A Possible 'Syrian War'

[WinePusher]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

[dianaiad]

y'know, there really aren't any good options. So....now what?

I think there is a good option, but not one that will lead to a solution in our life times.

What's happening now in the middle east took hundreds of years to work out in western culture.

The option I see Obama trying to pursue is to be constructively engaged where we can accomplish something useful, but don't try to run the place. Be patient, remain calm, and stick with it for generations.

It's kind of like helping a friend that's going through a personal crisis. You lend a hand where it can be of assistance, but the friend is the one that has to resolve the crisis.

My disappointment with Obama is that I don't see strong leadership on the humanitarian front. America doesn't want to go to war yet again, that much is clear. But we could and would do a lot more for the Syrian refuges if he was on the tube every week asking us to. All he has to invest in that project is talk, so I wish he was doing a better job leading in that regard.

He's projecting an image of a fellow who is confused and doesn't know what to do. A big humanitarian push would fix that.

I dunno. Why can an ordinary run of the mill forum blowhard see that, and he and his advisors apparently not see it? Confusing...

Obama.

Confused.

Why am I not surprised? The man is so in over his head, and has been for over five years.

Ah, well......

The problem, of course, with your long term solution (which would be rather nice, actually) is that the short term solutions that those people...at least the extremists among them...see involves killing us by the job lots.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Well it's not necessarily win win republicans could uniformly vote no. Send a message to Obama that America is going to act rationally and not go on another military escapade where we don't belong. For once they have a good reason to be obstructionists. This would help shake their hawkish perception

As I wrote...if the Republicans vote 'no,' then Obama wins because he will claim that he wanted to do something about Syria...and it's not HIS fault the Republicans wouldn't allow him to keep his promise to do something if Syria crossed his 'red line.' Either way, he can blame the GOP.

And he will. Watch.

What he's doing has absolutely nothing to do with whether we should, or should not, do anything about Syria.

I think we should get out of the middle east altogether, leaving all our the ammunition, vehicles, armament and supplies in Israel on the way out. The Israelis will do a better job of dealing with everybody over there than we have, or could. Turn 'em loose.

well that's what I meant by not really a win win if he blames republicans for not letting him start another war he appears as a war hawk hurting democrats in the next election. This whole thing just looks bad even Syria is taunting Obama now. from my pov its lose lose. It was a mistake the moment he drew a red line now he just looks like an incapable fool.

[Philbert]

Obama.

Confused.

Why am I not surprised? The man is so in over his head, and has been for over five years.

No matter who the president is, there's always lots of folks saying such things. Been that way since Eisenhower at least.

The problem, of course, with your long term solution (which would be rather nice, actually) is that the short term solutions that those people...at least the extremists among them...see involves killing us by the job lots.

You want us out of the middle east, and Obama is doing that, the large scale military engagement anyway.

You're concerned with the extremists, and Obama has decimated their leadership in a relentless campaign of tracking them down and killing them.

So, the evidence shows that the guy who is supposedly "in over his head" is your kinda guy.

[micatala]

I tend to agree we do not have any really good options in the short term, and we probably need to accept that Syria will be a mess for a good while. Of course, it argaubly has been a mess for a good while, just a different kind of mess.


If the congress goes along with a limited strike for the purposes of punishing Assad and sending a message, I am OK with that. In fact, that is probably better than doing nothing at all. I do not think we should make any military commitments beyond that, other than to note we reserve the option of further future punitive attacks should Assad repeat his recent performance.

We should also be clear that if hostilities threaten Israel or other areas we deem out of bounds, we reserve the right to take further action. Obviously Israel can take a lot of action on their own.

[WinePusher]

In the real world both the Syrian government and the Syrian rebels are 'bad guys' and we should not be allying ourselves with either group. You probably agree with this statement so I don't know why you're complaining about it.

I take issue with the black and white thinking involved in the suggestion that the United States represents the "good guys" and that policymakers are primarily concerned with upholding "good" in the world, even if that means working with "bad guys" to vanquish "badder guys."

I understand that in your fantasyland of conspiracy theories the United States is never an agent of good in the world. But, the point I was trying to make is that neither the Syrian government nor the Syrian rebels seek to promote freedom and democracy in the region (a virtue you claim to support). Therefore, the United States should not intervene on behalf of the rebels.

However, you and others on this thread oppose/have reservations for intervention in this one specific case because you can't tell the Cowboys from the Indians, like you usually can. But it doesn't matter what any of us think because the state doesn't care who's "bad" or who's "good."

