I'm going to hate myself for this because I believe you are batshit crazy, but you have a point here. No one wants to stand by and watch innocent children murdered but let's be honest, this is about oil. In 1994 in Rwanda 500,000 people were slaughtered and we didn't intervene. That said, these are real WMD's but do we have anything to gain by taking sides in a family fight? Usually it ends up with both sides turning on you, an almost certainty here.<quoted text>
Stop right there. No, you don't.
If Al Qaeda wins and takes control of Syria, they will have chemical weapons to use against us in their terrorist attacks that are certain to continue. If you've been keeping up with current events, you know that Al Qaeda went from hiding in caves to taking over countries since Obama took office.
We don't think there are chemical weapons in Syria. We KNOW there are chemical weapons in Syria.
We also know that if Al Qaeda takes over Syria, AL Qaeda will have chemical weapons to use against us.
So, now the question you ran away from all day yesterday:
Who here wants to get Americans killed helping Al Qaeda acquire chemical weapons?
That's the bottom line.
Step right up and tell us if you want to get Americans killed helping Al Qaeda acquire chemical weapons.
The problem we have now is Obama's "red line" comment. That was a mistake. It was too specific and requires action. Veiled threats leave a way out and accomplish the same result, too late for that though.
That leaves us with choosing a target, logically the chemical cache, but that has serious consequences. Chemical weapons would not just harmlessly vaporize in an attack. If hit by US munitions, chemical dumps could release some poisons into the air. And, air strikes against chemical depots could allow extremist rebel factions access to any remaining stocks.
The only cover I see is through the UN. They are supposed to be the world's police, not us.