I'm skeptical that all 100+ missiles hit. We are talking 3 buildings. Does it really take 35 Tomahawks to take down a concrete building complex? That seems a bit much. If four or five could do that amount of damage then you have to wonder if so many were used because many were shot down. That's what the Russians are claiming. I have little reason to believe the Russians, but it's also hard to believe they would waste a bunch of anti-missile defenses, too.
I was glad to see the UK and France on board with the strike, but I wonder how the bill is being split up? My guess is the US, as usual, is paying almost all of it. I think it is high time that all the other nations that claim to be so appalled by the use of chemical weapons pony up.
I'm also concerned about factions in Syria that may have been responsible for the chemical event in Syria being motivated to keep the U.S. engaged in the region and maybe even to escalate it to the point where we get sucked into conflicts with Russia and the civil war. The simple solution to all of this is to handed it over to the U.N. If the U.N. determines a strike is necessary, we pony up our share. If not, whatever. I don't really think the U.S. should be handling anything in Syria except the current ISIS situation. Finish that and goodbye.
PS I did get to see a photo of one of the targets, and admittedly it looks more like a complex than a building. That would take several missile hits. I hope our "Fake" news media gets off their duffs and digs into this. I miss the days we had real foreign correspondents on the ground. Today's news is just parlor room gossip.
I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories (no, steel doesn't melt at jet fuel temperatures, but it will have the strength of a pool noodle). However, when Obama and Hillary have their dirty fingers in the mix, red flags go up.
Nothing about Syria has been consistent from the beginning. We have Assad who is a jerk no doubt, but no more than any other number of dictators the US calls "allies" at the moment. I want to know when the air strikes in Venezuela begin. How about bombing Saudi forces in the middle of their Yemeni Genocide? Ukraine? North Korea? Half of Africa?
Everyone trusted Hillary in regards to Libya and look how that turned out. How quickly we forget Benghazi. I'm still waiting for the Arab spring we were promised.
I've received NATO standard CBRN (Chemical Biological Radio Nuclear) training. I've run around looking like some two legged insect in my gas mask in a cloud of CS tear gas more time than I can count. I saw the footage of the "chemical attack" and it came across as how a Hollywood film maker would portray a chemical attack.
If it was indeed sarin gas, you wouldn't see kids lining up to be hosed off with water. It would be people having seizures, drooling, vomiting, and turning blue as they asphyxiate. If it was a blister agent like some rumors, people's skin would be falling off. Syrian rebels have been caught staging war crime scenarios a dozen times already.
I haven't seen one chemical weapon casualty showing real symptoms yet, and there should be thousands. Only footage of people getting hosed off with water... which in 90% of cases is useless or makes things worse. The only way to have a remote chance of surviving exposure to a nerve agent like sarin is a big syringe of atropine right into your blood stream.
Now after seeing how the current US president is powerless before your massive bureaucracy, I am skeptical of just about everything. I think democracy in your country is an illusion and for years your government has been run by powerful unelected officials.
Just like Rome, the true power in the US is a modern day Praetorian Guard.