I'm pretty sure not all Europans have decided anything. Let's just say at least I'm not in a hurry to bomb places, that's something that you can always do but never undo and I recall a speech by one Colin Powell in front of the UN that turned out to be a little less than honest afterwards.
Wars are easy to get into hard to get out of, you break it you own it. What American interests are is sometimes harder to see than one would wish and the eagerness with which wars are entered into is something to be suspicious of in and of itself.
Breaking trust is a tricky thing, it's hard to mend afterwards and nothing better to distract from politically inconvenient news than a good old war. There is no B3 bomber.
Regarding your edit: I'm just advocating caution and not rushing to conclusions here until the facts are in and properly verified. You seem intent on pushing me into one camp or another, I have no dog in the race but I have an innate distrust for overly convenient and otherwise hard to explain occurrences. I have a very hard time believing that Assad would not be aware of what the consequences of gassing his own people would be, as well as of some of the hard to verify facts around this particular instance. It's true that a massacre can't be unwound but I feel that if we're going to go in based on that case that we should at least have the patience to wait until the ink on the report documenting that case has dried.
Syria is a flashpoint in the middle-east bordering Israel, Turkey and Jordan, has strong Russian and Iranian support. The Iranians have an absolutely enormous army that sits a mere stones throw away.
Igniting a war there rather than what is right now a civil war could have far reaching consequences and might make the Iraq war look like a picnic.
If the gas attack was real and orchestrated with the support of Assad then the Russians and the Iranians will likely drop their support. If a war gets started (potentially making it impossible to ever find out what happened beforehand) it could easily get out of hand.
Wars are easy to get into hard to get out of, you break it you own it. What American interests are is sometimes harder to see than one would wish and the eagerness with which wars are entered into is something to be suspicious of in and of itself.
Breaking trust is a tricky thing, it's hard to mend afterwards and nothing better to distract from politically inconvenient news than a good old war. There is no B3 bomber.
Regarding your edit: I'm just advocating caution and not rushing to conclusions here until the facts are in and properly verified. You seem intent on pushing me into one camp or another, I have no dog in the race but I have an innate distrust for overly convenient and otherwise hard to explain occurrences. I have a very hard time believing that Assad would not be aware of what the consequences of gassing his own people would be, as well as of some of the hard to verify facts around this particular instance. It's true that a massacre can't be unwound but I feel that if we're going to go in based on that case that we should at least have the patience to wait until the ink on the report documenting that case has dried.
Syria is a flashpoint in the middle-east bordering Israel, Turkey and Jordan, has strong Russian and Iranian support. The Iranians have an absolutely enormous army that sits a mere stones throw away.
Igniting a war there rather than what is right now a civil war could have far reaching consequences and might make the Iraq war look like a picnic.
If the gas attack was real and orchestrated with the support of Assad then the Russians and the Iranians will likely drop their support. If a war gets started (potentially making it impossible to ever find out what happened beforehand) it could easily get out of hand.