Now it is time for john stossel. I hate Bashar Alassad and what he has done in syria. But i also hate what tyrants do in north korea, somalia, china, congo, other places. So when should america intervene . What is our responsibility as the worlds biggest superpower . The congressman says that syra is a special case. Congressman, that makes all the difference . No, it does not necessarily make all the difference. If we have american troops, we have a technological regime. With hezbollah in lebanon, we have elements within syria that can now acquire and hijack those chemical weapons capabilities because of thought has drawn them out. We do believe that we have a Core National security interest in acting. John dont these countries look at rwanda where half a Million People were killed. You know, in fact, i have to support the prior president mccain to other purity issues. We should not be the worlds policeman, but we should protect our interests and while we have believed in standing against this kind of murder that we saw in syria, it is not just that, it is the risk of proliferation and it falling io the right hands. John should we also have a fake Nuclear Weapon in iran we should use all the options in our toolbox, and i have said quite clearly and quite consistently that the military action should be reserved if the iranians denounced it as a Nuclear Weapon. Because the iranian Nuclear Weapons capability seems that all balance in the middle east creates a nuclear arms race. That really threatens our interest in the interest of the entire world. John i am skeptical of the wiccan compass. Politicians always say, we can fix this. We want to run education and health care and now international affairs. Lets say we send a missile and mist. We pound sandlike clinton did in libya. That is not good. Lets say we killed the leader. How do we know that the next group is better than the current one . Lets say we kill innocent people and make new enemies. So much that we make things worse. John, i get that. We had an experience in afghanistan where we went in on one side. The mujahedin. And then they mphed into a group calle al qaeda. John why do you think this would be different . Im very skeptical. Were talking about a military operation that is confined and contained too degrading their regimes chemical weapons capacities, not just to stop the regime from using chemical weapons against its own citizens, but to stop those rebel elements from acquiring the stock of weapons which they can now do, pathetically because those weapons have been drawn out of the stockpiles. So it does not stop any side from acquiring the capability. John chemical weapons are so much worse. Are we just saying, you want to kill your people, you better use conventional weapons. I tell you, i have actually seen those videos. I know many of your viewers have seen the videos of what happened in the aftermath of August August 201st. Posted on my website chemical weapons and weapons of mass instruction because they inflict mass casualties in a very short amount of time, which is why when chemical weapons were used in the form of mustard gas in world war one, the world was appalled. We said we would not allow that to happen again. I agree with that decision. I believe it should be sustained john thank you, congressman. I just dont agree. Chemicals make it so different. All wore is awful. Now he supports the military strike, but the public has turned against it. Fox news poll finds 68 percent of voters say we ought to stay at a serious. This is different from what i am used to in my reporting career. At nasty this kind of opposition when the first president bush said america moscow or against iraq. The world has said this aggression would not stand, and it will not stand. The danger is clear. John when the president s second bush wanted to attack again the senate voted 77 to 23 to authorize the use of military force. This resolution is passed. It will set a course towards safety. John the president has set a red line against anyone who uses chemical weapons. John but it would not be a big war. There are all those other countries behind us. There are a number of countries in the double digits who are prepared to take military action. We have more countries prepared to take military action then we actually could use in the kind of military action being contemplated. John really . Well, lets debate that. A former Lieutenant Commander in the navy who has family members and syria. He wants the u. S. To intervene now. Should have alrey intervened, he says. A fox military analyst says, no, we should not. To you first. We should support the moderates, you say . Bomb military facilities. Absolutely. I think that is the only way forward. There is no political solution, and this is about containment verses iran. A regional conflict. Who is left to promote liberty and tipng forward in the right diction of places like syria that border our ally israel. If we dont help those on the ground, you can see now the current environment in syria has promoted and al qaeda and hezbollah in the most vicious who can prevent genocide is not the United States . John and we prevented by launching attacks . Well, you already have a popular uprising. Not just like the iraqis. Millions of serious rising up against their government being smothered by the help o russia. A military trained in history by the soviets. We on them and give them space on the ground, the great military through that two week operation. It will give them room to tip syria in the right direction. John a 2week operation. Colonel on . Right now warming the Communications Gear and tracks the al qaeda. 