>>It sounds more like Vietnam and Iraq to me than it does like Munich.
>>There was no justification for either of those wars and there's no justification for a US attack on Syria.
>>I thought that I'd never agree with Rand Paul on anything, but on this issue he has the only clear eyes in Washington.
>>
>>I've never hid my opposition to Barack Obama's policies - or those in Washington who will carry water (no matter how poisoned) for this president.
>>
>>If I could ask him one question, it would be this.....there is no question that women have been physically raped/tortured in certain countries, with extremism of Sharia law used as the justification. If an equal number of women were killed by a nation/state with the justification I just mentioned, would this administration push Congress for military action?
>
>I think he would if he didn't have a more convenient diversion like Syria. Anything to divert the gnat-like attention of his followers.
>
>Somehow he thinks Syria is an easier diversion.
>
>The fact that everyone in Syria hates the US is just one of those distractions he sweeps under the rug. No matter who wins we lose and train and arm our enemies while we are at it - same as Libya. Same as Pakistan.
>
>Real evidence of chemical weapons use - the red line that keeps smearing? I'd be amazed if there really was any use. Syria does have nerve agents - same as Iraq. But I don't see Assad as arrogant enough to use them like Hussein did. Perhaps a local commander panicked or wanted to play messiah, but I'd be fairly surprised at that.

The UN investigation proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Assad has used biological weapons against his own people.