Simplistic, emotionally charged, we must intervene now OPs

[mike_c]

39. I disagree with one important point....

"Lost in the shuffle is the actual question, which is, what is the effect, good or ill, or launching cruise missiles at some list of targets designed to not weaken the side being punished."

No, what's appears to be utterly and completely ignored in the shuffle is that it's a war crime-- and the U.S. has acknowledged that in the form of it's pledge on the U.N. Charter to NEVER initiate aggressive warfare for any reason. The ONLY justification for attacking another nation is self defense.

This isn't a philosophical debate. No amount of recourse to fantasies like "but would you agree to a war if Hitler were reincarnated and banging on your door" can change the truth that we are signatories of an agreement that defines precisely what we are debating doing as a crime against humanity and which forbids us from doing it. No amount of argument about Syrian crimes can change our agreement to not do what we are debating doing.