List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Syria

[Metsfanmax]

The thing is, unlike you, Syria is actually important to me for IRL reasons.

Phew. Glad we got that covered. So you agree we should invade?

The IRL reasons saxi mentions---are of course his natural affinity for chemical weapons, him being a paralytic toxin himself. Solidarity among chemical chains.

This just in, GLaDOS, Saxitoxin stand in solidarity with their chemical comrades.




--Andy

+50 SxBx

[Juan_Bottom]

That was the Bush Administration. Say what you want about Obama's policies, but I don't blame him for invading Vietnam either.

Like I said, chuckle. The fact that you think there's a difference speaks volumes. In any other situation I would "let's agree to disagree," however I think in the case of wrongful and immoral invasion or bombing of a sovereign nation for selfish political gain we can't even do that.

-TG

You're not even saying anything. You just don't know what you're talking about so you're talking in generalities.
Bashar al-Assad is the sovereign ruler of Syria, the guy who bombed his own civilians to get them to stop protesting his government? The people of any country are the country, not the dictator. The people want Assad out, but they don't have the tools to negate his jets and weapons tech. The people are sovereign, and we're not bombing them.

We don't need to invade Syria. The FSA has 100,000 soldiers. That's plenty more than Assad and Hezbollah combined. All they need is technological support, exactly like the US in 1776. If it's good enough for you to get your freedom this way, why is it too good for Syria?

What is the political gain here? What was it in Libya? Or Egypt?

Meh. Once the ad hom attacks started I switched sides. Let's go Juan_Bottom!

Thanks for the support. If not for me, Saxi would be useless. Every time he posts something there's 20 bastards who start wanking him off telling him how great he is. In the meantime, anyone who wanders into these forums and questions him gets called a stupid f*ckface and chased out. Someone has to be the Batman to his Riddler, the Wile E. Coyote to his Roadrunner.

[Juan_Bottom]

Like i say earlier, what if rebels use chemical weapons, then what?
You only see one side, but not other, so Assad make more crimes, and rebels make less crimes, and that ok?
FSA have 100000 armed soldiers, and this its Civil War, this are not threat for US or UK. Even Poland and Austria refuse to take part in this Invasion, and its question if will any other NAto member take part in this War (except France).
This will be again trip of US to new conflict, make this from Internal Civil War, to international conflict.
Its best to US to give weapons to FSA, and not interfere, so they will save US lives, and not bring more hate for US people.
And only 9% of Citizens of US support invasion, but who cares abouth that.
And all this money what will be spend on bombs, could be use for much smart things in US.
If you dont going to participate in conflict, then its not ok to support that some other go in your name to die in country who are 9000 km away from your country. You will be live and could agitate for new war (iran maybe) and again some young soldier will fight in another country away, to die for Rich People, who only care for more and more money on hes pockets.

I gotta be honest with you; the Chemical attack doesn't actually enter into my opinion one way or the other.
What matters to me is that Assad is a dictator, and his people peacefully gathered to protest for more freedom, and he killed them for it. If the FSA wins the conflict, they will bring Democratic elections, and they are so strong that they can keep the wrong people from taking power, while at the same time they aren't politically ambitious. They just want to bring Democratic change. They are a non-religious force, and they accept people of all races, and sects.
If it was Assad fighting against the Taliban, I wouldn't have a team here, because nobody could win that fight. But an FSA win means a free Syria.
And I just can't accept the idea that this should be classified as a Civil War, because the fighting is happening where innocent Syrians live. I can't believe that the international community doesn't care how many civilians actually die or are displaced.

Obama said that he was not "intent on a regime change." Which to me is a sign that he does not intend to invade Syria at all, but rather just aid the FSA.

[Metsfanmax]

We don't need to invade Syria. The FSA has 100,000 soldiers. That's plenty more than Assad and Hezbollah combined. All they need is technological support, exactly like the US in 1776. If it's good enough for you to get your freedom this way, why is it too good for Syria?

Do you think the people of Syria will be free if the FSA manages to depose Assad?

[Juan_Bottom]

Actually, no, it says they denied responsibility, like OJ denied killing Nicole.

First you run around in a tizzy saying there's no source (for a heavily covered news event you, astonishingly, hadn't heard of since you only discovered where Syria was one week ago), then you further embarrass yourself by barfing out that?

Actually no, the BBC doesn't say that they did do it. They just said that it happened. In Syria. And that the FSA is also in Syria.

