All 5s just because you're an antidote to the safe-at-home warmonger here.

The administration is trying to drum up war fervor by showing congressmen video footage of people dead from Sarin gas. Why not picture the mangled corpses and scattered body parts left by exploding shells and machinegun bullets? I believe it is one of the duties of an American president to reduce the possibility of Americans being killed and mangled. Sending them into someone else's civil war defeats that purpose. Are we willing and able to assassinate Assad, demolish his army, and place Syria under US rule, suppressing anti-US and anti-Israel agitation, rolling back any aspect of Islamic culture that is incompatible with Western values, by force if need be? If we're not, then it isn't our fight and not worth the cost of one American life or bullet. Win or stay the F out. Kim Jong Un is every bit the deranged lunatic that Assad is--and he has nuclear missiles and has threatened the United States, Japan, and South Korea. No one would miss him if he were to vanish in a drone strike. Least of all the oppressed people of North Korea. If Obama has the urge to light off a big sky rocket, why not do it where it will accomplish some good and earn us the gratitude of everyone in the region?

It seems the stars aligned to bring about a point/counterpoint look at war today at the site.
Tim, though I find Rob's parodies not to my liking for many different reasons, I have no desire to help drive anyone away. Even if their politics or attitudes are unappealing, they have a right to be here. The better response is to write and keep writing. And if that doesn't work, write some more. We all have better things to do than to let people who piss us off have free rent in our heads.
Patrick, we disagree on many things, but I do agree in principle to some of what you mentioned. It seems our leaders have blinders on to all the other evil in the world EXCEPT to that evil they think they can surgically eliminate. Peace is a better option where countries can work together to eliminate oppressive regimes. And, of course, we'd be attacking sovereign countries who have not attacked us or any of our allies. Pipe dream for peace? Maybe, but every life lost at our hands on foreign soil is another life won for an enemy.
Housekeeping Item: A little embarrassment on my part. In my rewrites, I did not take care of the dreaded "their/they're" bugaboo. Please feel free to autocorrect line 3.

I don't know why Rob has cut off comments on most of his recent political works. To me, the reason I post anything here is to get a reaction. Obama did the right thing by going to Congress, but then he made himself appear weak and indecisive. Under our Constitution, only Congress can declare war. But there is no limitation on who can declare peace. War is a government spending program. You can train soldiers, build planes and ships, move tanks around. Peace, by definition, manages itself. There are more poor people in the US today than when Congress declared "war on poverty". That's because millions of parasite federal bureaucrats make their living maintaining people in poverty. If they were ever to "win" that war, they would be out of a cushy, overpaid job and have to work for a living. Government policy is to carpet bomb civilians or maybe conscript soldiers, while it is against the law or executive order to target the person of a foreign head of state, in other words, the SOB in charge. There is a logic to this I can't enunciate here, but remember that JFK tried to knock off Fidel Castro, and that Lee Oswald was a Castro sympathizer. Vladimir Putin seems to be bucking for a Nobel Peace Prize. He's a dangerous, ruthless, murdering b*stard. Just look into his eyes. You can tell he's proud of it, too.