To all those against this attack, consider the situation.

[shockedcanadian]

First, America always receive broad support and global admiration when they are on the right side of history. Meaning, if they stand up for Principle, and present character to the world where others will not or cannot. For those being abused and facing slaughter by their own governments there will and should be consequences. Reagan never had full scale wars, but he did have these types of attacks that altered behaviour, none more effective than these against Ghaddafi in Libya.

Syria broke International law, the defied the agreement that was made by Syria and Russia in regards to Assad having chemical weapons. It went against UN resolutions. There needs to be consequences, or you will have tyrants in N Korea, and closed, abused citizens living in those conditions without anyone willing to help them in their misery.

There was a time the world over that America represented freedom, liberty and a principled nation that faced down bullies and violent leaders. Since this attack precise and committed to attacking the location that had initially fired off these weapons and that Syria and Russia were given notice it's an action that will receive broad support as it should.

This a was a message to Assad, Russia, North Korea and China all at the same time. America is back to backing up words with action, and, in helping those who were terrorised, while ensuring these same factions do not become a direct threat to America. The next steps, if America so chooses; varies broadly and it will keep Assad on his toes. I don't see this being a major confrontation with Syria, at least not immediately...as long as he gets the message...

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

I don't support sending troops into Syria unless there is a clearly identifiable reason why we should to protect America, but I don't care that much about bombing Syria in response to chemical weapon attacks.