making was Hitler could and should of been stopped long before he was.

no different then a good guy with a gun taking out a bad guy with a gun.

Most of what you post on here makes no sense.

A difficult call. On the one hand, we should mind our own business, like Finn says.

On the other hand, I'm not ready to stand by when atrocities are committed. There is a reason that poison gas is banned by the international rules of warfare. Being gassed is a particularly hideous way to die.

I think the US, Britain, and France did the right thing. Too bad they didn't take out any Russians.

Jim

Putin loves his poisons-I wonder if Trump has a food taster.

I do remember that and I was and am one that still believes it. But - two of your neighbors are having a property dispute, we expect them to settle it between themselves not run over to my home and get me involved and screw up my life. But then one of the neighboring men decide to beat up the other neighbors wife & kids, now I'm involved. Period. A very silly example I admit but where do we draw the line between not wanting to get involved in someone else's disputes & going 'oh crap, that's just to much'? I don't have the answers.

It's a tough call. Let folks settle their own disputes or when murder is involved should we step in.
There's murder that takes place every day in the U.S.A. and is allowed by law. I don't agree with it and would love to see it abolished. but I suppose the american people support this form of murder. I guess the majority would also support an/or not give a darn about Syria's form of murder.

Should've used 1 bomb the MOAB and really put the fear in them

For sure a tough call. We are at the mercy of our government on making good choices as we by far don't know the whole story.

I think the people in that country don't have the means to do anything on their own. I would bet their country is split on radical and vulnerable.

Striking to take away the means to deliver and the chemical weapons themselves is one thing. Flattening half a town and killing a bunch of civilians is quite another. Young children for the most part are innocent, at least to the time when they get into the hands of teachers. After that all bets are off, what their beliefs may be.

If we stopped the neighbor from beating the other neighbor's wife and kids once and settled it for good we might be OK...

The problem is that we help the victim neighbor push the bully neighbor out. And then the victim neighbor decides to turn into the bully neighbor.

We propped up the Shah in Iran. He was such a corrupt scumbag that the Iranian people felt they'd be better off with the Ayatollahs...

So to fix that little foulup we propped up Saddam Hussein. He was a murdering psychopathic dictator that we wound up having to depose...

We helped depose Khadaffi. But Libya didn't turn into a Southern Mediterranean vacation destination after Muammar got bounced out...

So now we are backing rebels to fight Assad... If they manage to oust Assad what kind of leader will the rebels replace Assad with?

It turns into a hornet's nest every time. The CIA needs a new playbook.

Mike

We'd probably replace him with someone worse like the murderous radicals in Saudi Arabia that we support. The US track record is terrible. From what I've read, the Christians in Syria are taking the side of the government, because Assad's the only one who doesn't want them dead.
Here's a different article I found. https://jamesperloff.com/2018/03/30/a-syrian-christian-reveals-what-is-really-happening-in-syria/

The Saudi's are bombing civilians like its in style in Yemen.

I'm not particularly opposed to bombing to stop the use of chemical weapons... But I doubt we will be able to maintain our involvement at just that level.

Somewhere along the way Syria/Russia will strike back at us and/or the coalition. And we'll have another Gulf of Tonkin and escalate our involvement from that point.

I do not see a positive long-term outcome from our involvement.

Mike