For me, even using that criteria, I don't know about Syria? Is Obama's reason for wanting to in with drones, etc. simply based on humane reasons? Or is there another, more political reason? This is what I don't know. I know it can't be oil - Syria represents POINT forty-eight percent - as in less than ONE PERCENT - as in less than HALF OF ONE PERCENT of oil production in the world. Could it be a part of the whole Palestinian issue? Syria has been a 'pathway', as claimed by Israel, used by Iran to transport weapons to be used against them. Is poor Syria simply a pawn? And one where its own people are split and thus in the middle of a civil war (also religiously-anchored)?
Can anything like this ever be completely explained to the American people in a way that would make sense? Is too much of the needed information - highly classified? I don't know. I don't know if killing thousands of one's countrymen, women and children by ANY means is okay - meaning that I don't believe we can say, in good conscience, "Yes, kill your people with guns, bombs, torture, knives - rape, pillage, destroy; just don't use chemical weapons, all right?" Which of course, leads us to the question of whether the US should be the leader in policing the world. And maybe, for most Americans right now - that's the real question?
However, if it is, I well remember how our administration at the time sure didn't believe the US should be just that - a world police force - during the mass massacre of thousands of Rwandans. Back then, the people of the US were urging, writing, emailing, begging the Administration to DO something along the lines of major military action. But gosh darn it, poor Rwanda had nothing the US needed - so it was left to its own devices and mass graves. Kind of kills my idea of taking each situation on its own merit - or maybe it means we add a very important caveat: Take each situation on its own merit without regards to what the country in trouble has or can do for the US. Once we accept that premise; take it to our hearts, minds and laws, then we can really delve into whether we, the US, should be any kind of 'world police'.
I do know one other thing: If we take the responsibility - it should be based on, imho, an immediate threat to the US and/or its allies as stated by the offending country - and/or any kind of totally inhumane action on the part of the regime/administration/government/monarch
Wait...I just realized there might be another valid reason for going into Syria: The number of refugees flooding into other countries like Turkey and Jordan are creating the kind of drain on resources that can and will impact the world. So is ending the war the most effective way of dealing with this kind of drain? Can humanitarian efforts - as typical of what's already being done by so many agencies, etc., ever be enough?
Nope, I just have no way to go regarding Syria - other than praying for the refugees, applauding the countries that have taken them in with open arms, and applauding the personnel from the US and around the country that have gone to help with medical aid, food, clothing, etc....