When it comes to intervention in Syria and their use of chemical weapons on their own citizens, the question might be moot as to whether or not the US should get involved.

An American military attack on Syria could begin as early as Thursday and will involve three days of missile strikes, according to "senior U.S. officials" talking to NBC News. The Washington Post has the bombing at "no more than two days," though long-range bombers could "possibly" join the missiles. "Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week," reports CNN, citing a "senior administration official."

The New York Times, quoting a Pentagon official, adds that "the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria's Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed."

"I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

So what is the purpose of a U.S. attack? Mr. Carney elaborated that it's "about responding to [a] clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons." He added that the U.S. had a national security interest that Assad's use of chemical weapons "not go unanswered."

So if there are missle strikes against Syria, does that preclude a“boots on the ground” approach, for which we clearly lack the resources.

And our involvement has political figures here weighing in.

Congressman Bill Pascrell kicked off a town hall in Clifton Tuesday with a presentation on the situation in Syria, telling constituents that while the U.S. must act, he does not support American "boots on the ground" in the conflict.

"You're not going to see boots on the ground here," The Congressman said. "Unless I'm misreading it, there's no taste to bring troops into Syria to get rid of Assad. There is a taste right now, in the Congress, to have a comeuppance and to say, 'We're not going to tolerate violation of international law.'"

Constituents in the audience who spoke up during the town hall were largely opposed to direct U.S. military action in Syria.

Pascrell said any U.S. action has to come as part of an international coalition.
"We cannot do this unilaterally," he said. "It will not solve any problems."

Mayor Chris Bollwage today weighed in on events in Syria, sending out a tweet stating it would be wrong for the United States to take military action.

"It is a mistake for America to retaliate in Syria. Iran was a mistake and neither side in Syria will become our ally so why get involved," Bollwage said on Twitter at 7:24 a.m.

When asked about the tweet, Kelly Vence, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said Bollwage acknowledged that he intended to refer to Iraq, and did not mean to say Iran.
Vence said she was unsure if Bollwage wanted to comment on the Syrian situation beyond what he said in the tweet.

There will be more reaction as we get closer to the planned missile launch against Syria, but what of your reaction?

It’s hard to stand by and watch images of Syrian citizens getting killed by their own government with what seem to be chemical weapons.

Moral imperative; or no imperative: where do you stand?

Should we get involved in a military action against Syria?