I was listening to the radio today and heard some neo-con talking like some expert about what is going on in Syria. Nevermind the fact that his position was quite clear by the rhetoric he used (the Assad "regime") though he tried to come across as unbiased. The guy was making an asinine point. He says yes, Assad needs to go because he has huge stockpiles of chemical weapons and we can't allow these to get into the hands of enemies (sound familiar?). Then he says that we should be wary of supporting the opposition because they may not support us (well duh, you'll be hard pressed to find people in the Middle East that support the US government after all the meddling it's done). But nonetheless, we must provide air support because Assad needs to go. Why? Because it will leave us with at least some influence. Sure, and that air support will also gain more hatred and disillusionment with the US. Is this really what we want? Many innocent people would die from such air strikes, and we would be taking sides in a war that I don't see a clear "better" side in, but ignored all that, says the neo-con. We have to do something!
Meanwhile, will you find Obama or Romney disagreeing on the subject? Of course not. What a sham of an election we have this year.