Cool. Here ya' go:

http://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis ... o-bombings

(from the USG's own fav group of ppl)"Despite its denial, the Free Syrian Army or one of its offshoots was likely responsible for the bombings in Aleppo."

(Twenty posts ago you charged in here having not even heard of the Aleppo bombings - and now you be tellin' us like it is! Love it! You have a little homework to do, though.)

Oh no, I've heard of the suicide attacks, but I've not heard of any carried out by the FSA. I have heard that al-Nustra, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda were all fighting each other in the area, and that is part of their MO's.

That link requires me to sign up to receive the news, and your quote doesn't even say that they carried out a suicide attack. Do you have a link from a trustworthy source that doesn't require a membership? I still don't think that you can source these.

And also, just to re-iterate that none of these say the FSA did it. I've talked about the war crimes that the FSA has been responsible for, mainly summary executions, and the FSA has admitted to these and restructured their command to prevent them in the future. That was in 2012, and I can't recall any war crimes committed by the FSA since then. But certainly they haven't been involved in suicide bombings... the FSA aren't fanatics.

What are the war crimes carried out by Assad and your team?

We don't need to invade Syria. The FSA has 100,000 soldiers. That's plenty more than Assad and Hezbollah combined. All they need is technological support, exactly like the US in 1776. If it's good enough for you to get your freedom this way, why is it too good for Syria?

Do you think the people of Syria will be free if the FSA manages to depose Assad?

Yes.
The FSA is still very loosely organized, and made up of people from all over the Middle East, including a Christian brigade. Their stated mission is only to oust Assad and bring Democratic elections to Syria. They have no political ambitions.

Syria actually has a long history of peace and tolerance, and that is why the FSA has more soldiers than all of the other factions combined. Syrians want to honor that history by bringing peace back, but a democratic peace.

[saxitoxin]

VICTORY!!!

On the eve of an anti-war protest in London expected to draw up to a million people in opposition to UK involvement, a vote by the Labour Party unexpectedly passes after a handful of backbencher CP MPs defect ... the only vote allowed to date on Obama's war butchery has gone down in flames. All across the world people are rising up! (In Sydney yesterday, 40 people did a sit-in outside Parliament dance to support intervention - they were answered by a rally of 3,000 against intervention.) Let's all get behind the 53-city mass protests ANSWER is organizing in the "USA!"

[saxitoxin]

Actually, no, it says they denied responsibility, like OJ denied killing Nicole.

First you run around in a tizzy saying there's no source (for a heavily covered news event you, astonishingly, hadn't heard of since you only discovered where Syria was one week ago), then you further embarrass yourself by barfing out that?

Actually no, the BBC doesn't say that they did do it. They just said that it happened. In Syria. And that the FSA is also in Syria.

Cool. Here ya' go:

http://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis ... o-bombings

(from the USG's own fav group of ppl)"Despite its denial, the Free Syrian Army or one of its offshoots was likely responsible for the bombings in Aleppo."

(Twenty posts ago you charged in here having not even heard of the Aleppo bombings - and now you be tellin' us like it is! Love it! You have a little homework to do, though.)

Oh no, I've heard of the suicide attacks, but I've not heard of any carried out by the FSA. I have heard that al-Nustra, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda were all fighting each other in the area, and that is part of their MO's.

That link requires me to sign up to receive the news, and your quote doesn't even say that they carried out a suicide attack. Do you have a link from a trustworthy source that doesn't require a membership? I still don't think that you can source these.

It started with half-a-dozen issues - one by one you let them drop off as you couldn't answer, couldn't respond ... now you're just down to trying to grasp at this one with your irrational fringe conspiracy theories and moving target demands ... (Juan: "It didn't happen." - "Okay it happened but not like you said it did." - "Okay it happened like you said it did but not by who you said it did." - "Well, I just refuse to believe - post more sources!").

In this latest post you unilaterally dropped half-a-dozen of the other nonsense you were pushing - and I succinctly rebutted - and decided to make your last stand on this and resort to screaming and posting photo-flames. It's so sad to see a total breakdown like that, Juan. It really is. I'm not mad, I just feel sorry for you.

[rishaed]

VICTORY!!![/b]

couldn't find the delete function.

