So I asked my friends from Syria about my "I support intervention" stance.

[Savannahmann]

87. Then allow me to ask some questions.

First. How do we punish Assad and not remove him from power? President Obama has said we are not going for Regime Change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827

So we aren't going to punish the man who we say issued the orders, we're going to punish him by killing the guards, technicians, and workers at chemical weapons storage and manufacturing plants.

Now, there is no doubt that when we bomb those plants, we're going to be releasing Chemical Weapons into the air, probably killing a number of people downwind.

So we're going to Punish Assad for using Chemical weapons on the Syrian People. We're going to punish him, by bombing people who work at the plants, and gassing the people who live downwind. Assad himself isn't going to be harmed one bit, and it will probably reduce, but not eliminate current stocks of weapons, and certainly won't prevent him from making more.

Then there is the problem with our allies. The French and UK, both of which have spent the first part of the week beating the war drums have both backed off. The UK deciding to wait until Parliament can vote, because it turns out that the UK Parliament are not nearly so enthusiastic about bombing the stink out of Syria as Prime Minister Cameron is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10272555/Cameron-backs-down-on-urgent-Syria-strikes.html

The French have gone from demanding punitive action to seeking a political solution. Oh, and France wants to help the Rebels, the ones you admit are a problem. Switching the people from a Dictatorial thug to a Theocracy probably isn't going to improve their lives in any meaningful way, but at least Assad won't get away with bombing his own people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-hollande-idUSBRE97S0CU20130829

Then there is the US Congress. Since this situation does not threaten the United States directly, they would really like President Obama to make the case to them and allow them to consider giving their approval. That's the whole War Powers Resolution.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/growing-bipartisan-coalition-urges-obama-to-seek-congressional-authorization-for-syrian-strike/

Egypt won't allow our ships to transit the Suez Canal, so they don't support intervention in Syria. Jordon has said they will not assist in any way.

So under what authority will we use force to punish the people at the plants in an effort to teach Assad a lesson? Any UN Resolution? Sure we have the King of Saudi Arabia. But is that enough authority to do what we propose, which is both ineffective, and asinine?

Now finally, we get to the situation with Russia and China. Both oppose action. Politically, we can ignore them, and avoid going to the UN for authority, and just do what we think is right. But here is the problem, what is to stop them from doing what they can say they think is right? They have ships, and submarines, in the Med. They can move more there more easily than we can. They can fire a warning shot across our bow while we are firing one across Syria's bow.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-warships-mediterranean-report-082257880.html

My final question is this. Are you prepared to start World War III because Assad is a bad guy? Are you willing to increase tensions between the three largest powers, all armed with nuclear weapons, over Syria? Especially when our outlined actions, the general goals, are so weak? We're not talking about taking him out of power. We're not talking about going in, and setting up a new Government, an action that our allies would object to. We're not talking about doing anything but killing more of the Syrian People to punish Assad for killing the Syrian People.

If we had a plan, if we had a goal, that would be one thing. But we are acting without any thought what so ever.