25 percent of the force on the bel side is al qaeda arms the Muslim Brotherhood. How is it possible that we are now assisting al qaeda . This is a conflict. We should not kid and one side with hezbollah and russia and the other al qaeda. This is not in our national interest. We cannot ben a third war in 12 years in the middle east. John i assume you agree with the senator says this is not al qaeda. There are moderates who we should help. Syria is a moderate nation. On the ground, the family in damascus. There are millions of syrians, local Coordination Committees that are part of helping the Free Syrian Army. Yes, al qaeda is at almost five to 10,000. An islamic liberation front that is not our allies. Certainly if they are there is part of a gi. The majority of syrians are far more diverse, even in egypt. The brother had less of an egypt. Even in egypt the majority of muslims rode up against the brotherhood theyre is that is going to happen. It will only happen post assad. I would ask the colonel. If you want to defeat them it would only happen post assad. John look if its only 10 , remeer you want to argue, 1 , the United States of america cannot, although we seem to be doing it right now, be seen as supporting one side. The other side, a nation called hezbollah. The first thing that will happen, her friends would get it. Its a tragedy. I think that we are all warweary nation and cannot get involved in another war. All the sudden killing a child with gas is worse than jumping a building on them. 120,000. But now he once again. Again and again i keep saying, re getting in on this side of al qaeda. John in america the American Media can agree on who is a moderate in our congress. How do we possibly know in syria. The intelligence officers, most of them dont even speak arabic. The moderates are not there for her work. On the ground we have had a number of contacts with those in the local Coordination Committees allaround syria theyre really just want to open up society as part of the air awakening which we are seeing to social media and elsewhere with civilians want not just these few thousand. And so hard to hear my conservative friend and media and others say that while the middle east has become a post american environment and because al qaeda is sort of an arab dictator, page one playbook, least al qaeda and therefore legitimize emergency law. Liberty and american advocacy for freedom is gone and we cannot help tilt them toward enlightenment and maternity to which is the only way past in the middle east. John i think we are reacting to what we heard. We would be welcomed with open arms as liberators. Well, the Free Syrian Army is begging for help. They dont get it from us theyre getting it from saudi arabia, i guarantee you there helping the groups that colonel hunt is worried about like al qaeda and islamists. If we want to work with those that believe in the universal declaration of human rights, it is up to america to start to figure out who those are on the ground because no one else in this world otherwise we are doing an hour and doctrine which basically is helping the most vicious when and the good guys will never have a chance to matter what we do. John you get the last word. There is no question that this syrian fighters need help, and there are moderates. There is no question. You cannot have the United States of america are Main Elements that have al qaeda in them. We are forgetting. And we cannot launch missiles which will change the course of this war because we dont even know or have control over who is going to take over if assad is killed. It is not in our interest to get involved consideringhat we have been doing for the last 12 years. John just to clarify the history he is talking about is to help the people fight the russians in afghanistan. We are on the people who ended up killing us on September September 11th. Thank you, colonel hunt. Thick coming up, is it because barack obama is president that democrats are for war . Most republicans are against. My next guest says no, this is not hypocrisy. John whos more eager to go to war . Republicans or democrats . Republicans. Republicans. I think the republicans. More wars. John i would have thought that. Over syria it has been mostly democrats. Polls show more democrats than republicans support a military strike. Is this hypocrisy, liberal and conservative changing their position depending upon who is president. No says historian thaddeus russell. What do you mean . This is a progressive war. I mean that the ideology of progressivism, which is about 100 years old as always said, we are obligated to uplift and save the world, not just in the ghettos, but outside our rders. Anywhere we find the oppressed. We must go out and save them. John democrats started most of the wars. World war one, woodrow wilson, world war ii, fdr, harry truman, the korean war, kennedy and johnson, vietnam, bill clinton, cosimo, somalia. That is exactly right. Progressivism has been an imperialists ideology for mr. Beginning. John in my lifetime at least it is democrats have dominated the Antiwar Movement when george w. Bush asked congress to approve the use of force the bill passed. But it was democrats who said things like this. Vote no on this resolution. Thank you. [applause] when i looked out over this crowd today, i no there is no shortage of patriots or patriotism what i do oppose is a dome war. John what is the difference . What happened was that in vietnam progressives who were originally usually supportive of the intervention in vietnam saw killing millions of people in that case and became wore a fight. By the end of their ideology, the consequences of it, and for a brief moment in history turned against intervention. And also because they did not trust the policymakers to lead those words. John now barack obama i president. I trust myself. This is a good cause. One of the things we have been seeing is a return to their of original interventionist imperialists truce. John mostly republican supported the iraqi war. We have a long list of republicans who have changed their position on that. I think we are rolling in here. First the senators and in the congressman and in some other wellknown republicans. This is not hypocrisy. Not at all. The socalled neocons who drove us to war actually all began in the democratic party. They all began as