The "This doesn't affect us" argument is weak

[backscatter712]

45. The problem is that the rebels are no better.

If we do what we and NATO did in Libya: airstrikes, take out the air force, and give the rebels enough help to win the war, then you have the problem of replacing one evil murderous butcher with another.

The Libyan rebels were relatively chill compared to the Syrian rebels. And the Libyan rebels were far from saints. The Syrian rebels have been seen sawing people heads off, eating people's hearts, they're accused of using their own chem weapons, and various groups of them have ties to Al Qaeda.

These kinds of interventions have a way of biting us in the ass - blowback. We overthrew Mossadegh in Iran, replaced him with the Shah, who butchered so many of his own people he got overthrown, so now we've got to deal with Islamist radicals in charge there. We gave weapons to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including one enterprising individual: Osama Bin Laden.

One thing that Obama got right in handling this conflict - holding off on giving too much assistance to the rebels. His goal is not to overthrow Assad - that's just replacing one butcher with another. His goal, though I don't agree with it, is to give Assad a public spanking. Which means the whole airstrike thing is essentially geopolitical theater. And it's theater that causes mass casualties and escalates tensions in a region where everyone's already lost their minds and gone into mass murderous rage.