Replies

Your argument for bombing is "we can afford it"? How about the effectiveness argument? The 59 TLAM's we lobbed into Syria a year ago didn't prevent this chlorine attack. Why risk unintended consequences (Russia doing something stupid) for little or no results? Posturing? Political points? "Teach 'em a lesson"? World Police Force? Or ?

Would like to know what changed President Trump's mind...he was very critical of the Obama administration but he does the same thing?

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013

---------------

"In August 2013, Assad’s regime killed more than 1,400 people in a chemical weapons attack on the city of Damascus. Obama wanted to strike Syria in retaliation, but he chose to ask Congress to authorize his use of military force. Obama couldn’t get enough votes to pass his proposal, so he did not order strikes fired in direct retaliation for the chemical attacks."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/12/marco-rubio/trumps-strikes-syria-look-lot-obamas-2013-proposal/

I have no problem with splattering bad guys that use WMD. it’s just deranged to suggest that Russia would directly attack the US, France, and Great Britain because we pimp slapped a dictator that just committed your basic war crime.

Perspective. It’s a thing. Give it a try.