Well we look pretty stupid... we complain of Syria using chemical weapons, but didn't say shiite about Iraq under Hussein using them back in 1988... but that was a GOP President & future President !

But I heard some commentary and my position hasn't changed BUT IF we HAD to do something (i.e he continues to use chemical weapons), would this work ? IF BOs purpose is to prevent future use of chemical weapons (he said it was today), would this be a deterrent? Fact: Syria gets >$350 million / month from its oil exports and refinery products (2010 data). Syria uses this $ to buy many (much) of its military stockpiles including chemical weapons from Russia.

One fear is IF we strike, will Assad be compelled to retaliate and repeat the offense to thumb his nose at us (likely if it were military targets only) ? Could we hit him a little and hold the rest over his head to prevent further attacks? Could we hit any chemical weapons depots/ manufacturing places and even missile batteries used to deliver those weapons (if we could be certain where they were - if not, DON'T), AND as a deterrent, take out 1/4 to 1/3 of his oil refineries & depots? Warn him- if he uses chemicals again, we'll take another 1/4 - 1/3 of his refineries and oil facilities, etc... That hits Syria in the pocket book, takes away $ spent for military goods, and sends a clear message.

This would #1 show we're serious, #2 we keep our word (no blinking), AND #3 establishes a deterrent that we could enforce. At first, the financial pain would be significant, but not too great; however with the threat of it getting much worse every time he used them.

I full well realize he could be illogical and use them again in spite of anything we do, but he'll lose something for it. If he repeats again, he loses more income. Now at the end 3-4 strikes, he has no refineries depots to lose, BUT he's $350 million / month more in debt to operate his military and regime. This is compounded on the other sanctions hurting their economy.

What do you think ? NOT saying I'd recommend it BUT if I was 'hell bent' on doing something- this sounds more logical and more limited plus has a chance to be a deterrent (against chemical weapons use only). I think hitting military targets does not.

What I'm really hoping for is BO goes to Congress and they say NO, and he respects that message. (kind of "I've been over ruled !') . . . BUT I'm not holding my breath !! sick