Syria is said to have used chemical weapons. Is it OUR Duty to punish them for this?

The Rebels conisist of a lot of the factions that made 9/11 Happen.
Here is a video that the NY Times put out about how they are: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?_r=0

No body else wants to attack Syria. Is Obama just doing it to save his own face because of the line that was crossed, or, is there something more. I do not know.

A lot of people think that a "SMALL" Attack would have little effect, especially with the time it has taken and with all of the announcing, it could be turned against us. It also would piss off a lot of people, and would probably draw us into another conflict that we do not need to be in.

It is not like either side has any love for the US. Would we actually be doign a good thing by attacking, or just be trying to put out a fire with Gasoline?

What is your opinion on this?

I think we should stay out of it.
I do not see any real benifit of doing a surgical strike.
I do not think we want to support the rebels. They pretty much hate us.
The rest of the world is staying out of it. It seems that Obama wants to do it more to save face than anything else.
What would a one time attack really do? This much warning would give them plenty of chances to put Human Shields around any potential targets, and make us into the bgad guys.
Would we be drawn into another conflict that we really have no end game for?
I do not see a win here.
Am I seeing it wrong?

It is really strange to believe the Syrian government would use chemical weapons against a tactically insignificant target during a war they are winning. We are being asked to accept pretty shaky evidence to enter a ground war that will certainly see troops deployed, to install a fundamentalist government and create another failed state. I guess the plus side is we're running out of stable Middle Eastern governments to fuck up.

1. Get rid of fuel dependency
2. Pull out of the middle east
3. Let them fuck each other their camels

Everything is solved with the same vaguely racist joke truck drivers have been making since 1991!

_________________

This about sums it up:

Hey theres plenty of guys in the south fucking their goats/sheep to so I don't judge. ;)

The point was: without the need for oil they can do whatever they want to each other we wont need them...

Sure sounds like you are!

_________________

Warren?

This post brought to you by Finlainea's new oil based product free computer.

We don't have a role in Syria. Both sides are monsters, neither side particularly likes us or wants our help, and the chemical weapons allegations are turning out to be really hard to prove. Any intervention on our part would be empty saber-rattling.

All we really know is that chemical weapons were used.

Assad is a monster.
The "rebels" are not much better.

This is like a turf war between the Crips and Bloods. All we, and the international community, should be doing is ensuring that this doesn't spill over to other nations.

Oh, and for the record, I don't think it makes Obama weak if he attacks. This is a lose-lose-lose situation.

It is also well past time for the dolts in Congress (both "sides") to do what is best for the nation and not just look at the political win.

Obama could spin it. Just talk about Afghanistan and Iraq like they were sequels to Vietnam, and not striking Syria looks mature and patient.

We can't fix the Middle East. The best hope for stability that we've seen has come from the likes of Assad. If we want real peace in that region then the rivals need to be allowed to kill each other off until there is a clear victor.

A diplomatic solution entails giving one side liscense to lop heads.