Man, what argument are you talking about? That it is up to you and to US to make the case that bombing Syria will actually lead to less casualties than not bombing it? Not up to me. What do you want me to oppose? The case that has never been made?

Either I have misunderstood you, or you have some severe problems with the basic logic itself. Let me explain again:

1. You propose the goal (e.g. reduce the number of civilian deaths in Syria, topple Assad, make a point for the World that it is bad to use WMD and that America is going to take action)

2. You state the actions that you're going to undertake to achieve it.

3. And you make the case for your own experts, lawmakers, the World an your citizens that the stated actions are the best to achieve your goals.

During the aftermath of WMD use US has sequentially stated multiple confronting goals (e.g. help people of Syria, but not topple Assad; topple Assad; that there is no threat to US, that there is threat to US; yesterday Hillary Clinton has said that the reason to go is to make a point to scare off worlds dictators not to use WMD). So, there is no clear goal.

There is only the first action stated: the bombing. So, there is no clear stated path for stopping conflict after the bombing. And, respectively, no reasoning behind undertaking it.

No clear 1., only the first step of 2, no 3. How do you suppose me to argue with the things that are not even being stated?

I can only support arguments that the _supposed_ goal(1.) is likely to be achieved with other actions than bombing the country. And that all the stated goals are different from the real goal.

I have contacts all over the World, and since no one has said to me that I'm in any way dishonest, for now I would go that it is you who is wrong in your assessment.

After the blatant lies about Iraq, it is hard for me to conceive how can you be so uncritical to the statements of your governments.

BTW, Tom Malinowski, the director of HRW’s Washington office, has been nominated by Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America. Currently the HRW is calling for the bombing of Syria (and, obviously, doesn't make it's case too). I think it is understandable that I'm skeptical about it's reports and goals. I'll wait for the UN report, at least, UN is a truly international organization.

Here's my final message: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362643