Imminent mistakes in Syria

[Taem]

I'm personally glad this administration has chosen to stick to their word - when you're the leader of a super power, you better damn well do what you say, else you look like North Korea - filled with hot air. When Obama said Syria's use of chemical weapons would be a "red line in the sand" a few months back, that was his administrations stance on the subject. Rather I agree with that decision or not is irrelevant to the fact that a nation as strong and powerful as ours has to be credible when it makes bold statements such as it's "redline" comment. I'd hate for use to loose a few backdoor negotiations because, despite our power, other countries know just how far they can push our buttons before stoking a reaction.

Second, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and it's unfortunate for us that this is truly an un-winnable war because the winners will not be allies of ours, but Obama's stance was humanitarian in nature, and if you don't see that, if all you see is state lines and dollar signs, then I'm inclined to believe fear has a grip on your moral compass. When is the use of chemical weapons on people [in general, not even talking civil war here] ever condoned by our society, or by the world at large? But I suppose the main crux of any [unstated] argument might be that the next leader to take over might be worse than the current, however I did not see anyone mention that here, so I fail to see reasoning in the logic of text posted in this thread. All I see is fear, with a moral compass pointed downward!

My personal, logistical reasons for not entering the fray of Syria's civil war would be: 1) A far worse dictator might take over and we may find these chemical weapons we're taking a stance on in the hands of terrorists and used on American, and allied, soil, 2) As terrible as it sounds, this country cannot afford to engage in another costly war and loose billions of our dollars fighting, training, and making peace with foreigners of a country who want's nothing to do with us, and whose end results could possibly spell another recession for us, 3) Even though I feel this chemical warfare business is a true human atrocity, I feel Syria needs to fight Syria's war, not us, and earn their own freedom and independence. By interfering this this process, we are stopping that country from becoming what we ourselves became, and finally 4) It's most likely illegal to intervene and this could do far worse to our already tarnished image than doing nothing.

I take to the notion that there are three separate categories of thought on this issue; Logic: I don't feel like doing a copy/paste job, but I would not enter the fray for those numerous reasons I listed in the paragraph directly above. Morality: I would have to justify a new leader being better then the current one before condoning any action on Syria and if this were to be true, then I'd enter the fray to protect the innocents and if not, I wouldn't enter the fray to protect the innocent, but my decision would be based on morality. And finally, Power: I'm compelled to do what I say, and by this I mean when I say "chemical weapons are a red line," that I'm going to take action no matter what the outcome! My word is law and I don't want others to question my motives or to push me further to see how far they can go to get away with abuses of power against my country.

At some points, each category blurs with the other, but for completely different reasons than intended. So for me, even though I feel multiple levels of emotion on this issue, my gut instinct is the follow the rule of Power, and stick with what our country said we would do, which also blurs with the morality side. Anyways, that is my stance, and I really don't see it changing.