But if we want those deaths to stop, and if we want to avoid repeating the tragedy of Syria, we can’t just oppose. We also have to come up with real alternatives.

I think this is the major issue a lot of the American people have with this whole business right now. Some are totally against getting involved in Syria and some don't believe Obama's proposals go far enough.

Personally, I am asking "what is this going to accomplish?" What real results can we potentially see if the US or UK goes headstrong and does a series of attacks for a few days, a few weeks, a few years? What is the best case and worst case scenarios?

Putting aside all the lack of evidence, mistrust due to the series of events where the information we were presented was proven to be wrong, what are we really trying to accomplish? Simply stopping the use of chemical weapons? Is that the final end goal?

I understand the human emotional desire to get involved and fix all the problems but it isn't going to be fixed with these actions. Allegedly, have been callous enough to use chemical weapons thus far without fear of ramifications. What makes us think that the tragic situation will be less tragic if we bust in?