I has been a week since the US attacked the Syrian airfield….and the analysis is still going on……personally, I want answers and I believe that most of my readers do also (but I could be mistaken for some want to believe).

Since the attack by the US on the Syrian airfield I have been trying to give all sides of the debate…..this is a piece I found on the Libertarian Institute website.

On Friday, the fact-checking organization weighed in on the legal debate over President Trump’s April 6 bombing of a Syrian airfield, with two essays concluding it was A-OK, constitutionally. “In some cases, people saying Trump needed congressional approval have gone too far” Politifact’s Lauren Carroll pronounces. For instance, Rep. Marc Pocan’s (D-WI) claim that there’s “no legal basis” for the strikes rates a full-on, needle-in-the-red “FALSE” on P-fact’s patented “Truth-o-Meter.” Tom Kertscher of Politifact Wisconsin asserts that: “For limited military activities like the missile strike, presidents can send in forces without approval from Congress.” You see, while the president may not have the legal authority to unilaterally launch a full-scale war, he can—if he thinks it’s a good idea, and assures himself it won’t bog us down—order up acts of war that don’t rise to the level of war: a light dusting of cruise missiles—a micro-aggression, constitutionally speaking.

Source: Weak Legal Pretext for Trump’s Drive-By Tomahawking – The Libertarian Institute

But with all the info available was this strike necessary?

Knowing that the evidence refuted the claim that the Syrian Air Force was responsible for the April 4, 2017 chemical nerve agent attack, the National Security Council (NSC) manufactured a false claim that intelligence actually supported [President Donald J. Trump’s] decision to attack Syria, and…to accuse Russia of being either complicit or a participant in an alleged atrocity,” according to Theodore A. Postol, an MIT Professor of Science , Technology and National Security, who has previously served as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations.

Postol’s conclusions were set forth in three successive reports. In the first, the renowned scientist concluded that the photographic evidence of a bomb crater relied upon by the White House does not support the conclusion “the crater was created by a munition designed to disperse sarin after it was dropped from a plane.” To the contrary, the evidence “clearly indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an explosive on top of it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged load of sarin.

Source: MIT Scientist: “White House Lied, Manufactured Evidence to Justify Tomahawk Missile Strike.” – LA Progressive

I believe the only way that we can have a overview of the situation is to check out all sides of the debate….

The missiles used were Tomahawk missiles….and according to most reports all 59 did not hit their target, there is a bit of confusion on just how many……but this then leads us to ask….if the missiles were not that accurate or were somehow intercepted then just how effective can they be?

While researching (something everyone should do before they voice an ignorant opinion) I found a Defense site that questions the Tomahawks existence….

As the U.S. military prepares to do combat in an increasingly threatening and competitive global arena, the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missile may not be “the weapons system solution for the future,” the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said April 13.

“I think we have to decide what’s next after Tomahawk,” said Air Force Gen. Paul Selva at an Air Force Association breakfast in Arlington, Virginia. “My gut tells me, as I look at the requirements a decade or more out, that a subsonic, non-stealthy, low-maneuvering, unitary warhead may not be the answer.”

Source: Senior Pentagon Official Casts Doubt on Tomahawk Missiles Future

I will admit that I do hold some of the same beliefs on foreign policy as the Libertarians…..I do have a problem with their domestic stuff so they are out as far as support during elections…..some politicos need to embrace their issues on foreign policy but as it is today we have NO opposition to continuous war….the voices that are there are sidelined by accusations and innuendo perpetrated by the MSM.

Please let me know what you think about this situation.