NBC News Fox News

I don't know how to feel about this. I know we are told Trump did this in response to chemical warfare, but I am still worried.

This is really troubling. I've heard they warned Putin and the Syrian government ahead of time. I think this is a distraction from all the other shit he and the other GOPs are doing. I mean, since when they actually cared about the people of Syria? They refuse to help the refugees but all of a sudden, he has a heart? There's got to be more than a response to that horrific and unwarranted attack.

Going to war with Syria is not in anyone's best interest. While I totally think we (meaning well developed countries) need to do something to help these people, bombing them and leading a ground assault is not the way. Say we do all this and we get rid of their current government like we did in Iraq, then what? That's going to create a huge void for ISIS to move in and spread their shit. I don't know what the answer to all this is, but war isn't it.

I'm really worried about what's going to happen. The US does not need to enter a war that could result in WWIII

I agree; I think it is a distraction from his incompetence as a political figure and a decent human being. The shit he's trying to pass is only going to help big businesses, not small businesses. The dumb stuff he's said is, well, disgusting. The EPA needs more funding, not to be cut further! And he started war within how many weeks in office?

I do fear this is the start of WWIII.

I don't like war anymore than you do, and while I'm not pro-war, I can understand the unfortunate need for it, so long as it is justified. I think that eventually we would have gone to war anyway, but it's pointless without helping the refugees first. Sure, ISIS (a.k.a. goat fuckers international) can spread people into these groups of refugees, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help the majority. We should have also planned this out with the aid of other countries, not attack first and hope for the best.

And they better make sure that they fix everything they broke, and the things that were broken before invading.

lets loose a long, tired sigh I do not see the human race changing at all. We are bigoted against one thing or another, ignorant to the strings that the media pulls us by, all too happy to react in anger first and think later if at all... sorry, ranting.

I have panic disorder already, so all of these terrorist attacks and now this have me making sure I take my pills on time so I don't freak out and do something I may or may not regret later. And I'm out of prazosin until my psychiatrist comes back from her vacation because they say they need prior authorization or some crap and those are the pills that stop me from having nightmares.

I feel so bad for all the people affected by this cruel world.

Honestly, I think war with Syria may very well be inevitable as much as I don't like it and don't agree with it. I don't want a war. I didn't want a war with Syria when Obama almost went to war with his "red line" rhetoric to Syria only to back down. He didn't get approval from congress so never officially went to war, but war with Syria may be an event that was going to happen whether any of us wanted it to or not.

It really feels like one of those lose-lose situations. No amount of missiles will take back this latest chemical attack in Syria nor any of the earlier ones and it feels like fighting in Syria has been going on for quite some time. :x Will this prevent further chemical attacks? I don't know. Was it worth it? Eh. I don't know. I feel like chemical warfare is a very arbitrary line. Personally, war is war, whether you use missiles or chemicals or whatever else, you know? Sure, certain methods are more appalling than others, but choosing to escalate things over this is kind of like... really, you chose now to act? /shrugs

I'm very conflicted about this.

(this is all general "you" btw)

You hear people say: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But then you hear: the only thing it takes for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing. Yeah, this situation is more complex than a bunch of sayings, but you can see the issues here.

I'm like well there's Assad but they ain't got anybody better in Syria so... what can they do realistically speaking?

In addition, you can't eradicate ideology geographically. It's not that easy. But what is the solution? Idk, man, idk. :l

This + all the North Korea tensions makes me tense about world affairs at present. :x

not trying to be melodramatic but my face when reading world news is constantly like:

Also, I'm not good with laws and politics, but how did Obama end up being defeated by Congress but Trump got to launch his missiles? I missed the whole legal aspects of this. :0 Was it voted for by Congress really fast or did he have executive action for this and Obama just didn't want to use that?

The end of the world is on its way, I tell ya.

Article 1: section 8 of the constitution which enumerates the powers that congress has.

That said, congress hasn't formally declared war since WWII though Bush did seek congressional approval for Iraq. Most presidents have cited their rights as commander-in-chief to declare war thus, how Trump launched the airstrikes without congressional approval. Obama launched the Libyan airstrikes in 2011 without congressional approval as well, but eventually sought official congressional approval with Syria in 2013 because at the time, no one wanted to go to war, both in terms of the general population and congress. He never got the approval so he backed down.