Duh. If the Syrian rebels weren't acting like insane lunatics and did support western virtues such as democracy and liberty than I would absolutely advocate American intervention. As for the rest of your post, I simply cannot read it or respond to it due to the overwhelming among of useless links, various sizes and different colors.

[arian]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians.

As Kerry stated; "The attack was an inconceivable horror", which he made sound worse than our own 9-11-01 nuclear attack on our own people. Chemical weapons, really? You mean like what we put in our cows, chicken, pigs and the deadly radiation treatments in humans till their hair fall out and literally explode from radiation poisoning? That IS just inconceivable, those Syrian monsters, .. how could they?

We got this 'intelligence from US intelligence', and just because we made up all those other intelligence of all those other countries we've attacked and murdered tens of thousands in, does not mean we could be wrong now. We attacked and killed all them Arabs in Iraq, hung Saddam, .. I mean would we do that if our US Intelligence was off, .. or made up .. huh?

News:
President Barack Obama later said the US was considering a "limited narrow act" in response.

Well of course, .. limited, .. you know, to test out our trillions and trillions of dollars worth of weapons on, before we go and lay waste to Iran.

But wait, .. shouldn't we do another 9-11 first and blame it on the TERRORIST again? You know, maybe blow up a dam or something? That should boost our Patriotic Christian Soldiers to keep marching on, .. right? All in the name of God and Country, .. you know, the God we trust in.

Some years back I had these recurring dreams of Roosevelt Dam ready to break because of evil that was pushing behind it, I even took a look behind to see what it was that was ready to burst the dam, and when I looked, the water had no reflection from the blue Arizona sky, but was like an abyss of darkness, full of evil ready to burst!?? With all this horror of terror brewing, I felt I should mention that.

News-Syria has dismissed Mr Kerry's statement as "full of lies", insisting the rebels carried out the attack.
State-run news agency Sana said Mr Kerry, who cited a US intelligence assessment, was using "material based on old stories which were published by terrorists over a week ago".

Ah, them State-run News agencies, .. sheesh! Like we gonna trust another News Agency besides ours? LOL

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

We are all Christian Soldiers aren't we? What do armed-to-the-teeth Patriotic Christian Soldiers do? They Keep Marching On!

Some might say; "But that's not what that means!"
and I say; "Really? That's what it meant for the past 1,700 years, from the time Constantine invented the Christian Religion, right? What else would it mean?

So will there be a Syrian war before Iran? Well Duh, .. that's what we do, .. that's why we send our kids into the army! Besides, .. it feels so much better to drop some Humanitarian Aid after a bloody war, don't it? When all the pictures of helpless Doctors standing over the cots in make-shift hospitals full of children with limbs missing, half their little faces gone, their little bodies burnt beyond recognition, it just somehow beckons us to give a little extra into the tithing-plate on Sunday. Well, that is right after we give God our thanks for our brave Soldier kids we sent there for doing such a great job, .. and risking their lives fighting against such brutal, and inconceivable horror causing terrorist Arab youths!

[Darias]

1)

I take issue with the black and white thinking involved in the suggestion that the United States represents the "good guys" and that policymakers are primarily concerned with upholding "good" in the world, even if that means working with "bad guys" to vanquish "badder guys."

I understand that in your fantasyland of conspiracy theories the United States is never an agent of good in the world.

‣ Ad lapidem
‣ Proof by repeated assertion

You have continued to label and dismiss my argument while failing to defend your own assertions. I challenge you to actually support your claims, and if you fail to do so, I will continue to consider them as the unsupported, invalid opinions that they are in this debate. If you refuse to actually support your claims, you shouldn't bother making them in the first place.



2)

But, the point I was trying to make is that neither the Syrian government nor the Syrian rebels seek to promote freedom and democracy in the region (a virtue you claim to support). Therefore, the United States should not intervene on behalf of the rebels . . . . If the Syrian rebels weren't acting like insane lunatics and did support western virtues such as democracy and liberty than I would absolutely advocate American intervention.

When have US alliances ever been made solely on the basis of their support of "western values," like "freedom" or "liberty"? A majority of the time, at least in the Middle East, this does not seem to be the case. However, if you're into doublespeak, then there is no inconsistency:

Who could forget when the US armed and funded Afghan and Pakistani freedom fighters in their righteous struggle against the godless Communist Menace? How could I have forgotten the time when the CIA and MI6 liberated Iran from its democratically elected prime minister, only to graciously instill western values into their hearts by giving them a king? How could I have forgotten all those US-backed countries in the region that wholeheartedly supported freedom and democracy, like Saudi Arabia, Mubarak's Egypt, and Saddam's Iraq?

