We have nothing to gain from conquering Syria or crushing Assad. It has nothing we want, no resources. In fact, from a purely “imperialistic” and strategic point of view, it is in our best interest (and that of our allies), that a weakened Assad remains in power. The last thing we want is another chaotic, failed state in the region, a haven for terrorists.

This is not Iraq, that had oil, command of the Straits, and a strategic geographical location bordering countries we wanted to intimidate.

The problem with your theory is that it makes no sense, especially if we accept your perspective of an Imperialist Amerika with a Neocon President. Think about it, if Cheney was boss, he’d be selling Assad all the Sarin he needed.

He too wants a surgical, limited stand-off strike, with a minimum of civilian casualties and collateral damage. He does not want Americans on the ground, and wants no part of this war. He does not wish to influence its outcome one way or the other. Until this chemical weapons incident became undeniable, he was doing everythng he possibly could to stay out of it.

He also knows that NATO or the UN will never come on board, but that it is a decision that must not be undertaken by him alone. It must have the legitimacy of the support of his own people.

In the final analysis, I think he understands that this proposed military action is purely a symbolic act, one that will not really change anything, is loaded with risk and uncertainty, but one which if we fail to carry out will haunt us forever.

Secondly, the “right thing” is not to squander American lives. No sense getting Americans killed because Syrians can’t get along. That isn’t why they joined, and it should be an impeachable offense to get Americans killed for the hell of it.

Third, because people work to pay taxes, American money should not be spent because Syrians can’t get along.

Even if you believe the Syrian sarin stories, America is not the place to look for the moral high road. The US pointing it’s finger at Syria is like the US pointing the finger at Iraq. We deal in WMDs, we use WMDs and we have no moral position.

Hundreds of Vietnamese villages were sprayed with Agent Orange. We love napalm and are addicted to white phosphorus. When we’ve cleaned up our act for a century of so we might be able to have a say.

Arabs down there have armies, navies and air forces. We’ve sold them the equipment. If they’re concerned, let them do it.

I have heard no credible reasons for the US to go kill and get killed in this affair, unless one likes killing and having Americans getting killed. And there are a few of those around (here).

Our response if anything should be precision missiles or drones only. To lose one American life or the life of a Syrian innocent will make the response a disaster.

What ever we do, we should not do anything to affect the outcome of the Syria situation. Assad losing is not in our best interest imo. The rebels are shot through with extremist Muslims.