04-09-2017, 05:04 PM
(04-09-2017, 03:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm not sure why there is praise or criticism. IMO, this was a necessary action as reprisal for failing to abide by the agreement, which was specifically to get rid of chemical weapons. Almost literally the only way to have done less would have been to do nothing.
So I'm not sure what you think this means in terms of long-run policy goals. We were kind of backed into a corner by virtue of making the agreement in the first place. Not that we shouldn't have gone that route, but Assad kind of forced our hand here. I don't see how this bombing, on its own, represents any "long-term policy", much less a change in one.
And it's quality spin claiming Trump triggered an attack with weapons Syria wasn't supposed to have....it's Trump's fault, not a failure of the prior administration. Nice.
UN Security Council resolution 2118
Syria is in violation by using chemical weapons. Of course, Syria and the Russians blame the rebels. So who are we going to believe? US intelligence agencies Trump has already has discredited?
The US is also in violation of the resolution we attacked Syria for violating because IAW the legally binding resolution we signed, a second vote by the UN Security Council is required to authorize military force. That is what some call "checks and balances" so kids don't launch tomahawk missiles in the middle of the night like they launch Congressional investigations with their Twitter account.
