First off, I guess it's fair to say I don't really HAVE a problem with Syria. Sure, I wish the Syrians weren't fighting a civil war and killing tens of thousands of people.
I'd prefer nobody was using chemical weapons and wouldn't it be nice if every religious group in the Middle East got along.
I also think it would be kinda cool if pigs could fly.
But I have some very serious questions that nobody can seem to answer.
1. Why do we assume that the "rebels" would run Syria, (and treat other Syrians) any better than President Bashar al-Assad? What is the guarantee that "if" Assad is removed, these guys will be any better and/or will be friendly towards the United States?
2. What specific national security threat does Syria pose? And if the possession of weapons of mass destruction is the only answer, doesn't that place another half-dozen countries on the attack list?
3. What does President Obama know that the other world leaders don't know? Why is he so convinced to use our military when other countries aren't?
4. It's estimated the civil war in Syria has claimed 100,000 lives. Why did it take the deaths of 300 in a chemical attack for anyone to "care"? If Assad killed a million with knives and guns would we just keep wagging our finger?
5. Is Syria worth reigniting the cold war with Russia and China and ratcheting it up to lukewarm?
6. And finally, just because we can reach out an strike any nation at any time, does that mean we should?
I have never thought of myself as anti-war and, as a matter of fact, think armed conflict is a great way to solve differences between nations.
Granted that's mainly because we have the largest military in the world and I know we can win any fight. I just can't seem to find a good reason to pick on Syria today nor am I convinced "winning" would look any different than "losing."