Trump’s decisive action against Syria wins support

Following Tuesday’s deadly chemical weapon attack that killed at least 75 and seriously injuring scores of other innocent Syrian civilians , President Donald Trump issued this statement

“Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack.”

Thursday the president ordered missile strikes against the Syrian airfield from which the deadly chemical attacks were launched.

According to this April 7 Reuters news report, initial indications are that this strike has severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment at Shayrat Airfield, reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons,” said Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis.

initial indications are that this strike has severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft, support infrastructure and equipment at Shayrat Airfield, reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons,” said Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis. 

Numerous allies supported Trump’s action as an “appropriate” and “just” response. 

The Telegraph, a British newspaper reports, “The UK Government fully supports the US action, which we believe was an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime, and is intended to deter further attacks.”

Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister, said that the “Australian government strongly supports the swift and just response of the United States.”

Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu also issued a statement of full support ”saying that “in both word and action” Mr Trump “sent a strong and clear message” that “the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.”

Saudi Arabia on Friday stated it “fully supports” the strikes, saying it was a “courageous decision” by President Donald Trump in response to the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Democrat U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, (Hawaii), condemned the attack tweeting that Trump’s military strikes in Syria are reckless and short-sighted. She followed the path of Russian President Vladimir Putin whose spokesman said the strike had seriously damaged ties between Washington and Moscow. Putin, a staunch ally of Syria’s Assad, regarded the U.S. action as “aggression against a sovereign nation” on a “made-up pretext.”

Dijon’s Grey Poupon’s mustard ad had the perfect tagline to address Gabbard’s and Putin’s responses: “But, of course.

7 Responses to Trump’s decisive action against Syria wins support

  1. Maggie says:

    So Democrats are OK with despotic “leaders” using chemical weaponry on civilians? Assad was striking at his own people, many of them children The newscasts were stomach turning.

  2. Dennis O'Brien says:

    Thank God for President Trump. He’s bringing back responsible leadership in the face of madness. I think he’s going to be hailed as one of America’s great leaders.

    • East Valley Conservative says:

      Trump was not my first choice for president. He wasn’t my tenth. But once he was the GOP nominee, unlike Jeff the Flake and John McAmnesty, I voted for him. I have not regretted my action.

  3. Saguaro Sam says:

    Did you know that Bashir al-Assad is a trained physician?
    Hard to believe, but true.
    Trained in Damascus before going to London in the early 1990’s to obtain speciality training in ophthalmology.

    When his brother was killed in a car accident in 1994, BaA was recalled to Syria to learn the family business of how to be a despot.

    BaA assumed power at the age of 34 in 2000 when his old man died.
    He is married to a British-born woman.

    In 2014, this was published in the New York Times (having been written by a Bloomberg guy):

    “. . . The attacks have driven most physicians out of Syria. In Aleppo, the largest city in the country, only 13 surgeons remain. And despite efforts of humanitarian groups to supply them with essential supplies and equipment, medical personnel must cope with severe shortages.. . .”

    “Doctors and nurses also suffer profoundly, strained by long working days, the horror of the injuries, the impossibly difficult triage decisions forced by lack of resources, and constant danger. One doctor told us that if everyone survived a barrel bombing they did the Dabke, an Arabic dance, in celebration.”

    “When we asked the doctors what kind of support they needed, though, they didn’t cite the need for more staff, equipment, rest or psychological support. They asked for one thing: Stop the bombs from raining down so they can treat their patients without fear of death.”

    “The United States has the capacity to do that. It can impose a humanitarian buffer zone in northern and southern Syria to allow health care workers to save lives, children to get vaccinated and go to school, refugees to resettle, and relief organizations to do their work. A buffer zone would be enforced by a no-fly zone that would protect the hospitals and civilian areas from aerial attacks. . . .”

  4. Conservative Since Birth says:

    I support what Donald Trump did – warning Bashar al-Assad’s regime to stop killing his own people. The rest of the world had to see that America is leading again. For the last eight long years, Obama did nothing good for anyone except fill the pockets of detractors of America, foreign and domestic. He, John Kerry and Susan Rice lied to the world saying that they got rid of chemical weapons in Syria. We now see that’s been just another lie.

  5. Joseph Bickley, Sr. says:

    Let’s pull out of entangling alliances and our neocon notion that we must police the world. Support our troops, for sure; support them by bringing them all HOME.

    • Dennis O'Brien says:

      Would you also have advocated against our involvement in the Pacific and European theaters that constituted WWII? Do we stand by as tyrants slaughter innocents and do nothing? Does the United States, the leader of the free world, have a moral obligation to stop atrocities or do we turn a blind eye? I believe in forming alliances with our allies and not going it alone. But we cannot be isolationists in the 21st century. There is too much at stake.

      The line about supporting our troops by bringing them all home sounds like the liberal claptrap I hear from my leftist brother-in-law.Reading your previous comments, I thought you were a conservative….