The justification is the clear evidence somewhere between 1000-1400 people, many women and children, were indiscriminately murdered by chemical warfare, which has long been considered a no-no in world affairs.
More con quibble-
Have you EVER heard me say anything about ANY mission? Have I told ANY 'war story' (it was Ray trying to hint he crossed out of Vietnam to hit the Ho-Chi-min, might want to look at him not me) Ever shared how I got hit? No ya puke those are stories for a very select few so double stuff your quoting others.
You are full of crap, you can't swing a dead cat in here without a vet saying yes he served. So again.... sit down little man... grown-ups are talking...[/QUOTE]
There's that quiet dignity I was referring to or should I say lack thereof. You are the only one in here that talks like it is 1969 or at least what he thinks that talk was and you are the only one that tries to validate his opinion on all things military and delegitimize everyone else's opinion with your "I was a grunt" line. There are several career military guys in here that have expertise on current weapons and warfare that I have nothing but respect for and when they talk I listen. These guys never attempt to trash anyone who chose not to make the military their life's work though or belittle their views, they have that "quiet dignity" thing. You may or may not be a combat vet and I truly don't care one way or the other but when you constantly refer to a couple years of your life 40 plus years ago as giving you expertise on the subject of current military issues and saying that makes your opinion more valuable than those that never served, it's hard to take you serious. Once again, just sayin.I'm not trashing you here just trying to be helpful and promote real debate. Don't fire off an angry response just think about what I said. I have to get back to work on putting in my winters wood so I won't see what you post until tonight anyway or even tomorrow morning depending on how tired I am. 60 is getting old to split wood all day! :lol:
How many of them are Americans?
I'm not aware of any. But it doesn't mean a US strike would not be justified. 1400 people being indiscriminately murdered by their leader is a justification.
As I said in my last post, those are certainly fair questions. I'm not arguing for or against the strikes. Quite honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about it. What I am saying is that Syria and Iraq are not alike and, unlike in Iraq, if we are to intervene militarily, there would be legitimate justification for it.
Stupid question, for so many reasons.
Name one reason.
How about the fact I literally just said I'm not advocating a strike? That I'm not sure how I feel about it?
And that's the thing about stupid questions...they usually are about something incredibly irrelevant or ask for an answer already given. You somehow managed to incorporate both conditions into yours.
Because it's a stupid question. Why do you continue insisting on stupid questions?
Asking a stupid question multiple times makes it no less stupid. You're asking an irrelevant question to this topic and your question is not within the scope of the argument. Were the situation to change in the future, to where we were to consider committing soldiers in Syria, then the conditions surrounding the question would change as well. But that is not the situation now, so I cannot begin to possibly answer your question because I do not know the conditions of your hypothetical to judge whether I would sign up or not, not to mention how many years down the road said soldier commitment were to occur which could eliminate me based on age or health limits.
You don't think 1400 innocent people being murdered by a sarin gas attack, a so-called weapon of mass destruction, which is prohibited by international guidelines, is a justification for targeted strikes?