Amazing that this guy goes form [sic] noting that the world communithy does not support bombing Syria and then says the world demands that something be done.
And how are the two statements in contradiction? We can do something, and that "something" doesn't have to be blowing up things and persons in a country that hasn't attacked us. They have offended our sensibilities, but not committed an act of war against the United States.
Part of the issue, to me, is knowing who really did the deed. I'm not satisfied with the "evidence" that has been put forward to date that completely rules out either side committing gas attacks. Shoot first, ask questions later, that's a recipe for pissing a lot of other people off. That's one reasons I want to keep the drones and bombers at base, instead of dropping bombs.
Haven't we killed enough civilians over the years? Show me that our military will be fighting to win, against military targets, and I might have a different opinion. Show me that we will finish what we start: start at the beginning, continue to the end, then stop. Not the same bogus rules of engagement that typified the Vietnam "War". (With no disrespect intended for anyone who was there, just disrespect for the dolts who, safe at home, made impossible demands on our troops.) Show me that the rest of the world is behind the actions we take, that even though they aren't fighting themselves they cheer us on.
Show me that this isn't the actions of a few old guys in Washington, acting without the approval of the people in their districts, people who elected them believing that in doing so they were sending thoughtful, competent people to nation's Capitol.
That's the problem. How do you define the "end?"