we have, over many years, made many differences in the Middle East
and not very many of them have been positive for either them or us. to keep picking at the scab on the lesion that is the combination of religion and oil in the mideast has done what for us, exactly?
The moral fine point between methods of death is going to be solved by us killing a bunch more people and taking sides in a civil war again? I respect your opinion but do not agree. i guess it is possible to disagree in a civil manner, so i will just avoid engaging on the topic. We are being "forced" to respond? nope, it is a choice. perhaps my opinion might change as things develop, but i think the moral responsibility belongs to their neighbors and the islamic brotherhood.
Why do we basically stand alone in this endeavor? if it is such a moral imperative, the voice of the world would rise as one. it isn't. the world court has not even indicted him, if it did, i could see either taking him out or his ability to do more, but now that it has turned into helping the rebels instead of just punitive, it is meddling in a way that isn't even being discussed. The recent nuance of "no combat boots on the ground" while slipping in having us help and train the rebels (mccain and his butt buddy) is just an escalation, not a punishment for gas attacks.
taken as an individual act, zapping their gas ability is moral, but now it is expanding into participating in their civil war through arms, aid, and training, the light is escaping from the box. we have seen this movie before. trying to make it connected to iran uranium refining is just cheney level stuff.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
