There is not one argument being made by the pro-war with Syria faction

[Nuclear Unicorn]

that was not made by the pro-war with Iraq faction.

However, Iraq -- unlike Syria -- had a history of expansionist aggression. When Saddam gassed the Kurds he did so because he wanted them removed as an ethnic minority and take their lands. Saddam also spent the entire Clinton administration shooting at US aircraft enforcing a UN sanctioned no-fly zone as well as harboring terrorists that had directly attacked the US, including one tied to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

In spite of all this there was no sound reason for the war in 2003.

If attacking Iraq was foolish in the context of the global war against those who employ/support terrorism how much more so is it foolish to attack someone who really has no ambitions beyond ruling his own sandbox?

[RC]

1. Since when?

"...harboring terrorists that had directly attacked the US, including one tied to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center."

Saddam had a history of not suffering terrorists kindly. How does this fit in? As for the gassing, WE GAVE him the chemical weapons and encourage his to use them.

[Nitram]

2. logical fallacy, unicorn

The fact that we were lied to in the case of Iraq, and the fact that the intelligence was cherry-picked and doctored, has no bearing on Syria. We are not relying on testimony by ex-pat Syrians whose motives could be questioned. This has never been touted as "regime change", and there seems to be credible evidence, painstakingly gathered over a period of many months. No one doubts that 1,400 civilians were gassed, and the consequences of ignoring such a barbaric act are huge. We ignored the Holocaust, we ignored the Khmer Rouge, we ignored Rwanda. Let's do the right thing in a well-thought-out timely manner this time. Let's not wait for a million deaths.

[randome]

10. You called it!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Saddam did gas the Kurds. That is a fact beyond dispute regardless of subsequent lies.

[edhopper]

3. Where do you get this

most of the arguments against Syria is about how Assad is treating his own people and the fact that he used a banned chemical weapon.

Few here have mentioned the stupid "Global War of Terror".

There is a debate on whether we should or shouldn't act on this, but it's not Iraq.

[The Straight Story]

4. So Bush lied, screwed us, and that is a reason to do nothing. I don't follow that logic

Is he president now? Does Obama = Bush? If so, why did anyone vote for him?

I don't agree with Obama on some things to be sure, but to use something another president that included outright lies and deception and apply that to Obama seems rather odd.

We know this guy has used them, more than once, we know that countries like Mexico, Brazil, Lethoso, etc can't do anything about it but we can. The world condemns the usage of such weapons and even if the old US had a hand in Iraq having them and such that is a mess caused by republicans and we would only contribute to that mess by looking the other way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Saddam gassed the Kurds. That being said there would have been no need for Bush to lie

You should have supported OIF for that reason alone regardless of whether or not Saddam still retained the weapons. Or Cliton could have done it.

[The Straight Story]

6. I would have supported a limited strike

As I do now.

I don't support an all out war, invasion, etc.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. i.e. drive by shootings.

[DirkGently]

8. There is no "limited strike." This is the Middle East

The point, while not acknowledged openly, is to manipulate power in the area. McCain is already hopping up and down about how he supports intervention to topple Assad. It will not stop with a "punishment bombing."

We have ignored a dozen major genocides in recent years. There is zero basis to conclude any of the war hawking about Syria is about saving children or requiring mass slaughter to be carried out by explosives instead of gas.

How do people not understand, after all of this, that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is not about white-knighting about the countryside?

[KurtNYC]

9. 9% of Americans favor the strikes.

Maybe Americans aren't as "pro-war" as most think.

In the immortal words of George Dubya Bush and Pete Townsend:

"Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice....WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN !"

[blazeKing]

12. Worse..this time we'd be actively giving aid to Al Qaeda, the rebels in Syria

We'd also be putting large parts of the Syrian population in jeopardy because many of these folks have been under Assad protection and without that, the al Qaeda and other factions will start cleansing.