Now this is how you warmonger. You simply explain to the nice people that if we do not act now against a nation with little to no offensive capabilities, terrorists will kill you and destroy your entire town. None of that pussyfooting around with "sending a message," none of that old "nation building" nonsense, just some good old fashioned "support this military action or YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL DIE IN A SEA OF HELLFIRE."
He's one of the serious ones, mind you. Top-notch foreign policy mind, when it comes to blowing things up. It's the predictions of imminent doom that makes one a top-notch foreign policy mind, in fact; you could get just as far claiming that the acceptance of gay marriage is going to cause terrorists to attack Charleston, or that not cutting food aid to children will cause the terrorists to attack Charleston, or that raising the minimum wage will cause terrorists to attack Charleston, or whatever else you like—it hardly matters, so long as you can come up with some scenario in which terrorists attack Charleston. Now that will get your Sunday show ticket punched in a hurry. Everybody wants to hear foreign policy analysis like that.
It is a bit surprising that the only scenario that does not result in hypothetical terrorists attacking Charleston is bombing wide swaths of the Middle East into rubble. You would think that particular policy would cause considerable resentment, in those countries, but we have learned at this point that terrorists and foreign nations and foreign leaders are primarily motivated by far more subtle things like Our Freedomz and whether or not they consider American leadership to be sufficiently manly on any given day. I admit, I do tend to put more credence to this theory than I used to, given that our own decisions as to who needs bombing and why often seem equally muddled, ideological, and capricious.
Email your member of the House of Representatives, letting him or her know your opinion about a military strike on Syria—whatever your opinion may be.