Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the civilized world has decided that since the annihilation of millions by despots in the first part of the 20th century they cannot be allowed to cause ruination for their people. The US leads in this respect because no one else will, but they still want it to be done. Just look at the response from leaders across the globe.
Did you support the attack on the secular government in Iraq as well that led to millions of refugees? Which other secular governments do you support bombing to help out jihadists?
Instead you want to attack the secular governments in the Middle East, destroy the countries (which helps out the jihadists) and as a result, flood Europe with refugees. Ask yourself if you would by so supportive of attacks on secular governments in the Middle East if millions of refugees flooded the shores of America and not Europe as a result.
Sorry, I don't see taking out Assad's airbases and airplanes as the big deal you're making it out to be.
Maybe people in Syria will stay there if Assad isn't sarin-gassing them.
And I might be mistaken, but to my knowledge the U.S. did not start the civil war in Syria that created the refugee crisis you are talking about.
Did you support the attack on the secular government in Iraq as well that led to millions of refugees? Which other secular governments do you support bombing to help out jihadists?
I support strategic bombing of governments that use chemical weapons that have been deemed against international law.
Also -- Did I see some Democrat comment that he spoke with Trump.......so maybe there wasn't an official approach to Congress...but there was some dialogue.
Some Congressional members were notified before the strike. As were some allies and Russia.
The original derp liberal line was that Trump was a puppet of Moscow - now that he has ticked Moscow off in a major way - some liberals have moved on to he is a war monger line...something that they wouldn't say about Obama who did quite a bit of bombing and arming of terrorists.
The fact that he discussed the strike with Moscow as opposed to US Congress proves he is indeed a puppet.
I support strategic bombing of governments that use chemical weapons that have been deemed against international law.
In other words, you didnt even want to wait for an international investigation. Just like Iraq, which I am sure you pushed for and argued hard that they should be bombed because....UN...WMD...use of chemical weapons...blablabla. Same old war mongering from you guys.
The fact that he discussed the strike with Moscow as opposed to US Congress proves he is indeed a puppet.
I think Trump's people discussed it with the Russians so that they would have time to prepare and not feel such a need to retaliate after our missile strike.
Trump may be a puppet but he's a puppet to his handlers, not the Russians.
No it didn't 'discuss' with the Kremlin but it did advise Russian officials that they were targeting that airport.
Play on words kids.
Wrong again. The US contacted Russia through the deconfliction hotline in Syria that Obama set up. Get your facts straight. We didn't discuss anything with Russian officials. We directly advised the Russian military that we would be attacking the airfield in 30 minutues, you know, to avoid WWIII. Get your facts straight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.