I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons?

[BainsBane]

79. People reject any question or information

that doesn't fit their preexisting narrative. Too many see the world in simplistic black and white terms and everything is either on their side of that of their enemy--in this case military involvement by the US. I was accused of "drinking the Kool-aid" for saying the fighter jet's dropping of chemical weapons on a school must have been Assad since the rebels don't have fighter jets. People don't want the US involved in another war, which is understandable. But for some reason they then feel compelled to deny any complexity in the situation. Now many even deny that Assad has engaged in any wrong doing. It's absurd.

This is a complication situation with no easy answers or, it appears, good options. I myself end up playing devil's advocate in both pro- and anti-war threads since there are so many unanswered questions. The fact that the UN and US allies don't support a strike is persuasive to me, as is the recent disclosures to the Washington Post about reservations by military leaders. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023561707
That, however, doesn't mean I'm not concerned about what Assad ongoing atrocities Assad will continue to inflict.