...preventing massacres is a mission which is a core value of our nation
...
A full scale invasion or occupation would be out of the question...
Seems a bit contradictory. If you're going to a gunfight, you don't bring a knife. Either we're in with the rebels, or we're in with Doctor Assad, or we're not in it at all. Those are the only three choices. You can't really pick any other, can you? I'm not saying there's a right or a wrong here, but you can't have it both ways. If you're going to support Dr. Assad's overthrow with your voice, then back it up with policy and funding. Otherwise, step out of the kitchen.
I guess my own inclination is that we should step out, but if you can make a convincing economic argument that we should involve ourselves, then do it. But whatever you do, don't be like Bush's daddy and encourage the rebels, only to give them just enough rope to hang themselves while they're waiting for American support.
On another topic, the DREAM act, I'm with you.
One thing to keep in mind is that these atlasia elections often stray to imagined, forum-related policies. Things like the DREAM act and Syria, as important as they are to the Romney-Obama debates, don't sway voters in these elections. Nevertheless, since you brought the issue up, I'd like to hear how you would limit us to fly-over mission against the Assad regime, and even if that fails, how you save face in the international community when that fails to unseat him.
