It might be different...

[Ken Burch]

1)If we KNEW that U.S. bombs dropped on Syria would bring the gassing to an instant end.

2)If there was a certainty that you could JUST his Bashir Assad himself and have no risk of killing thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Syrian civilians.

3)If any of the armed Syrian rebel groups actually supported something positive or progressive, rather than just fighting for supremacy for their ethnic or religious faction.


But none of those things are real, and none of them can be real. Therefore, a U.S. attack on Syria can't do the Syrian people any good, can't make life better for Syria as a country, and can't do anything at all to bring down the House of Assad.

Therefore, there's no reason to even try it.

[Barack_America]

1. Alternatively, if one group of assholes were to win...

...then at least innocent civilians would stop getting caught in the crossfire. And I guess if the balance could be tipped so that the assholes willing to gas their own people don't win...that would be a positive result?

Perhaps that summarizes the administration's objective?

[Ken Burch]

2. That assumes the other armed asshole factions would ever accept defeat.

Nobody ever seems to do that in the Middle East, I've noticed.

[curlyred]

3. Here's my problem

What the hell. I could not give a shit less about the method by which innocents are killed. Dead is dead. That is the problem and that is what I want to stop.

[newfie11]

4. Words of common sense

Stop that.