With President Obama saying that the usage of chemical weapons would cross a "red line", which would be met with severe consequences, it's time to nut up or shut up. I'm not talking about a full-scale military invasion, as I don't think that's fiscally possible right now (as for limited engagements, that could still potentially be on the table; however, that's a completely different thread), but I [b]am[/b] talking about doing [i]something[/i]. Be it arming secular groups, starting to overtly train rebels in Jordan and/or Turkey, or anything other than a full-scale invasion: something has to be done. The reason being that, backing away from this bold threat makes us look weak in the eyes of Iran or North Korea, or non-state entities. Think about it: When we issue bold threats like this, the world, including our enemies, are watching to see what we do. If nothing happens, then it becomes an empty threat; similar to when parents warn a child not to do something, and then when they do it, the parents do nothing (kind of like what Jon Stewart said with the whole "You're grounded" thing). When it becomes an empty threat, how does that make us look to people who are on our shit list? Essentially, Obama has backed himself into a corner here. If we do nothing, it makes us look weak; plus, since the situation in Syria becomes more complex by the day, doing something isn't as easy as it sounds. So, to say the least, it will be interesting to see how he handles this situation. Opinions on this (possible) foreign policy mistake? Opinions on how the US and the international community is handling the Syrian conflict? Do you think we should do more? Less?