Perhaps someone besides Jack can try to articulate the Libertarian or AC position more clearly? In my view, there are plenty of reasons for libertarians to be anti-war in this case, but the non-aggression principle isn't one of them.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

That handshake with Putin...Wow.

Great acting by both

What level of intervention are you arguing for? A couple posts ago you were saying things like Assad must go and here it seems like your prescribed response is specifically light enough that Assad won't feel his position is threatened and fight back.

Whatever Putin Says will go? Huh?

Yeah, Russia sells the most military weapons to Syria, that is a fact. So their interest, is purely that relationship.

Just like its plausible that France has a lot of political/commercial interest in Northern Africa that tie all the way back to their imperial days. So similar to the Mali situation I think they're just trying to maintain their foothold in the region so it's not entirely surprising that they're involved.

Seems pretty straight forward. Most are anti war or non interventionalists. Who cares if they use the wrong principle to define their position.

They want to stay in power? Do they want to stay alive too? The country is falling apart. Not only are there millions of refugees who have left but inside the country there are displaced people all over. Rebels are flooding in and getting training and arms from outside. This is becoming a more and more desperate situation for them and they have already shown a capacity to dare us. They know a war with boots on the ground will not be popular. They will fight back. That is a no-brainer given lock. They will dare us to put troops on the ground.

The U.S. stance toward Syria could definitely increase our profile as a terrorist target. Our actions do matter, despite some elected special needs person mumbling about "they hate our freedom". They hate what we do with that freedom. Our actions toward Syria could unleash a hornets nest upon the region and if it does we will be blamed. If Israel goes off, we will be blamed for that too. What if some group decides to attack the refugee camps. Those people are not well protected.

I don't think you have any appreciation for the complexity of this situation. There is an internal conflict in Syria, which interacts with a regional secular conflict, all nested inside a yet wider geo political proxy war which influences everything. This is not a case of some wayward child needed to be spanked. Stop using that over simplistic thinking. These are large groups of people at odds with each other in a relatively close proximity- a very dynamic and complex situation to say the least. Another way to describe it would be explosive. The last thing we should be doing is dropping bombs into this already violent chaos.

Quoted for goofy to respond. Please elaborate how you will stop civilian deaths.

ummm an entirely predictable farce of an article.

Stratfor ran an informaitve video report on why oil/economics has little to do with Syria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuEEl5Ih0cU

Somebody was good enough to post a nice Google map of Syrian military bases, airbases, headquarters, chemical production plants that could be targeted. I kind of like Umayyad Square, rough location of Syrian military general staff headquarters or the Masyaf chemical munitions storage depot. The latter may be too risky to hit but, if destroyed, would hamper chemical weapons use quite a bit. To see it search for "Syrian chemical sites and air bases map" or try the link below.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...be35a84d3b2952

Is it a thing now that publications host blogs that a reader may take to be the publications own editorial opinion or an op ed piece from what at least passes to be an expert?

Please point me to a post where I said Assad must go? I do not ever recall making that statement. If I did, I did not mean it. So before we go any further please refer me to where I made that statement.

Umayyad bro

agriculture tho

I am a cop.

One day, I answer a domestic disturbance call.

I see the wives and kids on the ground with a raging husband. I slap the husband in the face and tell him to stop.

Then I leave the house without doing anything else to restrain/deter the husband.

I am pretty sure I am liable for something. At least, I'm guilty of epic stupidity.

What a perfect analogy. Bravo sir.

Well in the case of Syria the cop is going to hurt you do bad that you won't use chemical weapons again. Unless of course you want a repeat or worse the next time. Your analogy is simply wrong.

Syria has already moved all of its chemical weapons to other spots/countries.

We aren't going to target their chemical weapons. Most likely command centers

You seem to have missed exactly what is going on here. Chemical weapons were used. The world is now faced with a choice. Do we punish the user as we have said we would in situations like this? Or will we do nothing. The complexity of the situation in Syria does not alter the fact that the Assad regime used chemical weapons and will do so again without a reason not to. Whether or not I do or dont have appreciation of the complexity of the situation is also meaningless. By the way I'm sure you have the same failing. You also do not seem to have an appreciation for the ability of the U.S. military to send an effective message.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1244

Stray thought. Obama could look at losing the vote and then consider the issue of acting later, and decide to spasm and launch an attack before the vote and claim it was based on intel related to movement of chemical weapons and imminent danger to civilians.

This might happen.

Before Monday. Then Obama could address the nation and say he was compelled to act.

You read it here first.

Sounds waaay to ballsy.

I vote we do the same thing we have done every other time chemical weapons were used post WWII. Absolutely nothing. Why is this instance so special we are somehow obligated to do something?

O.k. I did say in that post that we want Assad gone and in all honesty I would like to see him and all dictators gone. But it was in no way meant that because I want him gone that I think we should support the rebels. Nor did I say anything remotely like that in that post. I do not want troops on the ground. What I propose is that we let the military do their job and send a clear message that chemical weapons will not be tolerated.