I didnt even know that happened

Yeah I'm same as Grim, I haven't heard anything about that. I personally don't really watch the news or TV much but not even my parents have talked about it

Why so Syrias?

No one really cared around here

The only people who cared were on Facebook

So G.B. U.S and France allied together again?
BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN
But seriously, this seems like another WW.
Which is bad, yes, and considering we have nukes.

I mean it's stupid to get mad at the us France and the U.K. For disabling illegal chemical weapons. As Teresa may said, "chemical weapons cannot become a norm in warfrare".

Ok long story short. UK France and US who have been military allies and have gone to war together before launch strikes against chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Reasons are as mentioned before illegal use of chemical weapons. But the public reactions are varied.

@sheeby78- it’s not so simple. For one thing it is disputed that those were chemical weapons factories, and it is also disputed that there were no civilian casualties or collateral damage. The other factor are arguments of hypocrisy as France and the US have used NBC weapons on their own people before and used military force against peaceful civilians. Even if the consensus were illegal chemical strikes took place- the idea of one nation being able to attack targets on another’s soil because they are upset is a dangerous and slippery slope. The UN is the closest thing to a “world wide law,” and instruments like sanctions and other channels are the primary weapons against breaking it. There’s even more to the story behind the scenes, as well as Syrian internal politics and how various nations are allied with others, who has what to gain and why- so while in general you are correct in my mind on principle, the situation isn’t so 2 dimensional.

You're absolutely right. While chemical weapons are illegal. The debate here in the US and in the UK too I believe is whether military force was even legal given both leaders acted without congressional/parliamentary approval. The war powers act here doesny say anything about violations in internationalblaw committed bybother nations. Its designed for immediate response to a Soviet attack.

Also edit: April 13th not 18th

The sad confusion is between “right” and “legal.” What is arguably one may or may not arguably be the other- where the law may seek to support “the wrong” action, we are quick to argue going against the law is right; however the law exists to prevent the haste and unpredictability of individual judgment, and to keep away abuses of power that can bring by people not acting on some ultimate moral truth (that may not exist or be agreed upon.) Of course some things can be such a clear failure of law- as the law ultimate serves to protect- that no moral soul could act lawfully in those cases. Of course even if it is legal that doesn’t mean it is arguably right. In the case of another nation attacking American weapons factories for their use on civilians, would many still argue they are justified?

I believe we would call that terrorism, or an act of war.

I think of it in the scope of a proxy war. It's easier to claim we carried out the strikes in the interest of the rebels and Kurds that our "advisors" are supporting. On one hand, I'm hesitant to say that this is the theater we should act overtly against Russia in, but in the other hand it would only be beneficial to us to weaken an ally of Russia and Iran, especially if Israel or the Kurds filled the vacuum. On a third hand, I am not at all opposed to carrying out actions that weaken the U.N.'s authority.
I heard a Syrian refugee on the news claim to have survived chemical attacks in 2013, he said the bombing was a sign of Trump's "big heart", and that he wants to sit down with POTUS and buy him a beer.

I've been hearing the extensive claims made by Moscow and Tehran that the US directly created ISIS and is mad at Assad for destroying them. To them ISIS and the FSA are the same.

Moscow and Tehran are nervous that we'll step back in and keep them from spreading their influence. That's perfectly reasonable of them.
As for us creating ISIS. We did not, but our last administration allowed them to form. We should be less concerned with leaving a legacy of peace, and instead focus on killing the SOBs that we said we'd kill.
If we are upset at Assad killing them too, why would we dedicate any time or resources to propping up ISIS' enemies while also killing them ourselves? No, we're upset that Assad is gassing his own people while helping Russia, and especially Iran, kill our proxies. At least, that's my understating.

Yeah i know its bloody ridiculous. And its actually smart of moscow because everyone that holds any contempt for the west is jumping on those claims.

Isis was formed in 1999- so it wasn’t the last administration that allowed them to form. The seeds of isis can be followed back well into the last century- but speaking directly the 1970’s and 80’s are the key points of creation for many modern terrorists in that region. Russia played a huge hand in that as well.

My mistake. The way I heard it, they just swooped in and took everything that other terror cells and the Iraqi Army left to take over the territories that Obama pulled our men out of.