No ground soldiers except to recover downed pilots/equipment.

"Why is a death from a kinetic bomb worth less than a death by Sarin? "
yes, why is death of six million jews by gas chamber deliberately, worse than death of the same number by pogroms?

why is anything worse than anything else?

here's why. if we don't punish the very worst forms of human rights abuse, including death by chemical weapons, there will be fewer disincentives against MORE deaths by chemical weapons on a MASS scale not only here but say by north korea, or by the next qadaffi opposing civil uprising.

some things are more evil and deserve punishment. there are some lines you may not cross -- because if we don't uphold the norms, the world will descend into more and more abuses. in general, in the last half of the last century, we moved FORWARD on human rights with fewer genocides and more democracy and fewer wars of aggression....we need to keep at it.

"since the firebombing and block busting of WW2, this distinction has been hollow." Actually, the firebombing and block busting of ww2 by the allies was just, but by the Nazis and Japanese, was unjust aggression. Germany and Japan today are not crying out for reparations for the allies "crimes" are they --- they are largely peaceful, and content with how we the allies remade them, administered justice over them, tried them for war crimes. There was not a descent into never ending violence by our use of violence since our use of violence was JUST and they recognize that every day they're not officially slamming us. japan doesn't even claim any right against us for nuking japan, do they.

in targeting Syria's chemical weapons facilities we will of course kill civilians. the American revolution killed civilians, too. the civil war killed civilians. we also burnt down Atlanta, remember? some violence is just. and sometimes if you don't use it, you're being unjust or you're at best allowing injustice. mlk style marches don't work against criminals like assad, much as we wish they would. if we don't do it expect chemical weapons to be resorted to by more dictators in the future. this is not a good thing.

if we don't do anything, more dictators will use chemical weapons, they won't be seen as "especially" bad.

if we do do something, it could work.

read that again: it could work, in the sense that the Libya thing worked. no, any intervention doesn't always lead to Iraq style quagmire. Read that again. Thank you.

it could also not work, in the sense that militarily we may not wipe out all chemical facilities and he may use chemical weapons again, but really this is "partially working" and is 80 or 90% of it as he knows we will be trying to knock those facilities out, it will uphold the notion there IS an interntional law norm against these weapons, and it will uphold the general notion of international law of human rights and law of war which has been building and helping mankind for many years. you can argue we don't have enough of such law and such punishment against transgressors but to argue
"do nothing" is to say "we give up, let the dictators use chemical weapons at will" .....and they will. Not acting is lazy, stupid, and misguided. We should stop whatever human rights violations we can stop at a reasonable cost, including all those committed by ourselves, and some or many committed by others. Any nation should do the same, and when the others don't act it's even more necessary that we act correctly.

When I read Obama planned to strike at the chemical weapons facilities, but wanted approval of congress, it was the moment in which I felt the most pride in Obama since he has been elected.

For once, he both has a spine and seeks to do the right thing constitutionally (though he still claims he'd act alone, which he shouldn't since congress has to declare war). It's up to us to back him or our nation is a moral coward.

"The moment the US drops its first bomb, the anger and resentment against Assad will be washed away and piled onto America. " Nope, the opponents who are most Syrians will be cheering and waving us flags like the Libyans did. like the French did when we liberated paris.

the operative language is so short, really, slog should have copies that instead of the whereas clauses which legally have lesser meaning and import.

issues:
1. no time limit: not relevant, congress can repeal at any point in time.
2. in connection with chemical bio or wmd: not sure what else you'd want to say. and no, the forbes definition isn't incorporated by reference. what do you want a twenty page script?
3. they should ask him what action will be done confidentially, approve this resolution, tell him he has 20 days to implement it then it will be withdrawn.
4. if you want to tighten it add a clause saying "military action directly against chemical bio or wmd facilities or those commanding them only, is allowed." This would also allow a targeted strike against Assad personally as one commenter seeks. "In connection with" is possibly too broad. But I'd leave it very very short and announce congress will monitor and step forward if it gets too broad or too involved.

long ago we decided human rights violations are not internal conflicts. if they are, then you open the door to genocide, killings, torture, chemical weapons etc. we tried german Nazis not only for war crimes against us, but also for war crimes against their populations. we've been making international law and treaties on war and human rights for centuries. it's well established that there is international law, and nations can act to enforce it, and this does not violate the "sovereignty" of Syria or assad, which btw why are you defending assadsyria's sovereignty? he's forfeited any claim to legitimacy. he's just a gang of criminals, legally speaking.

@25 you nailed it after the criminal usa occupation of Nicaragua you all NEVER should have gone to war against the Nazis!

Only nations That Have Done No Wrong can enforce human rights! this way, there will be none to enforce human rights bwah ha ha!

"And the history of war has shown that making war only paves the way to more war"

total baloney. Japan is not at war with us, nor do they claim we did much anything wrong in ww2.

see also Kosovo, bosnia, Libya.

nations may punish war crimes violators and human rights abusers with military intervention or strikes under international law, we needn't try to "summons" Assad to the hague for a trial that will take a few years.

it's akin to self defense....if someone attacks you, you needen't await trial to stop it. on the international plane the universal jurisdiction to deal with pirates, genociders, war criminals includes direct military enforcement of international law norms. it's still law without courts. funny isn't it. but there it is. we rescue folks from pirates without a court order, too.