So missiles have been launched into Syria. Surprised? Neither is anyone else. Now we have something new to talk about and listen to everyone weigh in from each of the mainstream media sources a bunch of times throughout the day in case you didn’t hear about it already. That’s convenient too since the stories about Trump were likely losing steam.
The strike against Syria was initiated by President Trump in response to an alleged chemical attack ordered by the leader Bashar al-Assad against his own people. You may already know that Syria has been the target of many attacks by the U.S lead coalition against ISIS alongside Iraq. Does the name Aleppo sound familiar? This attack is different because it wasn’t targeting terrorists in the country, it was aimed at the airfield that supposedly fired off the sarin gas. The Obama administration was no fan of the Syrian president as he isn’t known for his kind nature towards human, more so for his iron-like grip around their throats. Not to mention all the chemical weapons were supposed to have been removed through an operation and deal set up between Assad and the Obama administration.
This attack gets a bit murky like the bottom of a pool before the leaves are cleaned out when we question whether or not is was against the law and U.S. Constitution. International law says that the only reason a country can attack another is with approval from the Security Council or in self-defense. Neither of these apply. As far as the constitution goes, this is a gray area. Surprised yet? The Congress passed a resolution after the Vietnam War called the War Powers Resolution. While this states that the president may only introduce armed forces if the U.S. has been attacked. BUT, further down this thing says that the president has to end deployments in 60 days if there is no authorization. Trump is not the first president, from either party, to do something like this.
What is interesting is the “flip-flop” by President Trump from his former stance evidenced by his tweet four years ago stating, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.” Now, I am no expert but this seems like a major change from his past attitude about getting involved in other countries foreign affairs. While I don’t advocate chemical warfare, this is a fight we don’t need to be involved with. Let alone being the one who threw the first international punch. Some will no doubt argue that this behavior must be dealt with quickly. My question is how do we know what actually happened and why risk tensions with Russia just to hit an airstrip with an unnecessary amount of missiles?
Remember that there are many things going on around the world right now besides what the media is feeding you. While I am writing about the news of the week as well, I would encourage you to think about what you are hearing and question if it is all true. We need to stay out of the world affairs as much as possible and work on home for a while. Any conflict is dangerous, especially one with Russia. They are a threat but there is little evidence for any reason to engage in hostilities or sabre rattling with Putin or his country.