Donald Trump on attacking syria for gas attacks

Placing Assad in trial, As your articles have already explained, Is very unlikely. Making Donald Trump's attack the more reasonable way to go. Not only that, Such a solution would only come into affect after the war, Not during the war in which immediate action is most critical. It also will not solve the problem of preventing innocent civilians from being gased as you can tell from the numerous times Assad gased his own people. By going by the passive solution that you mentioned, This will only allow more civilians be killed and tortured. This is not the appropriate step to take, ESPECIALLY since we have already enough evidence to put Assad into trial and make him pay the consequences. What more evidence do you need? In your articles it states that we already have enough, Millions of pieces of evidence apparently. Going by the soft approach will not help either. In fact, It has already been tried but of course failed because of Russia's veto. So what makes you think that this time will work? Putin has an agenda, And it does not include trying to create better relations with the US. Have you heard of Sputnik? What about RT? They are both propaganda tools used by Putin to try and spread disinformation about the US, Truth or not, Doesn't matter as long as it fits the Russian narrative that the US is evil; that everything we do is evil. Russia claimed that we are using the chemical weapons as an EXCUSE TO USE MORE FORCE IN SYRIA. Of course you and me know that's not true. Which is why Russia is not to be trusted. They are not our friends and never will be, As long as Putin is in power he will veto our attempts for a resolution in Syria. Assad has already been out of reach since Putin was in power. You say individuals like it's more than one person that's in charge of sending and ordering the gas attacks. Do you know which individuals? More importantly, Does the U. S. Know of these individuals? Because as far as I know, Assad was the main guy that sends and orders the gas attacks. He is the one in charge of it all. Regardless, Such a passive action will only take effect after the war. You speak of condemnation to NATO but I never heard of such condemnation. I think you're talking about the first time the U. S attacked Syria when Trump was in office because the second time, As I have stated before in the previous rounds, Most developed countries actually approved of Donald Trump's attacks. Which is a very good sign and definitely strengthens relations between us. But who cares if they see us as weak. If they see us as weak than let them, But that shouldn't stop us from preventing the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives, Which in my opinion, Is far more important than caring so much about what our enemies think of us. I understand that Syria is a repeated offender, But I completely disagree with you when you said that airstrikes have been proven ineffective. What's proven to be ineffective is trying to take the passive approach and trying to take Assad into trial. That approach has already failed. What's different in our approach is that on our second time, We decided to go straight after their, What Pentagon calls it, "the heart of the chemical weapons program". This is what we should have done the first time but now that's it's done, This will set Assad back in terms of chemical weapons usage for quite sometime. Ever since this attack Assad has not used a chemical weapon against his own citizens and I'll be damned if he still continues. Your articles https://www. Baladi-news. Com/en/news/details/17851/How_Many_times_Did_Assad_Use_Chemical_Weapons http://www. Foxnews. Com/world/2018/04/10/timeline-chemical-weapons-attacks-in-syria. Html Does not state any chemical weapons have been used since Donald Trump's second airstrikes against Syria. I consider that as mission accomplished. Next you argue that airstrikes are not effective as a deterrent and cite the destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility as evidence. This evidence, In my opinion, Is very weak as there are too many differences. Assuming that this is the story you are talking about https://www. Businessinsider. Com/israel-admits-bombing-syria-nuclear-reactor-warn-iran-2018-3 Were there innocent Syrian civilians killed by the Syrian government? I don't think so. Think about it: What do you think Donald Trump might do this time if Assad still continues to commit these war crimes? Obviously knowing Trump, He is most likely to retaliate with greater force wouldn't you agree? This is the most positive effect of Donald Trump's airstrikes. That fear. The ruthless, Reckless, And relentlessness. Now don't get me wrong, I still think that the passive solution of holding Assad into trial is the way to go, Just not now. My sources: same as yours