Conservatives - What's wrong with Obama's handling of Syria?

We have no business getting involved in Syria. We have nothing to benefit no matter what we do over there. We need to, for the first time ever, stay out of it. It's time for America to stop being the world's police and focus on the problems we have here at home

Why isn't the international community concerned about this or supportive of such a strike? Where is Obama's 'coalition'? There is none. Wasn't that the criticism of the left against President Bush? (Despite all the reality that he had quite a strong coalition and international support.)

Further, where is the American interest? What responsibility or right does Obama have to play the 'parent' in this situation?

Lastly, this fight in Syria is one arguable terrorist against another arguable terrorist. If you attack one, you side with the other. Paint it any way you like, but if Obama bombs Assad, he sides with al Quada. Of course, there's no surprise in that. Obama also armed al Quada when he provided arms to the Libyan and Egyptian rebels. I'll never understand that. Where's the outrage from the left over a President supplying arms to America's enemies?

Sometimes saying nothing is the best policy. Obama being Obama could not do that. He's painted himself in a corner. He has to act or lose face.

Now the USA will become involved in a conflict where we have absolutely nothing to gain. Syria's only significant export is terrorism.

I remember liberals calling Iraq "Blood for Oil", if true that term seems brilliant compared what we stand to gain from Syria, "Blood for Terrorism."

@Poohbear - reminds me of when Bush was President.

Way too many questions there at the end, hon. Just saying.

Principal criticism is this: he should be going after al-Assad and his family. THAT will ensure that the WMDs cease being used, now and in the future.

I have two simple questions:

1. How does the USA benefit from backing the rebels vs. the government?

2. How will the USA benefit from bombing Syria over their use of chemical weapons?

Not knocking Obama, but I'm not seeing any pluses for the USA on any actions we take.

As a conservative i tend to.... Disagree.... With Obama. But I agree, use cruise missiles on any sites connected to the chemical warfare. Also, sell some old military equipment to both sides.

He's siding with terrorists, and beating the drums of war the same was as Bush did.

Bypassing Congress, etc.

The hypocrisy is nauseating.

Obama wants to once again make the decision unilaterally and circumvent congress. He has decided that the house, although elected by the people, is illegitimate, because they challenge him and his agenda

Obama will be taking the side of Al Quada...you know, that group of islamic terrorists who caused 9/11

Why should we now be on Al Q's side? What is there to gain with the US having any involvement with Syria (other than pampering Obama's ego)?

The problem is Obama isn't a conservative republican. He's a democrat, and so by definition, everything he says or does is automatically, unequivocally, WRONG.

He didn't go into Syria earlier - WRONG.

Now he wants to go into Syria - WRONG.

Just the fact that he EXISTS is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

So it doesn't matter what he does, it's always WRONG.