US launches missiles after Syrian chemical attack

[ruby59]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...n-base-after-chemical-weapons-attac/22029434/

 

[redwood66]

Clinton said she would do the same thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html

 

[AnnaH]

Hope it's the right thing. I don't know...

 

[ruby59]

It was vrey limited which was correct, imo.

After what happened, he could not sit back and do nothing.

 

[AnnaH]

Yes, I'm catching up on news--limited and bipartisan support. We shall see.
A very complicated situation.

 

[arkieb1]

I saw footage of young children frothing at the mouth literally dying from being poisoned by the chemical attack on our news. Horrific stuff, they can't sit back and do nothing from a humanitarian POV it has moved past that.

 

[AnnaH]

There is huge support domestically and abroad, so this action may stop the chemical weapons. But will Assad stop killing his own citizens? Unlikely. So much violence against children across the globe. US can't be everywhere, although I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can when we can.
Maybe this is a step toward making the USA matter more on the world stage again. I hope it plays out well.

 

[Arkteia]

There is huge support domestically and abroad, so this action may stop the chemical weapons. But will Assad stop killing his own citizens? Unlikely. So much violence against children across the globe. US can't be everywhere, although I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can when we can.
Maybe this is a step toward making the USA matter more on the world stage again. I hope it plays out well.

For it to play a bigger role, the missile attack has to be supported by US traditional political partners. I have been checking - Netanyahu supported it, of course, and then, Britain, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but most countries give very cautious commentaries. Iran was actively against it. You don't want to get involved in another war in that area without the support of the world community. All the more because there are no US friends there, neither ISIS, nor Assad, nor some other rebels. And we even don't understand who could be a friend. Assad, poisoning own people with sarin, is a horrible person, but he is the most secular of all political figures there. The rest are staunch fundamentalists.

 

[redwood66]

There is actually much support across the world for this action. It is expected that Iran, Syria, and Russia would be against it. Positive comments have come from the EU, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Japan and more.

 

[ruby59]

Something I am just not understanding.

Someone said that Assad could stay in power. So that led him to gas his own people.

I do not understand the connection.

 

[redwood66]

Something I am just not understanding.

Someone said that Assad could stay in power. So that led him to gas his own people.

I do not understand the connection.

It has been postulated that Assad took it as he could do whatever he wanted without repercussions. I am against removing Assad because of the aftermath and lack of leadership it would create. Just like Iraq and Libya. But he cannot be allowed to use chemical weapons.

 

[ruby59]

It has been postulated that Assad took it as he could do whatever he wanted without repercussions. I am against removing Assad because of the aftermath and lack of leadership it would create. Just like Iraq and Libya. But he cannot be allowed to use chemical weapons.

I understand what you are saying about removing him?

But in his mind equating the two - wouldn't that qualify him as a dangerous psychopath?

 

[redwood66]

I think he is one anyway.