At least not yet. Not without a viable alternative in place.

These people disagree:

Did you read my entire post? There needs to be a viable alternative in place or Syria falls further into anarchy.

I lost family members in Nazi Germany so this is a hot button issue for me.

able or willing to cash. Red lines, Assad Must Go, etc. Hillary Clinton, her sidekick Leon Panetta (whom Obama for some reason welcomed into his administration for four years, knowing all the while he was only loyal to the Clintons--dumb), and the thoroughly discredited felon Petraeus, pushed Obama to get involved in Syria. Now it's all fallen apart, we're getting an atomic wedgie by Russia because of years of bad decisions and half-moves, and we sold out almost every aspect of our foreign policy to preserve the Iran deal. So here we are. They all are to blame. But there's no way I'm now going to vote for someone who wants to risk World War Three over Syria. SYRIA. We actually had more cause to intervene in Ukraine, since Bill Clinton promised we'd help protect them against Russia. But Syria? Fuck no.

If it was not for the huge profits, as Hillary said, 'we have to start looking at Iraq as a business opportunity', there would be no wars. Money is what our wars are all about.

Bernie wants this country to go to war ONLY in defense of the country.

Hillary views war as 'business opportunities' and no, I didn't make it up, she said so herself.