See you ignore half my post and then reinforce its conclusions with your second point. NATO doesn't have to fuel this, its organic on its own strength. Once again western-centric mindset that someone in Europe or the US has to be an actor in every one of these actions.
While I do believe we are no, probably, providing more material support, you can be damn sure we are providing it to the moderate to secular interests. No way in hell are we providing it to AQ backed groups, especially since the US has started to blacklist particular 'brigades'. Now I don't see anyone doing what your demigod did in the 80s and committing treason to circumvent that.
The use of chemical agents has been an ongoing threat. After all the vast majority of intel suggests that Iraq moved their weapons to Syria at some point in time. Which we admittedly helped to foster in Iraq. So no you haven't seen this movie before, because people haven't been using sarin nerve gas on their own populations willingly. The facts are the U.S. is being so non-committal on the 'red line' issue that it is frustrating many. Since the U.S. has declared they don't know how much, when exactly, and under what circumstances the gas was actually used, Obama is doing everything to push back the talk of the red line being talked. Your side would either argue he is being a coward and employ engendered language to berate him into action, or not surprisingly, use this tactic and try to bluff your inner warhawk out of committing another batch of US lives to a foreign war.
If sarin was used by government forces or militias I think its more than time for a limited role in U.S. military operations, possibly like Libya. There is a responsibility for the U.S. in being a world leader, and for the entire civilized world to prevent the illegitimate use of WMDs.
