Good point. In the past, the power to go to war was always held by Congress and there was always a vote. Now, because of the War Powers Act, the President can unilaterally engage us in any number of affairs for up to 60 days without Congressional Approval. How many microwars have begun this way?

Iraq is the poster child for non-interventionism. We threw away a trillion dollars for what later turned out to be absolutely nothing.

We entered WWII when we were attacked. That is fundamentally different.

How do you square that with WWII ??

I disagree. Bush 43 overthrew a vicious dictator and HAD established a nascent democracy. By the time he left office there had been in the neighborhood of a dozen FREE AND FAIR elections (my husband was over there to help oversee the first one after our second raid on Fallujah). And it was Obama and Biden who even proclaimed that "Iraq was a great success" when they unilaterally withdrew 100% of the U.S. troops (Don't bother me with the SOFA excuse)
Anyone with vision can imagine the entirely different direction the middle east could be heading in, had the U.S. and coalition forces been kept in place to provide enough support for Iraq to fully cement their democracy.

Colin Powell took one for the team with regard to Saddam's weapons. When the weapons were found (about when Colin Powell asserted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction) in Syria, letting the general public believe the fake news that were no such weapons was in the best interest of the military/intelligence communities.

I almost added "unless it is in our best interest". The premise to challenge there is "Who is "our"?" This is to be read like when Tonto said to The Lone Ranger, 'What you mean, "we," Kemo Sabe?'

That is interesting as we repeatedly were told that no weapons of mass destruction were had by Saddam. I would say we told him we were coming for those and he had a lot of time (months) to hide them.
Just having them is not a good reason to invade.
Really the biggest problem for humanity is the shadow govt., that profits from arms dealings and the wars they create to use them. They have no "care" for people.

Unless it is in our best interest.

I'll go even further. We should not intervene even if we are asked to.

I would add that we shouldn't intervene unless we are asked to. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we were officially requested to aid the Kuwaitis and we did so with direct purpose. There has been no such request made by either side in Syria. As such, we shouldn't stick our noses in.

One of my former students (a Marine before starting at my university and CIA afterwards) found some of Saddam's chemical weapons in Syria as his first job with CIA.

Yes. And the previous chemical attacks blamed on Assad were actually ISIS groups who mishandled weapons they had found and smuggled in, intending to use them against government buildings.

I don't trust either side of that war, which is why I think we should stay out of it entirely.

Was that from the same guys who provided the evidence of WMDs to Bush?
Not trying to be a smart-ass (it just comes naturally to some of us.)

Thanks for your reply.
Nothing to gain . I agree that we have added fuel to the extremist fires with our Mid East actions. Both Bushes Iraqi invasions were a disaster and same with Obama taking out Ghaddafi in Libya.
I am no expert Jbrenner. Using chemical weapons
Is something that should not be done any where.
I would have preferred a couple of tomahawks land on Assads head as a deterrent to any who would kill so indiscriminately with those outlawed
Methods. If the leaders knew they would be targets they would most definitely think twice.

Sorry. The "(chemical?)" part was meant to be sarcastic. Of course, the attack was chemical. That still doesn't mean that we should have intervened. What do we have to gain by intervening in Syria?

As I remember, the main basis for Trump's decision was a photograph of chemically attacked innocents.

"Realist - You have to be somewhat careful with this term."
Even more so 30 years later.

It sounds trite, but I think it's hard to understand the decision of intervening in Syria without being POTUS. I am sympathetic with President Trump's decision to attack Syria even though I disagree with intervention. I try to imagine have the full responsibility and what I say (token send-a-message attack, diplomatic back channels, undercover operation, do nothing) actually happens. I think I would have a hard time giving the order, "yes, no military response at this time, unless there's a new development."

That's illogical on my part. Based on that one data point, you don't even have to be a pathetic $hit trying to make yourself feel less pathetic to want to dismiss me mentally ill.

I read what Abedi's sister said. It makes logical sense, but I discount it. Criminals always have their bogus excuses.

"(Chemical?) attacks"

From human rights watch:
All available evidence strongly suggests that on April 4, 2017, a Syrian government warplane attacked Khan Sheikhoun, a town in the northwestern governorate of Idlib, with a nerve agent, killing at least 92 people, 30 of them children. The death toll likely makes this the deadliest chemical attack since an attack killed hundreds in Ghouta, near Damascus, in August 2013.

The Khan Sheikhoun attack sparked international outrage, but the attack on Khan Sheikhoun was not the only recent chemical attack by the Syrian government. Three developments since late 2016 show that the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons has become widespread and systematic:

Government warplanes appear to have dropped bombs with nerve agents on at least four occasions since December 12, including in Khan Sheikhoun;
The government’s use of helicopter-dropped chlorine-filled munitions has become more systematic;
Government or pro-government ground-forces have started using improvised ground-launched munitions containing chlorine.
In at least some of the attacks, the intention appears to have been to inflict severe suffering on the civilian population, which would amount to crimes against humanity.

I wonder how it would go over with Trump asking Putin to help out with this like Barrack Husein Obama did.
"A number of reason to not like Trump"
But zero reasons to like the liar in chief Obozo and ditto for the evil hag!

This is a radicalized family hard to think another excuse would not be used for this treachery had the Trump tomahawk strikes not occured.