Iraq was an actual invasion and occupation. Much higher stakes, much higher costs, should have a higher bar.Wow. The left was absolutely dead set against going into Iraq, screaming like banshees the whole time that there were no WMDs to the extent that became the rallying cry for those opposed to the action in Iraq. But now you're using the very rationale you once decried and turning that on me to say I'm the one being irrational.
I'm not using the rational...I'm against the attacks, I'm just not sure how conservatives are "rational" if they supported/still support the Iraq invasion yet are against the idea of military strikes in Syria. If ownership and use of WMD's are justification for an actual invasion of a country...how on earth is it rational in this case to state military strikes aren't justification?