This and lots of "memes" like it are showing up everywhere. It's funny, but it leaves me a little uncomfortable because while it may be intended to mock Obama's policy, it seems actually to undermine the international convention that discourages civilized people from using inhumane weapons. If the upshot of this debate is that chemical weapons are just fine by everyone -- just one more way to kill, no different than conventional weapons-- that's a loss for humanity.
The point is that this is not the US' battle; we're not the enforcer of the Geneva Conventions. It really is for the community of nations to make Assad pay the price for being an inhumane SOB who gases his own people (assuming that is what happened).
Unlike Saddam Hussein, Assad has not threatened the US directly, has not bragged about stockpiling WMD and hinted he was building nukes for the purpose of targeting Americans, is not daily and flagrantly violating the terms of a cease-fire in a war with the U.S. There's no accumulated evidence of him making deals to sell WMD to al-Qaeda. He may be a dangerous and wicked schmuck, but unlike Saddam he has not picked a fight with us, and therefore we would be an aggressor in this action -- for which, arguably, he would be entitled to retaliate. That -- plus (see a few posts below) the fact that we are likely to make a terrible situation much worse-- is the reason to oppose Syrian action.
By the way, where IS the UN and the "international community"? We are all still opposed to chemical weapons, right? Or is that another humane convention we no longer care about?
