I would vote no for complete intervention into the war, but I wouldn't dare say that we need to ignore the war crimes that Assad has created. He needs to be punished or else other countries will take it upon themselves to OK chemical warfare. We will just waste our resources, money, and American lives by engaging in war with Syria, and like Friedman explained extensively: engaging in Syria now, will cost us 7 years of war, just like Iraq and Afghanistan. You cannot force democracy on any country, they must come across it on their own terms. If it is forced, they will just end up hating the West, and become even more radical, even more jihadist, even more dangerous to the American public.
I am still unclear about what the President's intentions are exactly, so I would decline a vote.
Obama is failing miserably if only 44 votes were approximated as being Yes. I feel like he is doing all that he can, even risking impeachment, but the public simply does not want anything to do with the Middle East anymore. They are sick of it, so obviously since Congress is a representation of the people, they will vote in favor of not intervening. Obama's Secretary of State, John Kerry, went to France and gave a whole speech in French in order to rev up support by America's allies. Obama is in Russia, for the G-20 conference, and has apparently made a breakthrough with Russia on Syria. He was very honest with the Russian public, saying that he doesn't want America to always be the international police, but since no one else is stepping up to bat, America is forced to act this way.
I don't think the American public wants to be involved at all, and I think the Congress will utilize this sentiment when they vote on the issue.
