Poll: Majority Support Trump Syrian Strike, Including 83% of Trump Voters

[lonely zergling]

The attack was against international law. Americans are a bunch of hipocrites - reaction on a breach of international law by .... breaching the international law without even knowing if it was Assad who supposedly gassed "civilianz".

[Manabomb]

The attack was against international law. Americans are a bunch of hipocrites - reaction on a breach of international law by .... breaching the international law without even knowing if it was Assad who supposedly gassed "civilianz".

Note, not all Americans are hypocrites. Some of us believe this military action taken against Asaad's regime is fucking utterly pointless. But we of course have no power in the senate, the congress or the administration.

The problem is those in America all too willing to go to war without a reason to go to war.

[Underverse]

Most Americans have the intelligence of a brick. Arguments from popularity are fallacious by definition.

[AlphaOut]

You mean by going through the proper channels when attacking a sovereign nation, i.e. Congress?

Going through congress is only a courtesy in this situation. How do people not know this? And if you want to talk about Obama going through proper channels, as you say, do you recall libya?

[starlord]

we already knew el trumpos supporters were the ultimate hypocrites.

[Sky High]

Let this put to rest some foolish idiotic nonsense that the US public isn't willing to back the president in military action if that action is sensical or reasonable. They will. Obama was a pathetic president who had no idea what he was doing.

bullshit, Americans love swigging that military dick around whenever possible. most of the time it just takes a convenient excuse.

[Aggrophobic]

"Trump supporter"?
You're romanian though... Why?

[starlord]

"Trump supporter"?
You're romanian though... Why?

because he cares so so much about america and whats best for it.

[AlphaOut]

Because just a little while ago those supporting this action were opposing action in Syria?

A good term to use in this political situation is status quo. It changed. I personally wanted to show Syria force long ago. I didn't agree with trumps stance during his campaign

[CostinR]

"Trump supporter"?
You're romanian though... Why?

Because what happens in the US has a global impact.

[Aggrophobic]

Because what happens in the US has a global impact.

Trumps agend has a rather negative impact on the rest of the world however. So again, why?

- - - Updated - - -

because he cares so so much about america and whats best for it.

No, I don't think he does.

[announced]

Because just a little while ago those supporting this action were opposing action in Syria?

Arent they against putting troops in Syria indefinitely? this was just a targeted air strike at an air base.

Because Syria is a sovereign nation that is not at war with the USA? Why bomb them in the first place?

I think this was just a warning against Assad for using chemical weapons on his own civilians, if Trump did nothing he'd look like a coward and Assad would be given free rein to gas anyone he wants to.

[AlphaOut]

The attack was against international law. Americans are a bunch of hipocrites - reaction on a breach of international law by .... breaching the international law without even knowing if it was Assad who supposedly gassed "civilianz".

Actually it wasn't, and I'll be happy to explain how it was legal if you care to listen. Although I've posted the same reasoning in a couple other threads. This information coming from the center for terrorism law.

[Templar 331]

Going through congress is only a courtesy in this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

No, it isn't. Attacking a foreign power is an act of war.

And if you want to talk about Obama going through proper channels, as you say, do you recall libya?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_m...ntion_in_Libya

Libya had to do with our role in NATO. WE ourselves didn't decide to attack Libya like we did with Syria.

[Deleted]

Guess the Americans want to help their Terrorists friends. Because that is all that happens when the US gets involved anywere in that region is that new Terrorists groups form in the wake and destruction they leave behind.

[CostinR]

Trumps agend has a rather negative impact on the rest of the world however. So again, why?

Pushing NATO countries, including mine, to spend 2% on defense is a VERY positive impact. Taking a restrained stance, and yes this was a restrained strike, on Syria is also good.

A rather negative impact? What precisely are you thinking is negative for the world? If you say climate change I'm laughing: No one takes the US seriously on dealing with climate change.

[Venant]

Sounds like more fake news.

I really hope that people aren't buying into the shameless war-mongering of the corporate media. When you hear Brian Williams waxing poetic about missiles, well it really makes you think about how corrupt these institutions are.

[Aggrophobic]

Pushing NATO countries, including mine, to spend 2% on defense is a VERY positive impact. Taking a restrained stance, and yes this was a restrained strike, on Syria is also good.

Right, right. Of course.
You see, I find it more likely that you just want to pick fights on the forums and post radical topics that you know will get people going.

But maybe I'm just being silly...

[AlphaOut]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

No, it isn't. Attacking a foreign power is an act of war.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_m...ntion_in_Libya

Libya had to do with our role in NATO. WE ourselves didn't decide to attack Libya like we did with Syria.

Article 2 of the constitution.

[Sky High]

Guess the Americans want to help their Terrorists friends. Because that is all that happens when the US gets involved anywere in that region is that new Terrorists groups form in the wake and destruction you leave behind.

/in Malory Archer's voice: "do you want Jihadis? because this is how you get Jihadis."