sober,
I truly believe that Syria's capability to launch a chemical SCUD beyond their borders is nil.
They are not a threat to the USA, and I doubt they are a threat to Israel.
If you want to beat the war drums while insisting you aren't, that is your prerogative, but most can see through that.
We are much better off if we use our resources towards health, education, science, and innovation.
Seems to have worked in the past.
I'm not worried about the Syrians.
I'm worried about who might acquire their arsenal of SCUDS and chemical weapons if the Assad regime is overthrown.
Do some research before you state with any confidence that the Syrian regime lacks the ability to launch SCUDS with chemical warheads beyond its own borders. Even the earliest model SCUDS from the 1960's had a range of 300+miles and were designed to carry a wide variety of warheads icluding nuclear and chemical ones. Syria is one of only 8 nations that is not signatory to the UN convention on chemical weapons, and they have aknowledged having a chemical arsenal.
SCUD missiles are designed to be mobile. They are towed to the launch point and fired from off of the back of an oversized truck. It would actually be quite simple to load one onto a freighter, hundreds of which are in the Atlantic ocean at any given time, and then fire it once a major city on our Eastern seaboard was within range. Pinpoint accuracy is not important when you are releasing chemical weapons over a major city. Chemical weapons have been loaded into artillery shells and missiles since World War One, the technology for doing so is nothing new or remarkable.
I'm not beating a war drum. We have no business invading Syria, we have no business becoming directly involved in its civil war, and we have no business doing anything other than providing humanitarian assistance to its refugees. We also, however, have every right to take measures to prevent the worlds largest arsenal of chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands.