If the Syrian Gov is found to be using chemical weapons on the rebels, Obamer says it's a game-changer. Apparently he draws the next line of no-crossing here.
Every pundit and their bro is speculating on what, if any, action would be appropriate if the 'game changes'.
Honestly, i don't quite understand why the use of chemical weapons should be such a game-changer - violence is violence, dead is dead. Wouldn't numbers of civilians dead be a better metric to make offensive-action type decisions on?
Anyways, should we exert more military influence on the events unfolding in Syria?
Have we learned enough, or anything, from the recent mid-east wars we've been in and are still entangled in?