There is no good reason for the United States to intervene in Syria

Syrian President Bashar Assad

Before I start this blog entry I want to say that I know that it's been a long time since I posted on this blog, but I've been busy and looking for a new job because I can't stand my current job. Other than that everything is going well for me. Now I'm going to write about why the United States should not go into Syria. The Syrian civil war has been going on for two years now and according to the United Nations over 100,000 people died in this conflict and more and more people are going to die every day, unless something is done. However I do not think that it's the United States government's responsibility to send our military to drop bombs on Syria because on the possibility that the Assad regime used chemical weapons. The reason why I use the word possibility is because not even the White House is sure that the Assad government even used the chemical weapons. According to an ABC article which was written on August 29th 2013 and the piece was called "AP Sources: Intelligence on Weapons No 'Slam Dunk'" The piece said that "The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say." and the piece also says  "However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong." "A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials." (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-slam-dunk-20102965)

So the question is why is the Obama administration is trying to go into Syria without having any proof? The reason seems to be obvious to me but not to most people that may read this. The reason why is because the military industrial complex runs our government and the United States government's answer to any problem internationally is military force and that's not always the best way to fix the problems that the rest of the world is facing right now. Anyway in my opinion I don't think that it's the United States job to fix the problems that the rest of the world are facing. The bottom line is that we don't have the money to start to drop bombs on Syria and what is our end game in Syria? Are we going to just drop a few bombs on them and then leave? If that's the plan then it makes no sense because if Assad did release chemical weapons on his own people (There is no real
proof that he did) then he is not going to be deterred just because we drop a few bombs or missiles on Damascus for example.  

So what else can the United States do in Syria? Honestly all we can do is to try and set up a conference between the two sides and hope that they can work something out, we can't keep send our military every time there is a problem in the world, force does not work every time in fact almost never. Look at the disaster that the Iraq invasion has become. I understand that we are not invading Syria but my fear is that if we are going to bomb Syria now, then that could lead to an full ground invasion of Syria and that would be a disaster for the country and for the Obama administration. Congress should not approve any action in Syria!