[saxitoxin]

Syria actually has a long history of peace and tolerance

Uhhh - wrong yet again. Syria has a history of peace and tolerance dating back to the 1960s after the March Revolution that brought the Socialist Ba'ath Party to prominence and imposed non-religious, secular government on a nation that historically had been splintered by communalism and religious infighting. That's why ethnic and religious minorities in Syria are among the most loyal supporters of the Socialist Ba'ath Party - they will be the first ones massacred if it falls to the FSA butchers.

I posted this link about the support Syria's Museum Jews are showing Ba'athism in the Marie Colvin thread a year ago - that's the thread you didn't participate in because you were too busy looking for Koni at the time; you know, before you learned Syria exists ... if anyone spends more than 5 minutes in Flatbush, Brooklyn, you will find strong Jewish support for Assad, a 180 from the opposition in most other U.S. Jewish communities.

Jack Avital believes in the future of Bashar Assad. “Everything is good,” he told the Algemeiner. “You can bet on it – Assad will be there another 20 years…He is not Mubarak, not Gaddafi– Assad is an honest guy and 95% of the population supports him and will protect him.”

Unexpected remarks, given the mainstream media’s recent coverage. Avital says, however, that the economy is “working and moving.”Further, he says that the Jewish community is doing well, and that the Syrian president is protecting the minute Jewish community still in place in Damascus. In the last several months Syria has been seen in the west as a government in crisis, one willing to do anything – even kill its own people – to retain its power. Yet, according to Avital, who is in close contact with officers of the Syrian government both in American and in Damascus, Assad is protecting the ancient community and has protection in place at the community’s historic synagogue.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/06/14/wh ... rias-jews/

[AndyDufresne]

VICTORY!!!

GLaDOS and Saxitoxin strike again!




--Andy

[saxitoxin]

It's great reading the comments section on National Petroleum Radio which are among the most stridently opposed to Obama's insane global warmongering I've seen yet ...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... bolic-vote

[Juan_Bottom]

It started with half-a-dozen issues - one by one you let them drop off as you couldn't answer, couldn't respond ... now you're just down to trying to grasp at this one with your irrational fringe conspiracy theories and moving target demands ... (Juan: "It didn't happen." - "Okay it happened but not like you said it did." - "Okay it happened like you said it did but not by who you said it did." - "Well, I just refuse to believe - post more sources!").

In this latest post you unilaterally dropped half-a-dozen of the other nonsense you were pushing - and I succinctly rebutted - and decided to make your last stand on this and resort to screaming and posting photo-flames. It's so sad to see a total breakdown like that, Juan. It really is. I'm not mad, I just feel sorry for you.

I'm not grasping, I'm asking you to admit that you were wrong. Well, either you were genuinely mistaken or you're lying. Being a fictional persona on a gaming website I suspect that you're just trolling, but whatever. Feels good.

You said that the FSA was using human bombs to kill people. I said it never happened. You posted a link showing that there had been a suicide bomber somewhere in Syria. Yeah, that is true. Was it a surprise random FSA suicide bomber? Nope. You got that from Alex Jones.
I've been responding just fine to the real people on CC who are asking real questions of me. Arguing with you is like arguing with Homer Simpson in the Garbage man Episode, so I don't do it.










^ that's not Socialism

[2dimes]

Did this war just become a rumor of war?

[saxitoxin]

Nope. You got that from Alex Jones.

Juan - I would appreciate it if you stop screaming, throwing up photo-flames and posting lies. The first of my three links you rejected due to the various conspiracy theories to which you subscribe was to the BBC and, for the third time, I have never quoted this "Alex Jones." I already addressed your "Alex Jones" flame:

This one is particularly hilarious and fills me with delight given my searchable history of lampooning Alex Jones here,

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=195101&start=75#p4270101

I understand this is your attempt - admittedly a bizarre one - to try delegitimize opposition by trying to attach it to a nutter like Alex Jones, but you're just not pulling it off well. And your photo-flames and weird accusations that me "and about 20 people" [sic] are conspiring to "get" you make you sound unhinged.

Your off-kilter behavior in this thread is not conducive to a rational discourse. This is a place for discussions, not rants and conspiracy theories. If you need to take a breather, and maybe have a cold glass of water to collect yourself and calm down a bit, no one will think less of you. Thank you!

[Juan_Bottom]

Hey man, this whole website has seen you do this very thing 100 times to other people.

