The images were heartbreaking: rows of shrouded bodies, many of them children, convulsing in hospitals as doctors try to relieve their pain, family members weeping for their lost and injured.
These were the scenes after an apparent chemical attack on the Syrian people that killed several hundred and injured more than 3,500.
That was the "red-line" event that ramped up the drumbeat for American military intervention in a civil war that started out as part of the "Arab Spring" sweeping the Middle East two years ago.
When demonstrators called for the resignation of President Bashar Assad, the tyrant retaliated with brutal force.
The ensuing conflict, Secretary of State John Kerry has said, has claimed more than 100,000 lives. Reports say about half the dead are civilians, with thousands more injured. The rest of the world for the most part has stood by and watched. Rebels received some small-arms support and humanitarian aid from countries including the U.S., but not enough to combat the Assad regime.
A war-weary United States rightly did not want to commit to another conflict.
Now since the Syrian government has crossed President Barack Obama's red line by using chemical weapons on its own people, the U.S. is prepared to initiate military strikes. It will have the backing of some NATO allies and some members of the Arab League.
Though I want to see this conflict end, I do not want to see American intervention.
There's no way Obama would commit troops on the ground in Syria.
For two years he's resisted calls by some in Congress to provide a no-fly zone or send heavy arms to the rebels.
It seems that the purpose of a strike is simply to say we did something. There's a chance that limited strikes would make it worse on rebels and civilians while causing further deterioration of relations with Russia and China, as well as more irritation to Iran.
Assad has promised to respond to any American incursion, and the only way he can retaliate is by heaping more sorrow on his own people.
Kerry called Syria's use of chemical weapons a "moral obscenity." It sounded like the language used in the lead-up to the Iraq war, although it's clear Assad does have weapons of mass destruction.
I don't see how a chemical weapon is more immoral than dropping bombs or killing with high-powered rifles.
Bob Ray Sanders writes for The Fort Worth Star=Telegram. His email address is bobray@star-telegram.com.