Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war"). They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.
Um, look at Libya. It was mostly Republicans who were backing Bush and his wars 100% who acted like that.
Who are these "usual suspects" and how much influence do any of them have on the Obama Administration?
II.your god in Thailand isn't a Republican and was certainly against it...and he wasn't alone
Yes, he is such an influential political figure after all.
3.why are so many of the people on your side who were for intervention in Libya so quiet on Syria
My gut tells me their hatred of Israel plays a part in it, of course they wouldn't word it like that (though some certainly would).
Because Gaddafi was such a friend of Israel.
Not to mention that any replacement Syrian government probably wouldn't be Israeli-friendly either, even the most liberal pro-Western government possible would still refuse to recognize Israel without return of the Golan Heights as a bare minimum.
Mikado and Mordem explained the real issues at work, and that establishing a no-fly zone wouldn't be as beneficial since Assad is less relying on air support, while Gaddafi used it as his mainstay to push back the rebel advance and threaten Benghazi. Once NATO crippled his air force the tide turned. Crippling the Syrian Air Force wouldn't make much of a difference.