Unless Washington has just suddenly turned a new leaf, I just can't buy any humanitarian argument for going into Syria, especially one where everyone claims they know something but no evidence is presented, or where everyone promises a quick strike only for that to lead to a 10 year incursion. This state's commitment to liberty is in word only. The discontent between reality and Barack Obama's lofty rhetoric is the perfect metaphor for the history of US foreign policy.

Please understand that what you believe the US should do is not necessarily what it will do, nor an accurate description of what it has done in the past. However, the idea that this particular state "is an agent for good in the world"--regardless of what it has done--is absurd in the extreme, as evidenced by my post you admittedly didn't read. No amount of patriotic mantra or flag waving will ever change these facts. You are of course welcome to drape the stars and stripes over your monitor in the event that my case becomes too distressing.



3)

As for the rest of your post, I simply cannot read it or respond to it due to the overwhelming among of useless links, various sizes and different colors.

I don't recall my formatting being an issue in the past. I've recently gone back to separating points by numbers, as to break up large posts into convenient sections, and for the sake of referencing those points for later use whenever I don't wish to cover the same ground, or if my opponent misses the point by refusing to read. I use colors to clearly establish who said what, when. Furthermore, those "useless links" buttress my argument, and are easily accessible in a new tab via a click of the middle mouse button. Whether I hyper-link a part of a sentence or a number at the end of the sentence, the url code will still be there. This is because I make it a point to back up my arguments with evidence, as is required by rule #5; you should really give it a try once in a while. You have been here longer than I have and have made many more posts than I have. In light of this, I would like to think that you should be comfortable with BB code by now; but I actually understand that what should be doesn't necessarily describe what is.



-

[WinePusher]

I understand that in your fantasyland of conspiracy theories the United States is never an agent of good in the world.

You have continued to label and dismiss my argument while failing to defend your own assertions. I challenge you to actually support your claims, and if you fail to do so, I will continue to consider them as the unsupported, invalid opinions that they are in this debate. If you refuse to actually support your claims, you shouldn't bother making them in the first place.

I haven't made any claims. I'm pointing out that the claims you've been making in this thread are absurd. They are conspiracy theories and therefore nothing you say should be taken seriously. If you disagree then explain why your ideas aren't conspiracy theories.

But, the point I was trying to make is that neither the Syrian government nor the Syrian rebels seek to promote freedom and democracy in the region (a virtue you claim to support). Therefore, the United States should not intervene on behalf of the rebels . . . . If the Syrian rebels weren't acting like insane lunatics and did support western virtues such as democracy and liberty than I would absolutely advocate American intervention.

When have US alliances ever been made solely on the basis of their support of "western values," like "freedom" or "liberty"? A majority of the time, at least in the Middle East, this does not seem to be the case.

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the liberation of Iraq, etc. It's interesting how we only seem to intervene in regions that are already suffering from brutality and oppression.

Unless Washington has just suddenly turned a new leaf, I just can't buy any humanitarian argument for going into Syria, especially one where everyone claims they know something but no evidence is presented, or where everyone promises a quick strike only for that to lead to a 10 year incursion. This state's commitment to liberty is in word only. The discontent between reality and Barack Obama's lofty rhetoric is the perfect metaphor for the history of US foreign policy.

The disconnect from reality comes from people like you who don't care when chemical weapons are used to slaughter innocent people. The disconnect from reality comes from those who don't care whether or not Islamic extremists develop nuclear weapons. The Syria fiasco has exposed you 'anti war' 'activists' for what you really are.

No one has proposed a full scale invasion of Syria, and only a few people have proposed that we actively assist the Syrian rebels through funding and training. I personally would not support such an effort to aid and arm the rebels in Syria. However, I do support limited and targeted airstrikes to punish and deter Assad from using chemical weapons. Think about the precedent we are setting if we allow a dictator to use chemical weapons without any retribution.

Please understand that what you believe the US should do is not necessarily what it will do, nor an accurate description of what it has done in the past. However, the idea that this particular state "is an agent for good in the world"--regardless of what it has done--is absurd in the extreme, as evidenced by my post you admittedly didn't read. No amount of patriotic mantra or flag waving will ever change these facts. You are of course welcome to drape the stars and stripes over your monitor in the event that my case becomes too distressing.