Can Syria take Trump's missiles as a declaration of war due to aggression without the US making official declaration of war? :0 Thank you for the explanation! n__n

To be honest, I don't know since I'm not even sure at this point if Trump will seek congressional approval. Syria right now is more or less a wait and see type thing.

My dad said he doesn't need Congress approval if you read the... I forget. But he should know what he's talking about, he was in the Navy and an E7 rank. Also Syria, since using chemical warfare, committed a war crime so something needed to be done. Yeah I don't like war or anything but that's the world we live in: sometimes force is necessary. I don't like it, my father doesn't like it, but we know that it is an unfortunate truth.

Also seeking approval probably wouldn't have been helpful in a surprise attack. Look at the Bay of Pigs incident.

The War Powers Resolution cites a 60 day limit so there is that too. Basically, troops have a 60 day limit before they have to pull out if the president hasn't received congressional approval.

That said, there's been a number of presidents that have ignored it or found ways around it. I know there was talk that Obama was in violation of it for Libya; also that Clinton was in violation of it for Kosovo.

I also think I remember that Bush was initially in violation of it too but eventually sought and received approval for the Iraq War.

Bush didn't exactly give congress a choice in that matter if I remember correctly. I don't know about Clinton since I was too young when he was in office, but I do remember that controversy. Either congress accepted the attack and war so we could get our defenses together or not and Bush steamrolled them. They should have fucking gotten rid of Hussein the first time around, but I believe that was also a controversy because of the Bush family.

Not like congress is any better, constantly battling itself and the citizens with the conservatives versus liberals bullshit.

I was in middle school during Kosovo so I'm in the same boat that I don't really remember it. I was looking up news reports of it and quite a few said that at the time, Kosovo was apparently believed to be in violation of the War Powers Resolution. Obama, I believe never specifically cited Libya as war and stated he had authority as both the US Head of NATO and as commander-in-chief to act, but I know that eventually pressure forced him to get approval for Syria.

That said, I do believe that if Trump does officially go to war he should seek congressional approval, but whether he will when presidents on both sides haven't, I honestly don't know. At this point, considering Syria has been a contentious issue for years, a war may very well have ended up happening regardless of whether the president was Trump or someone else.

I am however, worried about the aftermath. The U.S. track record in regards to wars in the middle-east hasn't exactly been good. Desert Storm was a failure, Iraq war was a failure and Afghanistan just dragged on for years, but we didn't get a decisive victory there either.

Syria's been using chemical warfare already though. I get what you're saying, but if the world or US really cared it would have done things long ago. Nothing in the news this time was remotely new or surprising.

I hope this is a step in the right direction though. Like said, US track record (I might add in general) is pretty crappy.

I don't understand the first part of your statement...? I said that since Syria has been using chemical warfare against its people that it's a war crime that needs to be punished. I agree that something needed to be done but for some reason people (read: countries) were dragging their asses to avoid it. I also said that it's similar to what happened with the Iraq war because the U.S.' main target wasn't oil, it was to remove Hussein from power because they didn't do it in the previous gulf war when they should have. Lo and behold, it took nearly 2 decades later to get the job done.

Trump doesn't know jack shit about politics or military affairs so this happening with him in power is a shitty situation. War is inevitable and I think we all knew this, whether it was against Syria, Russia, China, and/or North Korea.

The first gulf war wasn't really a failure though. We drove out Hussein and his forces from Kuwait in the end (although I was 6 months when the war first started, my father was in this war). Yes, we failed to remove Hussein which was a failure on the U.N.'s part, or rather the coalition forces, which is why the Iraq war was launched years later, but our initial motive was to liberate Kuwait which we did.

The tricky part is indeed leaving these areas after war. I could go into all of these intricacies and psychology and histories but I have a migraine right now, so I'm just going to end with this.

/nods Exactly. It's not new and the world wasn't doing anything. The reason things aren't being done is people a. are too scared (of changing status quo, intervening, making things worse, worsening political standings with other nations, etc.) b. don't care enough. I, and this is entirely personal and me being cynical, think it's a mixture of the two but predominantly the latter.

