Alternative to bombing Syria

Barack Hussein Obama makes a plea to bomb Syria because of "400" dead children (tugging at heart string) claiming it is abhorrent for a Government to use chemical weapons/gas, a WMD on its people. Obama claims they have overwhelming evidence the Syrian Government was responsible for the gas attack that killed 1400, including 400 children, but have produced none implicating the Syrian Government. The Obama Regime is using Elizabeth O’Bagy, as an expert to support the attack on Syria. However, O’Bagy is the political director of Syrian Emergency Task Force, a political action committee that supports the removal of Assad, which makes her reporting suspect. Nevertheless, there has been evidence to the contrary as to the number of people killed and those accountable for the attack. Assad and the Russians claim it was Al-Qaida. Then there is the independent group, Doctors without Borders who said 355 people who showed “neurotoxin symptoms” died from the attack, but did not identify the culprits. The problems with attacking Syria are the conflicting reports on the number of people killed and who actually launched the attack. Especially since the Obama Regime is not TRUSTWORTHY. Is Obama trying to save face for acting “stupidly” when he drew the red line? Who are we to believe? Furthermore, Al-Qaida and Hezbollah are like two rival gangs fighting each other and one is just as bad as the other. Both are enemies of the United States. It is not in the best interests of the United States to attack Syria and potentially start WWIII, because of Obama’s lack of leadership and his loose lips. One might question, why are there chemical weapons available to use in the first place? Well, that is because the 1925 convention only bans the use of chemical weapons in war; not the production or storage of them. And current international law bans the use of chemical weapons not the production or storage of them. The reasons to produce or stockpile chemical weapons are many nations, including the United States retained the right to retaliatory use of chemical weapons. In other words, many nations have chemical weapons so they can use them on other nations in retaliation for a strike against them, just not on their own citizens? The problem with that is it is a known fact that the United States has used chemical and biological weapons experimenting on its citizens since the 1925 treaty, with little to no consequences. You would think that if you cannot use chemical weapons in war, it would be logical to ban the production and storage of them. Then go after the companies that produce the deadly WMD’s or the countries that have them. Getting back to Syria, if the objective is for chemical weapons not to be used, why not make a proposal to Assad to have the stockpile of chemical weapons confiscated by the UN to be destroyed. Since we do not know who launched the gas attack, Al-Qaida or Assad and Hezbollah, it would seem confiscation and destruction of the chemical weapons by the UN would be a better solution to the current crisis in Syria; instead of the United States launching an attack on Syria possibly starting WWIII.