I questioned the timing, alleged use of chemical weapons and alleged perpetrator at the start of this thread...there's a huge question mark surrounding the situation. Who benefits from the situation now? I would suggest that any actions which undermine the current Syrian regime benefits western countries immensely...

Again, WHY would the current regime initiate a chemical weapons strike against a village, knowing very well it would most likely draw in strikes of this nature...AND at the very time they've all but won the conflict??

The French have evidence? Yeah, and I've got evidence of who shot JFK, you'll just have to believe me...!

Dixie, we're not generally fighting "wars" on horseback or hand to hand in streets anymore...military might isn't just as important as it once was...clandestine internet attacks against infrastructure, utilities, dirty bombs, vaguely sponsored terrorism (and ultimately nuclear attacks) are the way things could go..a war normally has a beginning and an end with some sort of identifiable enemy..I'm not entirely convinced that's what we'll being used to in the future.. That's not even considering the potential for cutting off gas and oil supplies. I see in the news yesterday, Australia is already making noises about supply lines nearly drying up, even with just this relatively low level attack on Syria.

As for the chest thumping about the US being superior to Russia militarily, and the strongest in the world, that's exactly the reatoric that gets the US into stupid conflicts. Again, US foreign policy and all its military might, has been a failure time and time again over the last 60 years or so. You must realize by now that military might does not mean you always win the war...and the US has certainly never been involved in a conflict with an enemy on a level with Russia and its potential allies. Remember, that country might well not have the military might, as you say - but I'll bet it's certainly not as weak as you think either.