Do you support the missile strikes on Syria?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Frankly, I think we should have gotten involved much sooner. My main concern at this point is that we waited too long for any meaningful change to be made.

Agreed with this too, the Russians are too deep in. Unfortunately, in Syria, the Trump administration will need to work with the devil. But this current attack shows that they are intending to put their weigh back in, and that the Assad slaughterhouse will not be tolerated, so I think that it can be a step in the right direction. Of course, just continuing to constantly bomb without any other step will not do, and will only add another layer to the Syrian slaughterhouse.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

I think it would have been better if the US and other western countries had supported Assad in his war against terrorist rebellion. That way the Syrian government could have won the war years ago, peace would have been restored to Syria. That would also have mean that there would have been no rebel forces to produce transparent, made for TV, false flag attacks to blame on Assad and hence no demand for missile strikes on Syria.

Supporting Assad is utterly unjustifiable. No, his acts of cruelty aren't made up, that's ridiculous. And supporting him would be an outright betrayal of an American ally, Israel.
President Obama should've gotten involved much earlier, to make a deal with Putin that replaces Assad with a regime Russia, America and the Syrian people can at least tolerate.

[America Needs R'hllor]

What is this non-sense about Ground Troops? Are those people flying the jets not humans? Are 1000's of special ops people in Syria not humans? All of them not can die. And many innocent Syrians will die in this ensuing tangle with Russia. This is non-sense !

There's clearly a huge numerical difference. And if you hadn't noticed, people in Syria are already dying in large numbers. Assad and Putin are seeing to that even without America there.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Nope. The United States is not the global sheriff.

If the US is going to go isolationist (worked so well in the past, right?) and give up its spot as the most powerful nation in the world, please do tell us before so that we can ally Russia or China.
Sincerely, your endangered allies.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Absolutely not.  Syria did nothing to threaten the US.

it threatens US allies. that must be worth something.

Yeah. If you do not think that the US should honour its alliances, you should advocate for withdrawing all alliances. Let's see how will the US economy do then.