What the hell goes through your head? How can you justify the murder of innocents? You talk about war zones and collateral damage like we are not talking about humans rather inanimate or worthless objects. When things get destroyed that's collateral damage but when innocent humans die that's not. But then you forget about USA drone strikes in Pakistan which is not a war zone and the USA has no damn business being in the airfield of a sovereign nation and no one asked them to be. Then you talk about Syria as if the USA needs to be there when its clearly not the case. You say if USA does nothing then Daesh influence will spread but forget that a syrian army exists and a leader and the USA is being a thorn in its side instead of helping it fight terrorists and actively wants to kill the leader which will further destabilize Syria but USA doesn't care. They are not wanted nor needed there. The USA also supports the terrorists in Syria but calls them rebels. There are attacks by rebels which are war crimes but the USA and its media cover it up by saying Assad's government did it just like back in Iraq when the UN told the world there were no WMDs in Iraq but  USA invaded anyway without a care for truth or reality. Now look at Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan as compared to 30-40 years ago when USA hadn't even thought about attacking them.You say civilians have to die in a war but it looks like you feel nothing when each month USA kills by the thousands many civilians but are all over the web tweeting about an attack in France that killed less than a hundred people. One idiot even talked about civilians not being civilians but terrorists in disguise. So, what goes through your head? How much brainwashed are you?

I agree with your main point, but it's still collateral damage. I don't think such collateral damage is acceptable, but when the civilians weren't the target, they're still collateral damage until you can come up with a better term.

Unfortunately the government here in the USA is being run by warmongers, corporations that want to profit from war, and they also run the media as well which is why I don't see the news anymore. There are those here what really knows what's going on and want to do something about.

Whether or not it's deserved, chemical weapons are seen as especially vile in the West. You can massacre people with guns or swords and people will say it's wrong, but kill the same number with mustard gas and you get Tomahawk missiles to the face. To be fair, I believe that the collateral damage you decry is a lot less avoidable when chemical weapons are being used.

From what I've heard, the rebels that the US and other Western nations are sympathetic to have not been using chemical weapons but the Assad regime is. Non-favored groups such as ISIS have used them occasionally, probably at the same rate that they get their hands on some -- but the mainstream rebels have certainly been in a position for the last few years to acquire and use them if they were inclined to, but (AFAIK) haven't.

Eagle, what is your position on the issue that I have described above?

Your first mistake was calling those killings "murder" which already completely disqualifies you from this conversation as you do not understand any of it. You also seem to be under the false assumption that the US is the only participant who is killing civilians while in combat with IS.

That's probably because the effects of chemical weapons can be absolutely horrifying. And like you said, it's extremely difficult to avoid collateral damage with chemical weapons, so civilians get affected very easily.

Syria is using chemical warfare. Trust me when I say you would rather die quickly from a missile than slowly by chemicals.

I agree that the US shouldn't be there. You can kill each other as much as you like on your own, it's your country. We shouldn't be spending $37 billion on foreign aid, either, and policing the world just because some countries can't take care of themselves.

Seriously, it's not like we're going to stop you from killing yourselves, we're just going to add to the body-count.

Of course, you really don't have the right to be sanctimonious about anything while using chemical weapons.

For the most part, I don't think that's been the reason. So far, I know of only one strike that was in response to using chemical weapons, and that was the recent strike that only killed a few soldiers as far as I know.

The US is gonna blow all of their budget on new weapons anyway. Better use the old ones to blow up some idiot terrorists than to let them rot for nothing.