Last time the USA needed an invasion, and lots of airstrikes to rid the world of the illegal WMDs

[andym]

Why are the President's men only talking about a limited airstrike? That won't get rid of the chemical weapons if the situation is anything like Iraq. Won't an invasion be necessary? And won't statues need to be toppled?

[leveymg]

1. Our records indicate you are not authorized to ask those questions.

Your security clearance does not permit an answer. Those are a topics that go to classified national security activities.

Remain where you are. Someone will be there to assist you momentarily.

[jsr]

2. Well, we got a lot of flowers and candy

[andym]

6. Very True. nt.

[BlueStreak]

3. It won't do anything. It is just to avenge the insult that Obama felt was dealt to him personally

In other words, ego.

Whom will we bomb? And how will that help anything?

[HooptieWagon]

4. Exactly.

Someone called Obama's bluff, and now his panties are all twisted in a wad.
There is no positive strategic or tactical outcome accomplished by only a missle strike. This is merely a response to a personal insult.

[David__77]

5. This "show across the bow" will make use of chemical weapons more, not less likely.

I read the pro-Syrian government forums, and everyone is saying that the important thing is to ramp up and crack down hard once any missile is launched - that that would be the time. The Syrian army might not be able to sink a US ship sitting out in the sea, but it certainly has a lot of means to do more within Syria itself.

What's the point of this "action" again? Just symbolism. Not to protect anyone or anything. If it were true that the government used such weapons, only occupation of the country would secure those arsenals.