The United States has fought oppressive regimes and ideologies ranging from Nazism to Communism. And now the United States is fighting Islamic terrorism. The pattern of behavior on the part of America is pretty obvious to anyone who is not blinded by conspiracy theories. Whenever a brutal and oppressive regime/ideology rises up and begins to spread, America has always been there to fight it. Yes, the way the United States has gone about fighting oppression has sometimes been flawed. But the principle behind American intervention is noble nonetheless.

As for the rest of your post, I simply cannot read it or respond to it due to the overwhelming among of useless links, various sizes and different colors.

I don't recall my formatting being an issue in the past.

It has. It's frustrating and annoying to have to delete all your clutter, and it makes it more complicated for me to type up and edit my own posts.

You have been here longer than I have and have made many more posts than I have. In light of this, I would like to think that you should be comfortable with BB code by now; but I actually understand that what should be doesn't necessarily describe what is.

I understand the BB code just fine. What I don't understand or approve of is your interpretation/application of the BB code. It's annoying and makes it harder for me to write since I don't use different colors, different sizes, and link all these websites to my posts.

[Darias]

I haven't made any claims. I'm pointing out that the claims you've been making in this thread are absurd. They are conspiracy theories and therefore nothing you say should be taken seriously. If you disagree then explain why your ideas aren't conspiracy theories.

You have repeatedly made claims about the validity of my argument without showing why my case is invalid. I have supported my claims thoroughly with many mainstream sources, much of which is common knowledge; you, on the other hand, have not bothered to cite anything, instead preferring the following uncivil debate tactics:

Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.[1] The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone.[2][3]

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. Ad hominem arguments, which dispute the merits of a claim's advocate rather than the merits of the claim itself, are fallacious for the same reason. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2]

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the liberation of Iraq, etc. It's interesting how we only seem to intervene in regions that are already suffering from brutality and oppression.

So let me get this straight, in a debate over the motives behind foreign policy and enforcing red lines on chemical weapons use, you're going to cite WWII, Vietnam, and the wars in Iraq as evidence in your favor? Seriously? In WWII, the US used Napalm on civilians. It also nuked Japan because the Japanese wanted to keep their emperor. After the nuclear cloud settled, the US let them keep their emperor anyway. In Vietnam, a war started via a false flag attack --the Gulf of Tonkin incident (no, not conspiracy, but a part of history actually admitted by the NSA) -- the US used tons of chemicals on civilian populations. The US supported sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that caused the deaths of 100s of thousands of children (Source). In Iraq, the US used radioactive depleted uranium (Source).

Ever since two major US-led assaults destroyed the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004, Fallujans have witnessed dramatic increases in rates of cancers, birth defects and infant mortality in their city. Dr Chris Busby, the author and co-author of two studies on the Fallujah heath crisis, has called this "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied".

And you actually expect me to believe the state department cares about human lives, in what universe exactly?

The disconnect from reality comes from people like you who don't care when chemical weapons are used to slaughter innocent people. The disconnect from reality comes from those who don't care whether or not Islamic extremists develop nuclear weapons. The Syria fiasco has exposed you 'anti war' 'activists' for what you really are.

I never said I didn't care about the few thousand people who were killed in the gas attack. I'm just questioning the sincerity of the US state department, given its history with letting similar attacks slide when committed by its allies.

The disconnect with reality results when one's worldview labels any and all facts that failed to make their way onto one of Bill O'Reilly's talking points from 2002 as "conspiracy theories."

No one has proposed a full scale invasion of Syria, and only a few people have proposed that we actively assist the Syrian rebels through funding and training. I personally would not support such an effort to aid and arm the rebels in Syria. However, I do support limited and targeted airstrikes to punish and deter Assad from using chemical weapons. Think about the precedent we are setting if we allow a dictator to use chemical weapons without any retribution.

No one proposed a decade long commitment in Iraq either. That war, according to Rumsfeld, was supposed to be done with in a few weeks. The law of unintended consequences proves that one thing leads to another.

The author of a study from the Institute for the Study of War (founded in support of the Iraq War), which was cited by McCain as support for a strike in Syria, has questioned the purpose of a limited strike as a response to a chemical weapons attack:

Harmer doubted that any surgical strikes would produce the desired results -- especially if the goal is to punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

"Punitive action is the dumbest of all actions," he said. "The Assad regime has shown an incredible capacity to endure pain and I don't think we have the stomach to deploy enough punitive action that would serve as a deterrent."

