Syria

Yep - no chance the US will be smart enough to stay out of this mess.

unnecessary war over WMD's to boot.

I am encouraged though...   POLL: 9% support military action...

Maybe we could model our response to the George H.W. Bush plan.  Inform our allies, garner worldwide support, establish exactly what the objective is and have a comprehensive withdrawl plan.  

Does the U.S. continue to be a world LEADER or do we shy away from the messy, complicated events that unfold?

So, which side do we support?  OK, the regime used chemical weapons so we side with the other guys by default.  OK, even then, which "other guy" do we support?
Free Syrian Army?
Syrian Liberation Front?
Syrian Islamic Front?
Jabhat al-Nusra?

The "liberation" elements are fighting each other as much as they are the Syrian regime.

So even if we do build an H.W. Bush coalition we will still be providing 75% or more of the total assets and paying likely a much higher financial cost.  Then when the initial fighting is over, who do we put in charge?  If we have free elections they'll put in a hard core anti-West leader.  So, essentially if we get involved there is a very high probability that we'll be occupying Syria for at least another decade or more with them murdering our soldiers on a regular basis.

The big difference between Iraq (v2), Afghanistan, and Egypt (indirectly) was that we came in to replace their government.  With the first Iraq war we left the dictator in place.  So when we backed out he came back in with his iron fist and kept the hostile elements in check.

If it were a simple, they took something over, so lets go get it back type action I'm more in line with you.  However, when it comes to nation building and multi-decade engagements that don't benefit anyone (including the people who are liberated), I take a much more passive stance.

I read Jeff's post and I thought, damn right!  Then I read this ^ and I thought, you know what, I don't care either.  I think in the end I don't care if everyone over there gases each other to extinction......I'm sick of it. 

Really, what the hell CAN we do?  Fire off a few dozen rockets and kill some women and children of our own?  I'm trying to figure out how the entire planet wouldn't be better off with the whole region blown the hell up.

I don't want to feel that way, I want to feel like Jeff does......but there is a limit to what I'm willing to put up with and care about as an individual.....I'm about there.  Fork it.

I agree with both of you.  It's a really complicated mess with no "good" options.  However, and I still don't know if this is enough of a reason to go in, but the "bad guys" (those Syrians fighting for an Islamist outcome) are heavily supported and well financed.  Where do we draw the line of what we do and don't get involved in, and what are the possible long-term ramifications for not getting involved?

Thomas Friedman is my go-to for many things, but he is particularly well versed on the cluster-fach that is the Middle-East. A recent piece of his on Syria.  If you haven't read it, his Hot, Flat and Crowded is an excellent book. 

Ya, and Jeff's responce is "Viet Nam 101". Bush 1 took that off the shelf when Iraq INVADED Kuwait. That was a no brainer. We were not going after anyone, we were liberating Kuwait. And the rest of the world supported liberating Kuwait, and they ONLY supported it BECAUSE we were not going after Iraq. Bush 2 decided that was all horse hockey, and he really showed them.

The ONLY reason we care about that sand box is OIL. We finance their BS. IF the WORLD is tired of it, let the WORLD do something about it. And we can support our SHARE of that. Other than that, I don't care. And a oil boycott is about the only thing that will do anything... because it is appearant after about 50 years of covert, and overt operations that military action has accomplished nothing.

I'm not into revisionist history. The flow of cheap easy oil has benefitted us greatly. After WWII we got into Saudi Arabia and it has paid. But at this point, it isn't worth it. The US most certainly CAN get off M.E. oil. it only supplies 25% of our oil. We get the other 25% from Canada and S. America, and 50% right here from home. It will be a hard cut, and the rest of the world can buy it up... but we most certainly can do it. And nobody has even tried... except give wonderful speeches on the subject. Let China deal with it if they want the oil.

The crappy part is every one of us feel terrible about the innocence in harms way over there.  It kills me to see images of those children going through what they are simply because of where they were born.

However, as the others have said, what can we do?  Even if we take over the country completely and try to impose the "american way" on them, it will be rejected heartily and they will want to kill us even more because we're the oppressors at that point.  If we take out one regime and replace it with another, it will likely be worse than it is today.

It's a lose lose situation and unfortunately the innocent will suffer the most no matter what we do.

I know we argue back and forth about our civil rights in this country and what this one means or that one means, but take a step back and appreciate what we do have.  Even with all our flaws and disagreements, America was an idea born out of oppression like what the middle east is facing today.

So if I played the Devil's Advocate; would the US respond to a chemical attack by Brazil, or...Canada illicit with the same 'We don't care' response attitude?  Or is it only those countries that are perceived as somehow 'beneath' the civility of the US? 

No, for me, it's mostly those countries whose citizens were seen dancing in the streets after 9/11.....I don't care about them.  But...I hope they're happy.  That counts for something, right?

Civil wars in other countries are not the business of the US, be it Syria, Canada or Brazil.  

Why such outrage with 1000+ people being killed in a chemical attach when Assad has already killed 100,000+ Syrians?   

So it's a 'numbers' thing?   1000 folks dead, including infants, and we're, like, "Yeah, so what"!

What if the number was 5000? or 100,000?

What if we replaced "chemical" weapon with "nuclear".  Same effect, right?  What's the difference?

The question I'm trying to get at is.....WHAT type of global event does it take for the US to re-assert ourself as "World Police"?  Or do we even WANT that title anymore. 

That does not make any sense.

You tell me... we stood by while tens of thousands were slaughtered in Darfur. But they don't have any oil... too bad for them.

If Canada gassed 5000 former Expos fans, would the US be drawing up a target list for cruise missles?  Or do we only rattle our military saber at contries whose population still lives in caves, or bedouin tents?

Canada actually shares a border with us. We have had a relationship with them going on about 250 years now. It is silly to think to propose a "what if" of Canada gassing it's population... because that is not going to happen.... and if they actually did loose their mind and do sucha  thing, we might be a little concerned with that since they are actually on our border.

So no... not even close to the same.

Why exactly does "America" have to be outraged over this? Why is Syria's neigbors not outraged over it? Why is the Muslim world not outraged over this? Until the people actually closest to the problem decide to "do something" about it... I fail to see why we should.

Or here is a grand idea... how about countries in the region ask for our assistance??? I know, shocking right!

Yep, we did nothing and continue to do nothing in many cases. Hell, we did nothing in Syria when people were being slaughtered in lower numbers and by more traditional weapons.

If, IF, we are to be the World Police (yes, it was a great movie) then we should not be so selective about stepping in. Maybe we should be Tom Joad to the rest of the world:

Then it don't matter. I'll be all around in the dark - I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too.