At this time, there is a massive debate as well as much confusion going on over what to do about Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons, and their brutal civil war against a mixed element of fighters (some moderates and many other dangerous fundamentalists).
On one hand, people are saying they don't want to get involved in yet another conflict (after 10 years with Iraq and Afghanistan) and this is most understandable.
On the other hand, we are talking about extremely dangerous regimes like Iran and Syria that are pursuing, prepared to use, or have used weapons of mass destruction.
Taking out Syria's extensive chemical weapons facilities are good targets to prevent further use against their own people, their neighbors, or us, except that we have to be careful not to end up helping our arch enemy, Al Qaeda, who is fighting to establish a foothold there, in the process.
Many are saying that this attack on Syria would really be a warning or even a precursor to destroying the proliferating Iranian nuclear sites--which are even better targets due to the regime's terrorist underpinnings and genocidal ambitions.
As long as Iran and Syria are able to pursue these WMD programs, how can we really be safe?
The red line is genocide, and Iran and Syria are there--one in explicit horrific threats of nuclear holocaust and the other in dastardly deeds with chemical weapons or otherwise brutal slaughter of civilians.
This is a very complicated world situation, and we really don't know the true motivations of any player, but the stakes are so high with WMD--there is no room for error.
(Source Graphic: Andy Blumenthal with attribution to James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and 1155/New Scientist Global Security)