Should Bashar al-Assad be taken down

We can't "take down" as my opponent suggests every tyrant who does harm to his people. It's a foolish national policy to be at constant war around the globe. Sure Assad is a ruthless and brutal dictator, but he's not alone in that regard. Are we supposed to fight the forty or so dictators around the world because they are ruthless to their people? The very idea is ridiculous and even though it would be in keeping with our long tradition it must end. From the battleship Maine incident in Havana in 1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin episode in 1964 to the Kuwait incubator event in 1990 to the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) myth in Iraq in 2003, US intelligence and security outfits have become adept at creating situations and circumstances which are then manipulated to undermine "the enemy." I say enough is enough of this kind of manipulation to support our war machinery. The US and its Western allies, like its regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel, are funding, arming, providing intelligence and offering logistical assistance to groups totally committed to violence and terror as a method of achieving their goal of ousting the Bashar government. The Jahbat al-Nusra, linked to Al-Qaeda, arguably the strongest of the armed groups, is a case in point. The US and the others proclaim that they are all opposed to violence and terrorism and yet on the other hand they unscrupulously use terror outfits in pursuit of their power. The Syrian conflict has also reinforced longstanding sectarian and tribal divisions in the area. Actors are exploiting the Sunni-Shia dichotomy in particular as a way of playing the majority sect in Islam against the minority with the aim of weakening Muslim solidarity. Sectarian violence is now rearing its ugly head not just in Syria but also --- and for a much longer while --- in Lebanon, Bahrain and Iraq. Sectarian clashes in the area benefit Israel which views turmoil and upheaval in its neighborhood as a boon to its goal of remaining the dominant force in the region. It is significant that Israel and Zionism have been able to ensure that US and Western policy as a whole is dovetailed to meet the core interests of the Israeli state. Taking military action against Syria with the objective of overthrowing Bashar is what Israel wants because Bashar is an important link in the axis of resistance to Israeli dominance which includes Iran and Hezbollah. Israel has conducted three air strikes within Syria in the last year. In this regard, it is worth reiterating that Israel is the hidden hand in much of the politics of other states such as Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Sudan. By taking military action against muslim states --- partly at the urging of Israel --- the US has brought nothing but misery and suffering to the people. The classic example is of course Iraq. 10 years after its conquest by the US and Britain, Iraq is a totally devastated nation, wrecked by perpetual sectarian violence. Some advocates of military intervention in Syria are of the opinion that since the military action that Obama is planning is limited in scope and duration, Syria will not end up like Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no guarantee. Once it starts the military operation could assume a life of its own. The response from the Syrian military command, and the reaction of Iran and Russia could be decisive. Besides, there are individuals and groups in Obama"s trench who are determined to oust Bashar, to achieve regime change. That could lead to a prolonged campaign. The American people and treasury has born too much of a burden to right the perceived wrongs of the world. This must stop and we must learn to live with nations who have different values and beliefs than we do. As long as they don't attack us then we shouldn't attack them.