The Syrian government is terrorizing its people and is armed with weapons of mass destruction, inching the U.S. closer towards military intervention.

Our hearts go out to the Syrian people, but doesn’t this sound awfully familiar?

The last time we intervened in the Middle East didn’t turn out that well, and I fail to see the difference between the buildup to Iraq, and now Syria.

President Bashar al-Assad of the Ba’ath party leads the Syrian government, and the conflict began when demonstrators demanded his resignation in 2011.

Rebellion broke out in response to soldiers opening fire, and now with a death toll of 70,000, members of the U.S. government are making the case for military entanglement, harkening back to Iraq.

The “weapon of mass destruction” this time is identified as sarin gas, a highly toxic nerve agent.

But the problem is who used the gas.

According to Reuters.com, one of four U.N. investigators said the rebels might be the ones  who used sarin, but claims are unsubstantiated as there’s “no conclusive proof.”

Due to the dubious nature of the evidence, President Barack Obama is holding off on a final decision to intervene.

If it turns out the chemical weapons claim doesn’t exist, will there still be a subsequent reason to go to war?

Arming the rebels is not necessary; the U.S. is already providing humanitarian aid to neighboring countries.

Syria is a nation in civil war, and no one can say for sure if the next regime will be better than the current one, as jihadist rebels are in a good position to take over.

One last thing to consider: the American people might not be ready for another unending war.

More than 2,000 military fatalities occurred since 2001, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever orders took the armed forces. The men and women of the armed forces are always ready to do their duty, but the responsibility falls upon the government to make sure the war is worth fighting.