[Mr Changsha]

My faith in parliament has been, ever so slightly, restored. Though one must wonder about the pressure the US put Cameron under...and also about how this affects:

a) the US/UK relationship
and
b) how much damage this has done to Cameron.

It is highly unusual for the british government to lose such a vote. Generally fear of upsetting the americans and dealing with those consequences in the future pushes the opposition into supporting the government. Milliband has been very brave..the americans won't forget this. One wonders about IF he wins the next election whether he'll be meeting the vice president...

[saxitoxin]

My faith in parliament has been, ever so slightly, restored. Though one must wonder about the pressure the US put Cameron under...and also about how this affects:

a) the US/UK relationship
and
b) how much damage this has done to Cameron.

It is highly unusual for the british government to lose such a vote. Generally fear of upsetting the americans and dealing with those consequences in the future pushes the opposition into supporting the government. Milliband has been very brave..the americans won't forget this. One wonders about IF he wins the next election whether he'll be meeting the vice president...

I didn't see Milliband speak but check out George Galloway putting Cameron in his place - FF to 3:15 -

"Every minority in Syria is petrified at the possible victory of the Syrian rebels!"

[TA1LGUNN3R]

You're not even saying anything. You just don't know what you're talking about so you're talking in generalities.
Bashar al-Assad is the sovereign ruler of Syria, the guy who bombed his own civilians to get them to stop protesting his government? The people of any country are the country, not the dictator. The people want Assad out, but they don't have the tools to negate his jets and weapons tech. The people are sovereign, and we're not bombing them.

We don't need to invade Syria. The FSA has 100,000 soldiers. That's plenty more than Assad and Hezbollah combined. All they need is technological support, exactly like the US in 1776. If it's good enough for you to get your freedom this way, why is it too good for Syria?

What is the political gain here? What was it in Libya? Or Egypt?

Whatever you say, cochise. Just remember in ten years how you cheered for yet another involvement that ends up being a mire of shit.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

That was the Bush Administration. Say what you want about Obama's policies, but I don't blame him for invading Vietnam either.

Like I said, chuckle. The fact that you think there's a difference speaks volumes. In any other situation I would "let's agree to disagree," however I think in the case of wrongful and immoral invasion or bombing of a sovereign nation for selfish political gain we can't even do that.

-TG

You're not even saying anything. You just don't know what you're talking about so you're talking in generalities.
Bashar al-Assad is the sovereign ruler of Syria, the guy who bombed his own civilians to get them to stop protesting his government?

How many citizens can a president/autocrat bomb until it's no longer okay?

[2dimes]

[BigBallinStalin]

It started with half-a-dozen issues - one by one you let them drop off as you couldn't answer, couldn't respond ... now you're just down to trying to grasp at this one with your irrational fringe conspiracy theories and moving target demands ... (Juan: "It didn't happen." - "Okay it happened but not like you said it did." - "Okay it happened like you said it did but not by who you said it did." - "Well, I just refuse to believe - post more sources!").

In this latest post you unilaterally dropped half-a-dozen of the other nonsense you were pushing - and I succinctly rebutted - and decided to make your last stand on this and resort to screaming and posting photo-flames. It's so sad to see a total breakdown like that, Juan. It really is. I'm not mad, I just feel sorry for you.

I'm not grasping, I'm asking you to admit that you were wrong. Well, either you were genuinely mistaken or you're lying. Being a fictional persona on a gaming website I suspect that you're just trolling, but whatever. Feels good.

You said that the FSA was using human bombs to kill people. I said it never happened. You posted a link showing that there had been a suicide bomber somewhere in Syria. Yeah, that is true. Was it a surprise random FSA suicide bomber? Nope. You got that from Alex Jones.
I've been responding just fine to the real people on CC who are asking real questions of me. Arguing with you is like arguing with Homer Simpson in the Garbage man Episode, so I don't do it.

How can you be so sure?

Al Nusrah Front claims joint operations, including a suicide assault, with Syrian rebel groups
By Bill RoggioJune 29, 2013

The Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, claimed it launched two suicide assaults and other attacks with Syrian rebel groups, including an Islamist unit and two Free Syrian Army brigades.

Free Syrian Army works with the Al Nusrah Front

The Al Nusrah Front is willing to work with Syrian rebel groups such as the Free Syrian Army, and in its official statements has admitted to doing so.

The Al Nusrah Front has also cooperated with Free Syrian Army units to establish sharia, or Islamic law, in Aleppo and in eastern Syria.

