So why do you want to not get involved but still consider yourself a trump supporter, even though he is allready getting involved?

Because I don’t have to agree with someone 100% like a sycophant to support them

Well your choice for president is war mongering here, not mine. Remember that.

You could have voted for a dove in the primaries.

Who, Rand?

Will Trump going to war with Syria loose you any support for him?

A 2003 style invasion absolutely.

That would be the polar opposite of what he campaigned as

So you don't want a boots on the ground?

Or military efforts for regime change, correct

Okay so action against Assad?

What point are you getting at

I'm just wondering.

Yes

Even if he is guilty of using chemical warfare on civilians?

Correct, which is false.

Well we're still waiting on France's investigation on that aren't we?

The UN. But we all know it’s horseshit

"We" know?

I'd honestly trust France here more than anyone.

They don't really have a vested intrest in the whole thing like the US or Russia.

Dead wrong

And they have a track record of investigating this thing in the past firly.

Such as?

Well this has been accused at least three times in the past.

The first time in 2012 the UN investigation found no evidence that regime forces used chemical weapons and many strongly suspected that rebels were the ones using gas

And why would Assad use chemical weapons now on the brink of victory - the one thing that would turn the entire international community against him? Is it not curious how the more desperate a situation the rebels find themselves in the more these supposed gas attacks occur?

Right so the UN found them innocent in 2012

Not to mention the fact that the latest “attack” was reported solely by the White Helmets, an organization with known terrorist connections and a track record of lying and producing fake evidence

And again February seemed like a mixed bag, with Russia reporting that the attack was an accident, Assad's goverment acting like nothing happened and the US bombing their air base for some reason.

Now France is actually claiming to have some real evidence.

I have no idea WHY someone would gas their own people, the day after the US promised to withdraw.

It sounds illogical.

But if they have evidence, and there's no evidence of conspiracy I don't know why I should doubt them.

A NATO member producing evidence that suits NATO goals should be doubted heavily.

Why did Trump bomb them if they didn't have any weapons?

And what's so distrustful about NATO?

I do not know. If I had to guess it was a token move to show he’s not weak and that he backs up his rhetoric with force.

There’s nothing especially demonic about NATO in particular. It’s just a matter of cui bono.

Okay so he's so sensitive about his ego he'll order multibillion dollar missiles to an airfield probably not containing any illegal substances, and destroy military hardware of an "ally".

That’s a gross oversimplification of international politics but sure.