As much as I want to say we should intervene, I'm against the idea for a couple reasons.
First, it's one thing to go before the united council and get permission to do this, but to instead bring the idea before congress and head out solo
with their approval (seemed kind of pointless, as it looked like most of congress was onboard with the idea already).
Second, what happened is tragic, yes, regardless of who fired the shots. It sickens me that anyone would think firing the chemical weapons into any
sort of crowd is a good thing, at the same time, was this done to spite the USA? No. This was done in a county that is in the middle of yet another
civil uprising, where it is expected that at least one group is going to slaughter another - Instead of acting like Big Brother and breaking up the
fight, I regret to say that we should let them handle it themselves, unless one of our allies is purposely attacked.
Third, imagine how much another "intervention" could cost the US - I mean, Russia is already on the defensive (despite what congress said), and one
false move on our side could lead to guns or sanctions against us - Plus, that money could be used to work on strengthening our own borders, which
don't seem to have enough security as it is (or, maybe that money could be spent on a solution to the Japan nuclear spill crisis - rather see it go
towards protecting the environment than wasting it away on the start of another world policing act).
Finally, can't we declare an "emergency vote", and let the American people decide if they want to do this? At least, I would think a "true" democracy
would consider this, as that would show the government actually listens to us "little people".
Just some food for thought.
PS: Didn't we let Egypt's uprising alone? There was bloodshed there too, but it seems to me the US was only watching the situation, and not having an
edit on 4/9/2013 by fossilera because: Everytime I misplace a comma an angel loses it's wings...or was it the other way