What do you think about the U.S. attack on Syria?

President Trump has launched airstrikes in Syria in response to deadly chemical attacks allegedly ordered by the country's president, Bashar Assad, against his own people.What do you think about President Trump's decision to attack the air base?

  • "Right now it's wait and see. As we have seen time and time again in the middle east, we have for the most part supported toppling regimes, and then getting even worse regimes, and wittingly or unwittingly supported the rise of ISIS, the most brutal organization since the rise of the Third Reich." — Leo, St. Cloud via PIN
  • "Part of me is glad to see someone doing something about this inhumane attack. However, in the context of this presidency, I have no faith that this action was a response to a massacre. Why the president chose this time to defend innocent lives, How he did it (was this planned with the Russians?) and what the plans are to move forward are the real issues. It's not about whether or not it was right to bomb Syria. It's about the situation around it before and after that concerns me." — Jo, Eagan via PIN
  • "(President Trump) made a unilateral escalation in the conflicts in that beleaguered country, making war, violating both national and international law. POTUS is causing destruction and loss of life, and wasting our tax money — even worse considering he is secret about his own tax-paying (he applauds dodging taxes) and rejects refugees from conflicts the US is part of." — Amy, Minnapolis via PIN
  • "As I listen to and read the news I wonder. Where are the great diplomats and politicians? Why, if the entire world condemns Assad and his Syrian regime, there isn't a comprehensive international alliance moving against this monster. Why does the Senate invoke the nuclear alternative? Why is there outrage about children killed in Syria and those same children aren't allowed sanctuary in the United States. We now have an admitted amateur as head of the country. The reason this happens is that the professionals we've elected — on the right and left — have disappointed us. Trump is fond of saying that inherited a mess, but his successor will inherit a bigger mess." — Pat, Minneapolis via PIN
  • "Assad using chemical warfare does not mean that we should then use our "allowed" warfare in retaliation. War hurts children, parents, families. It beggars the country that bombs and destroys the country that is being warred on." — Susan, St. Paul via PIN
  • "I don't know. I am a progressive, but not a pacifist, so my first reaction is "I'm glad we did something." However, I can't evaluate whether I agree or not without knowing the strategic aim. How does this fit into the administration's view of our national priorities?" — Toni, St. Paul via PIN
  • "I think it's a bit too late for us to act all high minded about stopping chemical attacks, but anything to stop Assad from having power is going to be a good thing." — David, Minneapolis via PIN
  • "No. It was done purely for domestic propaganda. There are likely more civilians who died that same way and every other day from conventional weapons, injuries and the general chaos than died in the gas attack. Nothing of any true military significance was destroyed, and likely warning the Russians also warned the Syrians. The U.S. has never truly cared at any other time, including supporting Saddam Hussein when he used gas during other times. They have never cared what Hassad or his father did prior to this. Trump surely hasn't, and his prior record shows this." — Paul, Virginia, Minn. via PIN
  • "Responding to the Syrian's use of chemical weapons was warranted, but I sure hope the administration thought the "Powell questions": what was our long-term strategic goal? Can we achieve that? What is the exit strategy? The NSC couldn't have thought out answers to these questions in the short time between the latest toxic gas attack and the response, but hopefully had answers in hand from deliberations during the Obama administration. I surely hope this wasn't just a Trump hiccup." — Larry, Mounds View via PIN
  • "The President has no authority to go to war without an act of Congress unless we are attacked. Congress should not authorized military action, or the use of force, unless we are attacked and there is a declaration of war except in times of insurrection. We should be seeking diplomatic redress of these issues in the United Nations." — Chris, Edina via PIN
  • "At some point, we can't stand by and allow atrocities to continue unabated. If the United States is to stand on higher moral ground, ignoring chemical weapons attacks on non-military / civilian people must have a response. As much as I think Donald Trump is an incompetent, bumbling, bombastic, egotistical idiot, this response was the correct one." — John, St. Paul via PIN
  • "This was a meaningless act of violence that will do nothing to resolve the Syrian Civil War. The politics in this war are crazy. The UN needs to step in and put Assad on trial for criminal acts against his own people. The war needs to end diplomatically with Assad in jail." — Peter, Minneapolis via PIN
  • "No. Not authorized by Congress. Note that President Obama proposed military action against President Assad, but requested Congress authorize action. Congress declined to do so. President Trump took unilateral action without even formal support from our allies. No purpose or strategy for this action has been expressed, other than retaliation for the use of chemical weapons. I believe this is a cover or distraction to divert our attention from President Trump's failures and unconstitutional acts on other matters including his conflicts of interest and nepotism." — Roger, Eden Prairie via PIN
  • "It's illegal to launch a unilateral attack on a foreign country without Congressional approval. The U.S. is not under attack by anybody that I know of. A horrible and stupid act of war." — Jim, St. Paul via PIN
  • "Looking at the poor people that were affected, the President needed to show Syria and the world partners that we will not put up with chemical attack against it's citizens. President Obama and staff said this was taken care of and all disposed of, one more thing his administration messed up." — Tim, St. Louis Park via PIN
  • "I understand the desire to respond after the horrific chemical attack. However, I am not at all clear what this attack accomplishes except some show of U.S. military strength. I do not believe that it will help bring an end to this conflict, and I don't see any longer term goal being addressed." — Judy, Minneapolis via PIN
Powered by ScribbleLive Content Marketing Software Platform