Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

The White House is seeking more evidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons during the country's ongoing civil war.

"U.S. intelligence officials say the possibility of the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a 'strong maybe' rather than a 'slam dunk,' a term that was used to describe Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which were never found," reports NPR's Larry Abramson.

From The Atlantic: The case for intervening in Syria

[W]ith the indiscriminate slaughter that the regime has unleashed on its own civilian population, including--there is plausible evidence to suggest--the use of chemical weapons against its own people, the time has come to impose a no-fly zone as one element of that assistance. Direct assistance to Syrian revolutionaries must be channeled through a trusted opposition leader with on-the-ground credibility in order to prevent the flow of weapons into the wrong hands and to unify the militarized opposition. And senior military leaders who have joined the opposition and who retain a say within the Syrian armed forces must be engaged to prevent the army from disintegrating into sectarian militias.

Today's Question: Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

• Thank you!
• Should gun makers be allowed to create handguns that look like cellphones?
• What is your reaction to Tay, Microsoft’s AI chat-bot that learned to be racist?
• Do you support the reopening of a private prison in Appleton?