He also doubted the effectiveness of taking out Assad's chemical weapons capabilities. "If we start picking off chemical weapons targets in Syria, the logical response is if any weapons are left in the warehouses, he's going to start dispersing them among his forces if he hasn't already," he continued. "So you're too late to the fight."

And you're right, everyone should seriously consider the message that is being sent when the US, having used chemical weapons in the past (in Vietnam and Iraq just to name a few), condemns and responds to chemical attacks by rival proxies -- while excusing and lying about it when their allies do the same thing (e.g. when the State Department blamed Iran for Iraq's gassing of the Kurds).

The United States has fought oppressive regimes and ideologies ranging from Nazism to Communism. And now the United States is fighting Islamic terrorism. The pattern of behavior on the part of America is pretty obvious to anyone who is not blinded by conspiracy theories. Whenever a brutal and oppressive regime/ideology rises up and begins to spread, America has always been there to fight it. Yes, the way the United States has gone about fighting oppression has sometimes been flawed. But the principle behind American intervention is noble nonetheless.

In our past discussions, I have brought up examples of US foreign policy not bound by "noble notions" during the Cold War, during WWII, and even Iraq. You dismissed my points as being a part of the distant past. You dismissed those examples by claiming that the US was just fighting a "greater evil" and it didn't matter what its allies were. The fact is that the trend of US foreign policy is short sighted state interest only, with no regard to life or liberty of those who fail to ally with it. You may pass off example after example as a rare case of flawed deviation from the "course of freedom making that the US has always been walking." But where you see the occasional failing, I see a predictable trend.

The facts support my case. You not only have an aversion to examining the facts I have presented, but you won't even take the time to read my post, let alone acknowledge my points. Care to explain why I'm blind and you're not?

I understand the BB code just fine. What I don't understand or approve of is your interpretation/application of the BB code. It's annoying and makes it harder for me to write since I don't use different colors, different sizes, and link all these websites to my posts.

Of course you don't use links; why bother with facts when they don't support your repeated assertions?



-

[WinePusher]

You have repeatedly made claims about the validity of my argument without showing why my case is invalid.

Why don't you go complain to otseng about that. According to the 'forum rules' I don't have to prove you wrong or show why your claims are invalid. You should be grateful I haven't been posting things like 'I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard. 1st challenge.'

But yes, you have insinuated absurd things that I write off as conspiracy theories. Didn't you suggest that rebels used sarin gas? Don't you also believe that the rebels may be framing Assad with this chemical weapons attack? Don't you also believe that the United States has some sinister ulterior motive and doesn't really care about the usage of chemical weapons? Where's the proof? I've been following this story pretty closely and I have seen none.

I have supported my claims thoroughly with many mainstream sources, much of which is common knowledge;

It's not common knowledge that the Syrian rebels deployed nerve gas.

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the liberation of Iraq, etc. It's interesting how we only seem to intervene in regions that are already suffering from brutality and oppression.

So let me get this straight, in a debate over the motives behind foreign policy and enforcing red lines on chemical weapons use, you're going to cite WWII, Vietnam, and the wars in Iraq as evidence in your favor? Seriously? In WWII, the US used Napalm on civilians. It also nuked Japan because the Japanese wanted to keep their emperor.

Are you serious? In WWII, you had a German psychopath named Adolf Hitler rounding up Jewish people and throwing them into furnaces, gas chambers and concentration camps. In WWII, you had Japan preemptively strike Pearl Harbor. Had the United States not intervened militarily the world would be a much sadder place. And yes, at the time there were probably many people like you who just wanted to stay out of it and mind our own business. Well, turns out you were on the wrong side of history. And we nuked Japan because we felt it was the quickest way to end the war. This is a debatable point among historians, but we didn't simply nuke Japan for the sake of nuking them.

In Vietnam, a war started via a false flag attack --the Gulf of Tonkin incident (no, not conspiracy, but a part of history actually admitted by the NSA) -- the US used tons of chemicals on civilian populations.

Our goal was not to go in and kill as many Vietnamese people as possible, our goal was to prevent Communism from spreading. Yes, Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag. That much is true. But it really has no relevance to the point I'm making, which is that there was noble intent behind the US intervention in Vietnam.

The US supported sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that caused the deaths of 100s of thousands of children (Source). In Iraq, the US used radioactive depleted uranium (Source).

Stop spinning. Why did the US support sanctions against Iraq? Was it because the US wanted little children to starve and die? Of course not. It was because the US wanted to put pressure on a fascist dictator who was already killing thousands of children.

And you actually expect me to believe the state department cares about human lives, in what universe exactly?

