UPDATE ON "RED LINE IN THE SAND" BELOW:
that is the question. Should we take up arms against this new sea of troubles?
Both parties are divided on what to do:
"Some Democrats, haunted by Iraq, are staunchly anti-intervention, while others, haunted by Rwanda, are strongly in favor; some Republicans, inspired by former Representative Ron Paul, decry military adventurism, while others, in the mode of the George W. Bush Administration, see a need to act against a rogue regime." --Molly Ball, The Atlantic
I would err on the side of NO intervention and put pressure on Syria's neighbors to oust Assad. But then who would take his place? That, of course, won't happen, and neither will international peace talks, as some have suggested.
There really aren't any good choices in this mess, and I have no idea what the intelligence on what is really going on is. I supported going after al-Qaeda, the group that planned and carried out the attacks on America on 9/11, but I did not support the Iraq invasion, since I saw no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
A good analysis on the situation that explains the positions of the non-interventionists and interventionists in both parties is here:
Via Talking Points Memo
"Dan Senor, former foreign policy adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney took on his own party Wednesday over the resolution to authorize military action in Syria, pointing out that Republicans never cried foul when President Barack Obama first said the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons would be a "red line."
Dan Senor told the panel on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he's as "frustrated as any congressional Republican" with Obama's approach to Syria. "But guess what? At the end of the day, right now, you are expressing a frustrated sentiment. A sentiment is not a policy," Senor said.
" 'We have a policy debate right now about what to do about a rogue nation that is bogged down in civil war that is experimenting with chemical weapons. Forget about if the president drew the red line or not. Imagine the president didn't draw the red line.'
Senor contended that Obama's declaration of a 'red line' on chemical weapons, which some Republicans have now used to criticize the administration, drew no opposition from the GOP at the time.
'And by the way, when the president did draw it, it's not like congressional Republicans were opposed to it,' Senor continued.
'No congressional Republican was saying, 'Don't draw that red line.' They were never criticizing President Obama for doing too much. They were criticizing him for doing too little. So now he wants to do something.' "