One of the founders of the Free Syrian Army, Colonel Riyad al Assad, has welcomed the Al Nusrah Front on the battlefield and has described the group as "our brothers in Islam." Riyad made the statements in an undated video that was uploaded on YouTube in March.

"We have offered martyrs and other things and, accordingly, nobody should blame us for this matter," he said. "The Al Nusrah Front has proved that it is proficient in fighting and has treated the people very nicely."

Riyad then said the Al Nusrah Front "thus far have not done anything wrong to anybody," disregarding the facts that the group has executed suicide attacks that have killed civilians and enforces a harsh form of sharia, or Islamic law, in areas under its control.

But large numbers of Free Syrian Army fighters and even entire units are said to be defecting to the Al Nusrah Front. From Jan. 1 until the beginning of May, more than 3,000 Free Syrian Army fighters are thought to have taken their weapons and joined al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/06/al_nusrah_front_clai_14.php

Gee, surprise, surprise! Some elements of the FSA work with Al-Nusra, and they also engage in suicide attacks.

But there are other egregious acts of terrorism other than suicide attacks/bombings, and elements within the FSA have committed them. The problem with JB's approach is that he assumes the FSA is this amorophous blob of individuals who all pursue one goal with the same means, but instead it's composed of many different individuals with different means and different goals. I've mentioned this to JB here and here, but I strongly doubt he is willing to correct his assumptions in accord with reality.


The FSA even coordinates, thus aids, other groups which engage in suicide attacks and other acts of terrorism:

The base was first besieged by a Free Syrian Army brigade called North Storm, and joined by fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and a group calling itself Jaish al-Muhajireen wal Ansar. Muhajireen means emigrants, and the group, which carried out several suicide attacks at the base, is led by Russian speakers from Chechnya and other parts of the Caucasus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/world ... .html?_r=0

But wait! There's more!

In the autumn of 2011, anti-regime demonstrators across Syria were praising a "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) whose leaders were predominantly defector officers. Although sometimes bearing Islamic names and using religious formulas in their statements, the FSA battalions were hardly putting forward any "Islamist" agenda at that time. By late 2012, however, the situation had profoundly changed. Use of the FSA label was increasingly rare among armed groups, many of which were abandoning the Syrian national flag in favor of the black banner of the Prophet. The rise of hardline Salafi factions like the al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra and the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF) led by Ahrar al-Sham, a faction with strong roots among Syrian veteran fighters of the Iraq war, was apparently irresistible, as FSA-affiliated battalions played the second roles in the rebels' major conquests at the time (Taftanaz, al-Jirah, Raqqa).

During their "golden age" that is, before the JN/ISIS split, Syrian Jihadis were thus abandoning part of their ideological specificity. They were therefore converging with FSA-affiliated insurgents, which at the same moment were undergoing a process of Islamization

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... insurgency

Apparently, the "FSA" is not as congruent as a group as JB would have us believe. Parts of the FSA are more radical Islamic than JB believes. It's not at all simple to give the "FSA" more weapons, which presumably would lead to their victory and a grand democracy.

The current structure of the insurgency is atomized, hapless and beholden to no
decisive authority. Many of these forces are housed in dozens of independent “brigades,” named
either for historical figures or recent victims of the Syrian uprising, e.g., the “Hamza al-Khatib
Brigade” or the “Salaheddine Al-Ayoubi Brigade.” In Western media portrayals, however, the Free
Syrian Army (FSA) is presented as the encompassing organization under which all rebel soldiers
operate.

There is still much ambiguity regarding the FSA’s true capabilities and whether the high-profile
attacks against regime targets are actually being ordered from this group or are being conducted
by independent brigades.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_u ... paper_.pdf

Compare the more informed sources to JB's ramblings:

We don't need to invade Syria. The FSA has 100,000 soldiers. That's plenty more than Assad and Hezbollah combined. All they need is technological support, exactly like the US in 1776. If it's good enough for you to get your freedom this way, why is it too good for Syria?

Do you think the people of Syria will be free if the FSA manages to depose Assad?

Yes.
The FSA is still very loosely organized, and made up of people from all over the Middle East, including a Christian brigade. Their stated mission is only to oust Assad and bring Democratic elections to Syria. They have no political ambitions.

Syria actually has a long history of peace and tolerance, and that is why the FSA has more soldiers than all of the other factions combined. Syrians want to honor that history by bringing peace back, but a democratic peace.

