Do you support the missile strikes on Syria?

[Dr. Arch]

No.

[Dr. Arch]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

[Dr. Arch]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

No but i do support punishing a regime gassing its civilians with sarin gas and slaughtering its civilians

Why not send in a special task force, which could have accomplished the same for so much less. Seriously. This is why this country's economy is in a dark hole.

If I managed my finances like the US government does, I'd be living on the streets.

[Dr. Arch]

A good chunk of Americans sure do love violence, especially when it involves lobbing nearly $100,000,000.

No but i do support punishing a regime gassing its civilians with sarin gas and slaughtering its civilians

Why not send in a special task force, which could have accomplished the same for so much less. Seriously. This is why this country's economy is in a dark hole.

If I managed my finances like the US government does, I'd be living on the streets.

The argument on the cost is nonsensical since the cost is already built into whenever we purchased the missiles.  

A taskforce to do what? go investigate the chemical attacks again?  That would accomplish nothing, quite frankly my only criticism is that this didnt go far enough and we should have grounded the entire SAAF and tried to take out more SAA and Hezbollah commanding officers.

But in the end im a proponent of regime change so...

We will never see eye to eye then. Most of our persistent foreign policy atrocities are exactly because of regime change.

[Dr. Arch]

Quite frankly we just need to cripple Assad's air power and the regime would collapse militarily on many fronts

And be replaced with, what exactly?

ISIS? Likely, given how much regime change hurts us every time.

[Dr. Arch]

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Klartext and Pete.

[Dr. Arch]

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Klartext and Pete.

as long as your reasoning is not "MUH, all islamists but my lovely, beautiful, flawless crypto-secular genocidial autocrat of choice".

Nope. It's "muh disgusting regime change hyper-aggressive U.S. foreign policy destroying our economy, killing our soldiers, and creating even more problems for us in the Middle East."

[Dr. Arch]

Great, so we're back to the pre-Iraq foreign policy actions and discussions. How is this even possible? Good grief.

[Dr. Arch]

the oil thing was over-blown in the past and at this point it is nothing more than a joke.

the US doesn't need any middle east ressources at all, afaik.

You are deeply ignorant if you believe oil and money has nothing to do with this war.

Yep, wars have always been for:

1) Power
2) Money
3) Resources
4) Religion
5) In a distant past, women

I know there have to be examples of humanitarian wars, but I can't really think of any off the top of my head. They certainly aren't in the majority.