“I’m super old and so I don’t have to make coherent arguments!”

Wow, you really regard being whatever age you are as an amazing accomplishment.

“Cheap tricks” like learning from history.

Have you given up arguing that this time, bombing foreigners will somehow work?

Imagine thinking this was a clever response.

Hey, bit of advice: when you can’t come up with a substantive response, not responding is a better bet than hoping your bluster isn’t noticed.

Now you’ve dropped beneath the threshold of coherence.

“Violence is just going to happen so there’s no point in trying not to engage in it.”

What a spotty little tummy!

And furthermore, if that candidate you despise so much were in office, we would’ve had a no-fly zone and Assad never would have been emboldened to gas his own people.

Fuck off.

I’m so sorry. That’s awful.

I can’t edit my other comment, but I wanted to say: World peace is worth reaching toward.

You are really, really dumb. That is why you believe that this situation will magically end up different from every single other pointless foreign military adventure the U.S. has engaged in in the last half century.

Hey, sounds like you, Justin Trudeau, and Donald Trump agree on quite a bit!

You mean, say, some candidate who supported the highly successful interventions in Libya and Iraq, and who agrees with Trump on bombing Syria?

Because of, you know, all of history.

Trump is very unlikely to stop him, and if he did, the remaining major powers in Syria are ISIS and the al-Nusra Front (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in the Levant).

So, then, it’s accurate to say that Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump agree completely on the most important foreign policy issue of our time.

That’s a kind of dumb question, because we don’t have the ability to impose any repercussions on Assad.