Misguided US Attack on Syria

    The Washington Times says, "Obama struggles to justify Syria attack to skeptical Americans, Congress.The White House on Tuesday began to lay out a public justification for a possible bombing of Syria, saying the nation’s use of chemical weapons is a threat to U.S. interests."
    I am one of the skeptical Americans. The first thing I would like to know is how use of chemical weapons in Syria is a threat to US interests. It is easy to bandy about the term "threat to US interests", without being specific as to what those threats are. I suppose there are many who operate on emotional bases and who don't bother to ask themselves whether they are being hoodwinked. As a child, I was always very curious, driving my mother crazy by asking continually "why". In my subsequent 90 years, I have found this to serve me in good stead. It almost always gave me good information on which I could make a proper judgment.
    Let's speculate a little bit. How Is a stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria a threat to the US? As long as they remain in Syria, they can do no damage to citizens living in the US. They cannot be transported to the US for local use by ship, because all merchandise coming into the US by ship is controlled by US Customs Authority. Delivery to the US by rockets is also out. No country in that area has the capability of rocket delivery except for Russia, which is smart enough to know not to engage in such folly.
    Unless someone can think of another scenario, chemical weapons will stay in Syria or adjacent area and be used on local inhabitants or continue to be warehoused. In either case, it is no threat to the US. Any Americans in the area as tourists or workers should get out.
    If Pres. Assad is using chemical weapons on the rebels, or if the rebels are using chemical weapons on Assad's military, we have no problem. We don't like either side, and they don't like us. Why not let them kill each other, since both sides are our enemy? What about collateral damage to innocent civilians? First of all, there generally are no innocent civilians, except for children and very old indigent people. The average citizen in the Middle East is either on one side or the other of any argument, and most do at least something to support their preferred side. Example, during World War II the Japanese public supported the war against the US. Without that support, there would have been no war. Two atomic bombs helped the Japanese people decide that supporting war was not profitable. If Syrian parents are concerned about the safety of their children, they can flee to neighboring countries. Many have already gone to Turkey..
    We also hear the term "play" used in possible US involvement in the Syrian conflict. That term is generally used by people who liken war to a sporting event. I call them warmongers. Sen. John McCain is foremost in that group. His latest sales pitch is that the rebels are really nice guys. He knows them personally. They are not terrorists and had no malevolence to the US. Baloney! The Middle East is infiltrated with Al Qaeda, terrorists, and jihadists. Syria is no exception, including the rebels.
    President Obama will likely attack the Syrian regime, in favor of the rebels. If he does so, he will not only get no support from me and will get continued vigorous objection.