And you actually expect me to believe that the United States is this evil, civilian burning, child killing nation you're trying to make it out to be? All the examples you've brought up so far are moot.

The disconnect with reality results when one's worldview labels any and all facts that failed to make their way onto one of Bill O'Reilly's talking points from 2002 as "conspiracy theories."

Guess what, everything you've been saying coincides with what the conspiracy theorists are saying. Do you get your talking points from the desk of Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura cause it sure seems like it? No one in the media, whether it be cable news or print, affirms your stance. Oh, but let me guess, you believe that the media is lying to us (another conspiracy theory).

Why do you think the United States wants to get involved with Syria?

No one has proposed a full scale invasion of Syria, and only a few people have proposed that we actively assist the Syrian rebels through funding and training. I personally would not support such an effort to aid and arm the rebels in Syria. However, I do support limited and targeted airstrikes to punish and deter Assad from using chemical weapons. Think about the precedent we are setting if we allow a dictator to use chemical weapons without any retribution.

No one proposed a decade long commitment in Iraq either. That war, according to Rumsfeld, was supposed to be done with in a few weeks. The law of unintended consequences proves that one thing leads to another.

Bush proposed sending in ground troops from the very beginning. Obama has not said such a thing. I would not support such a policy. I do support limited airstrikes on chemical weapons facilities and I cannot believe that you disapprove of something so minor and beneficial.

The author of a study from the Institute for the Study of War (founded in support of the Iraq War), which was cited by McCain as support for a strike in Syria, has questioned the purpose of a limited strike as a response to a chemical weapons attack:

Harmer doubted that any surgical strikes would produce the desired results -- especially if the goal is to punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

"Punitive action is the dumbest of all actions," he said. "The Assad regime has shown an incredible capacity to endure pain and I don't think we have the stomach to deploy enough punitive action that would serve as a deterrent."

He also doubted the effectiveness of taking out Assad's chemical weapons capabilities. "If we start picking off chemical weapons targets in Syria, the logical response is if any weapons are left in the warehouses, he's going to start dispersing them among his forces if he hasn't already," he continued. "So you're too late to the fight."

Please, this guys doesn't even know what he's talking about. He is not in the military, he is not in the intelligence community. He does not know the strategic locations in Syria that the military plans on striking, he doesn't know where Assad is relocating his chemical weapons, or whether or not he is even moving them at all.

And you're right, everyone should seriously consider the message that is being sent when the US, having used chemical weapons in the past (in Vietnam and Iraq just to name a few), condemns and responds to chemical attacks by rival proxies -- while excusing and lying about it when their allies do the same thing (e.g. when the State Department blamed Iran for Iraq's gassing of the Kurds).

False equivalency. The United States does not arbitrarily gas it's own innocent citizens with impunity. And the United States used nerve gas in Vietnam and Iraq? Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this. Agent orange isn't a deadly WMD on the same level as sarin gas.

The United States has fought oppressive regimes and ideologies ranging from Nazism to Communism. And now the United States is fighting Islamic terrorism. The pattern of behavior on the part of America is pretty obvious to anyone who is not blinded by conspiracy theories. Whenever a brutal and oppressive regime/ideology rises up and begins to spread, America has always been there to fight it. Yes, the way the United States has gone about fighting oppression has sometimes been flawed. But the principle behind American intervention is noble nonetheless.

In our past discussions, I have brought up examples of US foreign policy not bound by "noble notions" during the Cold War, during WWII, and even Iraq. You dismissed my points as being a part of the distant past. You dismissed those examples by claiming that the US was just fighting a "greater evil" and it didn't matter what its allies were. The fact is that the trend of US foreign policy is short sighted state interest only, with no regard to life or liberty of those who fail to ally with it. You may pass off example after example as a rare case of flawed deviation from the "course of freedom making that the US has always been walking." But where you see the occasional failing, I see a predictable trend.

1) You have brought up the fact that the United States propped up many of the current Islamic regimes we are now fighting against. I countered by saying that this was true in WWII, where we allied ourselves with Stalin to fight a greater evil, Hitler. The fact that we strategically pick sides in order to deal with the greatest threat occurring at that particular time means nothing. Let me ask you, why do you think the United States once supported Saddam Hussein in the distant past? Was it all part of some grand scheme?

2) I pretty much dealt with all your examples above, from WWII to Iraq. If the United States intent is not noble, if it isn't the United States goal to spread freedom and democracy, then what is it? If the United States goal isn't to deter Syria from using more chemical weapons, then what is it? Give me your personal opinion.