The problem is credibility. If there hadn’t been so many lies and made-up bullshit about WMDs a decade ago, the rational world would have already given its backing. The name and flavour of the elected head isn’t an issue either, because the foreign policy never changes and the bombs drop whichever side is in charge.
And we’re supposed to swallow whole, with no room allowed for critical thinking or debate on other potential scenarios, the line given to us by the same people who lied through their teeth in order to drop their bombs before. And then once the bombs have dropped, what changes? What will be resolved? Who gets to run the shop? Or is it that we just want the bombs, the flashes on TV, the briefings on how surgical it all will be, then is, then was, the means is in fact the end? If that Assadhole did indeed do what they accuse him of doing then I support his ouster and if it has to be violent by nature, so be it. But enough of the jingo-bullshit. Enough. Your idea of proof isn’t our idea of proof, your track record means you don’t get away with proving anything any longer by waving your preferred and selected piece of paper in front of our noses.