“It was amazing to be there on the airfield when the missiles arrived. Which I totally was. Promise. For NBC News, this is Brian Williams.”

You know Hillary Clinton advocated for a stronger military response, right?

That....... actually makes a lot of sense.

That’s why many people are not entirely aboard the claim that Assad’s military staged this gas attack. If Assad is personally responsible for this, then he’s gotta be the biggest idiot in the world, and I just doubt that British-educated surgeon who also seen what happens to his neighbors only for allegedly possessing…

CNN will report the wildest unconfirmed speculation if it serves their agenda.

Isn’t war with Syria what Democrats wanted all along? Certainly a main reason why Dems voted for Hillary.

Failing to keep from getting into all of the B.S. of the failed policy of the Obama and Clinton Arab Spring Islamic uprisings, while simultaneously holding off the Neocons of the Republican Party chomping at the bit to make insane sums of money by going to war everywhere over anything; seems to have been way too…

Nah, I was for him because of his no war promise. But he’s another puppet of war industry.

I’m glad everyone is so accepting of the idea that the US is absolutely, positively correct that this was a sarin attack by Assad’s forces. Because, you know, it’s not like our government has lied or concealed the truth before in order to justify a war.

Yes your proactive wars in the middle east has been a giant misstep. You (USA) and other allies have fucked about in the middle east now for over four decades, sometimes for oil , sometimes for political gains and sometimes to “free” people from dictatorships by turning their country into rubble.

I had the same thought. What good reason did Assad have to use chemical weapons in the first place? Just doesn’t make sense to me.

Today Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump agreed on the same action. I’m willing to believe that this was bigger than D vs R back in Washington.

Hot take: maybe the evil, hateful Republicans wanted to send a message to the guy who just gassed a bunch of kids.

Fortunately gizmodo editors are in the minority and their delusional reality is not recognized by the majority. Stick to technology, gadgets, etc. You have no clue when it comes to government and politics and we could really care less for your unintelligent opinion. Your uniformed bias is nauseating.

While I completely agree with you, taking in refugees doesn’t solve the root problem.

Where in the world did you get the impression that Obama didn’t drop any bombs in Syria?

I’m going err on the side that doesn’t involve killing human beings, but instead destroys military equipment used for the prior stated purpose.

The launched missiles were to destroy an airstrip so planes carryimg chemical weapons can’t take off. Maybe they took out some of the planes and weapons in the process.

Or he could sit around picking his nose not following through on idle threats like Obama did when Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. But I’m sure your idea is good too.

As someone who is generally anti-launching missiles at sovereign nations and also anti-gassing innocent civilians, what is the correct moral stance here? I’m kind of thinking providing a disincentive to using chemical weapons is... good?