I mainly agree with all of this, except a few points. First of all, if we do not intervene wouldn't we be sending the message that chemical weapons can be used with impunity? These weapons could later get used by Assad against Israel or other U.S. allies, or be given to Iran, or get into the wrong hands. therefore the weapons should be destroyed.
On another point, I have heard a long debate about wether or not the rebels are Al Qaeda affiliated. I have noticed that political talk show hosts and others without experience in the military say that the rebels are mainly al-Qaeda. General Jack Keane, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, Allen West, John Kerry, Oliver North, and other contributors with experience in the military and international matters, agree that the extremist portion of the rebellion is too small to be considered a threat. They, and their sources on the ground, concur that military actions are a good idea, if executed right.
Finally, I do not want military action to be taken at this point. I believe that so much notice has been given that our military is going to strike, that a strike of any kind is now going to be counter productive. Assad has certainly moved his chemical weapons out of our reach, and is most likely getting his air force away from target areas. In addition, Assad has most likely moved innocent civilians into target areas, thus creating anti American sentiment in the region if we do attack.
In conclusion, I supported military action against Assad, but now think that it is too late.