The thing that worries me the most in this debate about Syria is that none of those advocating that we try to help the opposition overthrow Assad are asking what will replace him. Do they really think that those who are fighting Assad would be more friendly to our interests than he is?
And what about the Syrian Christians? Do they think that they would survive whoever replaces Assad? Or do they not care if they get slaughtered? Someone should ask that.
The general idea seems to be "Assad is bad. He is an ally of Iran. Therefore, whoever opposes him is necessarily good." This replaces serious thought about what the consequences of actions will be. Now, of course, there is the old saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but when, individually, both of these would be your enemy, the question becomes, "which enemy is the enemy and which is the enemy of the enemy?"
In other words, in situations like World War II, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could be used either to support Stalin against Hitler, or Hitler against Stalin. You actually need to evaluate which enemy is more dangerous to you and your interests.
I wish that Ron Paul had pointed that out in his response.
That is all.