Between that, and the fact that attacking the regime means emboldening Al-Qaeda, what the eff are we doing thinking about getting into this confrontation? It's entirely possible that Al-Qaeda set off this gas bomb themselves, just so that they could challenge Obama's "red line". I think if we do anything, it should be humanitarian in nature. Help the refugees.
Zombie, you never cease to amaze me. 1. Obama wants to strike now...not after the UN is done investigating. 2. Yes, it is Al-Qaeda. Do you think they wouldn't want state sponsorship like other terror groups? 3. After WWI, the Geneva Convention was written, and while that has become the "international norm," it's Obama that committed to the notion of military strikes if chemical weapons were used with his "red line" speech.
nurgle, humanitarian efforts don't usually come with a customer count. Even if we didn't help the refugees, their numbers would still mount. What I want is a strategy that makes sense. Attacking Assad's military targets would help the rebels, who are Al-Qaeda. Doing nothing would make the President look like he was even more in over his head, even though he overplayed his hand on this issue. We have no reason to get into this fight, except from the standpoint that we're the world's superpower, so we have some responsibility to police it, which we don't.