On a side note, I find Trump is fascinating to watch right now because he's impulsive. He doesn't seem to think in long-term ways nor think too much about certain actions impact others. In a way, this is refreshing, because you have very level-headed people in power who seem to be doing nothing. Of course, the prospect of war is terrifying and I shouldn't find this as fascinating as I do at the moment, but from a logical, detached perspective, this is interesting, and right now, it's the only way of calming myself. /playing the devil's advocate ohohoho :')

I'm not sure if it is fear or callousness that prevent those in power from doing something. I would say fear is a far more powerful emotion that stays our hands in this matter, though indifference is no stranger either.

I would agree with you that watching this implosion is interesting, except I found it far more interesting before he attained the presidency. Perhaps I am more cynical than you to believe this, but I was not surprised that he won. I am not surprised at his actions or words either; to me, they are entirely predictable. I suppose it could be my training and personal experience as well, but either way I would not be surprised to learn that this is a precursor to nuclear war.

I'm sorry if I have frightened anybody though, as that is not my intent. I... take many medications for different things, and many of them work to make me calm. Therefore it is entirely plausible I am not thinking of others.

ngl, I wasn't expecting him to win and was shocked to see him win, but the closer to the date it got, the more I feared he would win. :x

I wonder what Trump's main motives for becoming president were. The media love to paint him a silly orange clown and I worry he's not given enough credit. The man's a businessman. Surely, manipulation skills are a required asset, and given his own comments in the past, I feel like he manipulated people into voting for him in whatever way he knew could work. And really, why else be president if you can't call the big shots, using his logic and ego? Maybe a strike against Syria was what he wanted all along. I mean he seems pretty gung-ho about threatening North Korea now, so it seems like he likes to brandish the American military brand around. Personally, I find the existence of a state like North Korea in modern times appalling for multiple reasons, so if there's one thing I like about Trump is how vocal he's been lately about North Korea (because everyone is like idgaf, a united Korea is a greater threat, let's just let North Korea be with all its alleged chemical warfare just because reasons ????), but I'm not sure this way is the right way of dealing with the country, but I'm digressing too much. My bad. =__= tl;dr wouldn't be surprised if Trump wanted to become pres just to dangle American military in front of other countries

also, I hope my post wasn't leading to an impression where I'm suggesting you're fear-mongering because I don't think you are at all n__n it's nice to be able to talk about this without all the usual emotions causing arguments and besides, media does a spot on job of fear-mongering rn anyway xD

I have no doubts that he is manipulative and... perhaps charismatic is not the correct word, but something like that. I believe that he isn't charismatic at all, it's just that people decide to ascribe that to him because he is rich and therefore powerful. However, he does have numerous failed businesses and products which people seem to easily discard.

I know he manipulated people into voting for him. In fact, all politicians do that to some degree or another, it's just that Trump's actions are closer to the surface than anyone else's.

I also kinda think they hired Spicer to make Trump's tweets look logical in comparison buuuuut that's just me.

I think they assume if he can continue to live in wealth he must be making good choices.

Yeah, with Trump, the manipulation is much more obvious.

...or sheer entertainment value / distraction. Spicer's talk this week regarding Syria and chemical weapons was just ... what was that? It wasn't even coherent sentences. Basic sentence structure went out the window. It's like his brain went on standby mode. :x They'd be amiss if they fired him. Ain't anybody going to screw up and distract as much as him.

Also, MOAB on Afghani tunnels in the news. Yep, Trump is enjoying this even though he doesn't really get credit for dropping the MOAB (he'd like it though, as evidenced by lack of confirming it because he couldn't confirm so he's like maaaybe it was me ohoho).

Also, is it just me or how screwed up is it that other countries weigh in on the missiles dropped in Syria by America and actually do diddly squat? Where are the UK or French or German missiles? It's like if anyone from the West acts it has to be America? Eh, fyi world, that's why America first was a good sell by Trump, because of this 'rest of the West just sits back and comments on stuff America decides to do.' Even if it's not true (and I'm sure what's going on in Syria is receiving input from other American allies), that's the picture presented by media.