The casus belli was the impressment of american sailors into the british navy

there were lots of causes for them to declare war

that was one

it was estimated that over 10k american sailors had been impressed

because they had been fighting france for like over 20 years

and were low on manpower

Casus belli = war justification

there were also native americans with british weapons

ofc, there were indian raids sponsored by the british and such

and lots of conflicts

paranoia about the british arming the natives was also a big part of it

How does this relate to syria?

talking about how revolutions usually fail

or end up in a bad way

i mean

especially when you support terrorist organizations

we only really have reason to believe that those chemical attacks were literally staged by the rebel groups themselves

they are quite literally terrorists afterall and none of this is beyond them

Its more about middle eastern stability

If middle east = stable: america = less war

less war = less war spending

yes and wouldn't it make sense to support the most stable option

assad himself

he has an established state

and is the most secular option

he also has pretty broad support in the nation as a whole

most of the rebel factions only have local support

in particular regions

not any national appeal

the biggest threat to middle eastern stability is probably iran

the islamic wave of terrorism essentially began with the islamic revolution in iran

much like the communist revolution, it is iran's self proclaimed duty to export the islamic revolution across the world

Islam > christianity and all other religions

The problem is that it is extremely difficult to tell the american public that they are going to support a infamous dictator and such

most of the negative press is straight propaganda

Btw, greatest threat is qatar

> but lets talk about how syria can be dealt

we should be more interested in maintaining the status quo

instead of continually shaking things up

How do we do that?

by not intervening