Not quite. The intention was always to prevent spill over to Israel, and never was coherent as a protective measure for civilians. If it were the case that Obama cared about the civilians in Syria he would actually bring to light the absolutely horrendous refugee crisis that the area is faced with. This is something he probably not addressing because he knows it will weaken the countries in the vicinity of Israel.

If he cared about chemicals weapons being used on civilians then would likely not intend to use tomahawk missiles within Syria, which have shown be radioactive from depleted uranium, and would affect Syrian civilians. I say 'likely' because it was what was used in Libya and it's pretty natural to assume they would have been employed in Syria. And, Tomahawk missiles are only still technically legal because the US, France, UK and Israel have never let their sanctioning pass through the UN.

Russia had an interest in protecting the Assad Regime and Putin gave Obama a means of saving face and pulling out his commitment in the face of there being no legitimate political support for his campaign. There really was not a good intention for the civilians of Syria behind this. Obama looks good because he is lucky, not because he is good.

Yes, I'm familiar with the HuffPo interpretation (Obama is the bad guy with strictly cynical motives, everyone else is getting picked on, and it was probably the rebels teaming up with Obama anyway). While I don't believe in blind faith in politicians, blind skepticism is equally weak.

Here's an article about Obama increasing aid to Syrian refugees well before the chemical weapons crisis made it cool:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/08/212860.htm

Obama also recently publicly praised Lebanon for taking in refugees -- a counterproductive move if this is all about Israel.

And as for "If he cared about chemicals weapons being used on civilians then would likely not intend to use tomahawk missiles within Syria" ... I'm not so good with future subjunctive pluperfect indicative, or whatever you call it when you're mad at people for things they didn't actually do, but it's not a particularly strong argument for why they're in the wrong.

Your recommendation then? Which side should we back with advisors, troops, and air support? Should we throw Hostess Fruit Pies? Who is the voice of legitimate rebel authority, who, when all is said and done, is likely to foster a strong and reasonable government?

Taking a stand on chemical weapons doesn't fix everything by a long shot, but it's the part we DO have a clear path on. And it means that, if Assad wants to massacre civilians, he's going to have to put some work into it.

If Assad wants to massacre civilians, he should do it the way Obama does it: with high-tech robots. That's American ingenuity at work!

I don't disagree with this plan, but there's no reason to think it was motivated by anyone's interest except the same peoples' who are ruining everything. No one gives a shit about chemical weapons. I live in a state with enough chemical weapons to kill all life on earth, which is now far less secure due to the shutdown. Obama bombed six countries in super secret, he only went to get permission for this one because he knew the answer would be "fuck no, nigger" and we'd turn on each other over it.

I actually prefer this outcome, since I never once had any faith that this country can conduct anything except a "fuck the world up" kind of war (as you call a neocon style war). America cannot win a war for a good cause, it just can't. Some future nation with integrity, a spine, and a populace that isn't shit stupid needs to bomb the fuck out of Assad. It doesn't matter who we should back anyway, Russia will pick that side for us, because we are still the Soviet Clown Whore after all these years.

Israeli semen have settled in the west banks of your mother's vagina.