I'm a bit conflicted here. I'm not at all one for conspiracies, but I do find it a bit suspicious that this chemical attack comes only days after Trump speaks of removing all US forces in Syria. Why would Assad suddenly engage in a chemical attack again if the last time that it happened, it caused the US to retaliate/get more involved in Syria? It seems the rebels, that are now being beaten back by Assad, have every reason to want the US to stay involved, giving them a motive for staging this attack.
Again, I'm not saying I believe this ^^^, I just think we should completely verify the details of the attack before putting more American lives at risk in Syria. As far as I understand, and I could be wrong (someone let me know), the attack has not been confirmed by international sources as having come from the Assad regime. We shouldn't let our basic human decency (wanting to see brutal leaders punished) blind us to the facts. If it is (or already has been) confirmed, then yes, Trump should respond strongly and show that the use of these weapons will not be tolerated.
I'm questioning this as well. Yeah, Trump says that Assad gassed his own people; that's unquestionably terrible. Even so, I fail to see the justification for a US military response. There's a civil war going on in Syria right now. Unless Americans have been killed in the chemical attack, I don't think we should get involved in that....it's not our fight.
Now, if American blood has been shed, the situation changes a bit. In that case, I wholeheartedly support military action. A wise man once noted that we have the right to respond to any such attack (as is consistent with language in the UN charter). However, I haven't yet seen any evidence that American lives were lost, or that we were attacked in any way. Am I missing something?
