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.
II.your god in Thailand isn't a Republican and was certainly against it...and he wasn't alone
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).
There's a ton of differences. Syria is a tiny, densely-populated country. A bombing campaign will lead to ridiculous numbers of "collateral damage." Libya's geography and extremely sparse population, plus the fact that most of the fighting pre-Sirt was going on out in the desert, kept collateral damage way down. Also, there's the fact that in Libya we had a full-fledged rebel army to collaborate with and coordinate with. The Free Syrian Army is a joke and there is no rebel "zone of control." Bombing the Assad regime's military facilities isn't going to be enough to topple Assad and Assad's military is far larger and more formidable than Qaddafi's was, anyway.