progressives. Great heroes. Woodrow wilson, teddy roosevelt, the great progress is in history have been consistent and not hypocritical. This supported intervention in iraq. They are supporting intervention in syria to do the same. We are seeing is so interesting. The convergence of what is called the neoconservatism. What i say is neoconservatism disney neither new nor conservative. Theyre fundamentally progressive. Theyre finding their natural allies him what are people all progressives. John at least this time the majority is not going along. That is good. John i agree. I am puzzled most by the media which everybody i have known as been pretty leftist and mostly antiwar. And yet the media often seem be leading the charge, at least at first. Chemical weapons, look at this picture. It is terrible. We must act. I would think that ms nbc would be the left channel, the most anti war, and it has done so much. Lets go to war cheerleading. Edges to not think that the world can sit idly by and watch innocent children be gassed to death. Its basically like put down a red line and sitdown use chemical weapons. Then he goes ahead and blatantly does it. The most powerful words came from 10yearold, a message ceases she had for president obama. She washese kids to be like us. Arent we just like them . When we get bigger we are going to write obama did not help us. John we have to attack or we are letting children die. Ms nbc is finally understanding who they really are, what progressivi really is and always has been since we invaded against spain in cuba and the philippines through world war one, career, it has been progress is to have killed far more people in this country. John they dont just want to invade. What is the philosophy behind it . They ultimately want to remake the world in our image. That is what they have said. That is what progressivism always has been about. Remaking the people in the ghettos in our image many elite white americans and remaking of the United People of the world in our image as well. John as you say, domestically it goes well beyond that. We can make education better. We must run edution, health care. We must police the work force. We can make everything better. Government can do that benignly. Thats right. It is uplifting the poor and oppressed through the means of the state, through that monopoly on violence. Domestically that is taxation and lawenforcement brought for military force. Very consistent. John no matter how often it fails, they continue to support that. So thank you. Coming up, what does the constitution say . And the president without congress justify . And also, how both right and left are wrong about the middle east. John i admit, i dont know much about the middle east. I dont speak arabic. I dont understand the culture or islamic traditions. Last americans dont really get whats going on. Yet so many people are so certain that they know what to do. Of their going to kill each other, let them. We must stop the people in washington. If we do not pass the authorization measure what message will assad get . What message will iran received . We have to live up to our commitments. John i happen to agree with glenn beck on this one. I dont know much. So it ought to keep us humble says the author of she grew up in algeria, and she said in this debate neither side knows what is talked about. So lets start with the left. What did they get wrong . I think the most important thing to know on the ground is that in every single majority country people are standing of the fundamentalism. The left is sometimes too politically correct to recognize the danger of that fundamentalism or to listen to the voices of these people who are doing that report. John what do you mean they are too politically correct . Give me an example. An example would be that some on the left have tried to embrace this like bailing or the imposition of sharia. Whereas on the ground, in fact, people are challenging all of those things. Some on the left in the u. S. Do that because some on the right and spoken out in a discriminatory way against sharia. John you are attacked creature on the left. Worked for the center for the Constitutional Rights and Amnesty International. Use a Amnesty International get cozy with the former detainees who supported the taliban. Close to supporting terrorists. A lot of wonderful work against torture and the death penalty. I disagree about their close relationship with a man. Now, detained in guantanamo without charge or trial. It was right to oppose the way he was detained. When they got out of jail amnesty get cozy with them and brought him into judge childrens poetry competitions, and this is a person who was a sympathizer and had been in and ou of training camps. The head of the gender unity works on womens rights spoke out against this close relationship and was pushed out of the organization. I believe that was a wrong decision. John we call Amnesty International. They did not cause back. The center for Constitutional Rights decided to represent the interest a man who was on the u. S. Kill list because he is a terrorist. Again, the center for Constitutional Rights has cents an extremely important work to defend human rights. I disagree in 2010 when they chose to represented his interests for free. He was not a detainee. He was at large in yemen at the time. They represented and then because he was put on a catalyst by the u. S. Government, and i certainly oppose assassination. The problem is that he himself was advocating and calling for assassinations. In fact, his sermons were then used, claimed to be the inspiration even later after his death for the Boston Marathon bombers. So what im saying is, lets speak out against assassinations , but not do it by standing up for somebody who read the was advocating them. The center for Constitutional Rights. John what does the right wing get wrong . The right some get things wrong here as well. Some have justified, for example, the use of torture in the context of the war