The underlined simply are not true; their soundness is uncertain.

Speaking as if the FSA is a solid group with goals of democracy is misleading.

[BigBallinStalin]

More links to the FSA's policy of terrorism:


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76e_1341529991
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb3_1375981559

and more

The main point is that it is not at all clear how many acts of terrorism are committed by the FSA or the "FSA." What is clear is that there is no such thing as a distinct group called the Free Syrian Army, which also has a distinct goal of which its members actively pursue (democracy) with the same means (non-terrorism).

What I find funny is that some people support what they imagine to be the FSA, so whenever the FSA commits a despicable act, they say, "Oh, it was people posing as the FSA," and whenever the FSA commits a laudable act, they say, "Oh, the FSA did such a good job!"

Is there a problem with that kind of 'reasoning'?

[Ray Rider]

Looks like the antiwar crowd is dominating the discussion here and I happen to agree for the most part. The National Post had a good article about it recently here.

However I do have a couple questions for the non-interventionists here:
1. At what point is intervention in sovereign nation's civil war justifiable, or is it ever justifiable, in your opinion? In the case of Syria, it's of low strategic value to the West, neither warring faction shares the West's values, and the risk of the war spilling over to other nations is low if left to continue its course; however do you believe there is a point, say after 500,000 causalities or something, that intervention is morally just and necessary from a humanitarian standpoint? Or perhaps only if it is ethnic cleansing which is occurring i.e. Rwanda?

2. At what point is intervention in a sovereign nation justifiable to prevent chemical weapons from getting into the wrong hands or from being used indiscriminately on a population? Does the fact that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict in Syria affect your view at all--is it a factor in deciding whether war is justifiable or not? Or do you view it as "just another 300 dead out of 100,00; who cares about the exact cause of their death"? What about if these chemical weapons had long-term lasting effects on the environment?

Those are some of the questions I'm mulling over right now. I'm opposed to the war right now, but I'm figuring out at what point my view on that would change; what would it take for me to join the pro-war side?

[BigBallinStalin]

My faith in parliament has been, ever so slightly, restored. Though one must wonder about the pressure the US put Cameron under...and also about how this affects:

a) the US/UK relationship
and
b) how much damage this has done to Cameron.

It is highly unusual for the british government to lose such a vote. Generally fear of upsetting the americans and dealing with those consequences in the future pushes the opposition into supporting the government. Milliband has been very brave..the americans won't forget this. One wonders about IF he wins the next election whether he'll be meeting the vice president...

Since the gallup polls shows Americans largely not favoring a war with Syria, and assuming that they will vote for politicians who would also vote against declaring war against Syria, then the citizens of UK need not worry. Of course, the president is another matter since he can arbitrarily declare war without congresional approval.

The UK Parliament has definitely annoyed the US president, but that's a good thing.

[Frigidus]

Looks like the antiwar crowd is dominating the discussion here and I happen to agree for the most part. The National Post had a good article about it recently here.

However I do have a couple questions for the non-interventionists here:
1. At what point is intervention in sovereign nation's civil war justifiable, or is it ever justifiable, in your opinion? In the case of Syria, it's of low strategic value to the West, neither warring faction shares the West's values, and the risk of the war spilling over to other nations is low if left to continue its course; however do you believe there is a point, say after 500,000 causalities or something, that intervention is morally just and necessary from a humanitarian standpoint? Or perhaps only if it is ethnic cleansing which is occurring i.e. Rwanda?

2. At what point is intervention in a sovereign nation justifiable to prevent chemical weapons from getting into the wrong hands or from being used indiscriminately on a population? Does the fact that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict in Syria affect your view at all--is it a factor in deciding whether war is justifiable or not? Or do you view it as "just another 300 dead out of 100,00; who cares about the exact cause of their death"? What about if these chemical weapons had long-term lasting effects on the environment?

Those are some of the questions I'm mulling over right now. I'm opposed to the war right now, but I'm figuring out at what point my view on that would change; what would it take for me to join the pro-war side?

1. I'd say that intervention is acceptable in situations where people are being targeted for their ethnicity, religion, etc. When the fight is occurring because both sides want political power it isn't our place to step in.

2. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands is one thing, chemical weapons is another. There are all sorts of horrible atrocities committed throughout the Middle East, I don't see why we should elevate the use of chemical weapons above everything else.