(Gene Thorp/Washington Post)
(Gene Thorp/Washington Post)

Americans hate watching 100,000 people get killed in a brutal civil war while we do nothing. That is why we skip the World section.

No, I’m sorry, that’s why we are apparently moving towards military action in Syria.

Somehow, while we were throwing the words “heinous” and “unthinkable” around to describe the Miley Cyrus VMAs performance, Whoever Decides These Things moved military action in Syria from the “totally not on the table” pile to the “basically inevitable” pile.

Like millions of other Americans, I have no idea what we should do in Syria. But, if I am reading all the commentary correctly, here are our options:

• Do nothing about it. (60 percent of America favors this option.)
• Have the United Nations do nothing about it.
• Travel back in time two years and intervene then. (This is the most popular option among pundits.)
• Do something, because otherwise the United States will appear weak and horrible things will happen overseas, like the Syrian regime using chemical weapons against its own people.
• Take military action in North Korea instead, just to change things up a little and get away from this flow chart.
• Consult Congress about it. (more than 115 members of Congress have signed a letter demanding that they be consulted, even though their answer to what to do in Syria will probably be “Defund Obamacare.”)
• Only take action if chemical weapons have been used. (25 percent of Americans support this, Americans who I guess have not yet received word that the government thinks this has happened already, or who do not believe any sentence that runs “The U.S. government is convinced that [type of weapons] have been used or are being obtained in [place].”)
• Find whoever it is who flips the switch from “unlikely” to “inevitable” on things like Syrian intervention and “Nominee Romney,” and stop him before he inflicts yet another thing on us that we do not want.
• Whatever you do, don’t get into a war.
• Prolonged and thoughtful military engagement. (Note: This is not a war, because the term “war” exclusively describes unpopular Bush-era policies.)
• To stop getting us into war by using words, President Obama should stop using words and communicate entirely in squawks, emoji, and infographics.
• Go back in time 20 years and ask President Reagan what he would do.
• Go back in time 80 years, kill Hitler, then see if this is still a problem.
• Go back in time a single year and allow Mitt Romney to win the election. See how he deals with it!
• Travel back in time, find and stop the single pundit who, by a careless use of a passive construction, accidentally created the consensus that using the term “red line” demanded serious military action now. Then, do nothing.
• Keep traveling back in time until you find and eradicate all the deep-seated and complicated conflicts underlying the present situation. (Lowest long-term loss of life, but requires an envoy fluent in amoeba.)
• Flee the earth, screaming, and start a moon colony.
• Lest the phrase “red line” be misconstrued as establishing an actual red line, President Obama should give a big speech in which he just throws the phrase “red line” around willy-nilly to describe pretty much everything (“Michelle really crossed a red line with those bangs” “Miley Cyrus at the VMAs? Definite red line.” “I love riding the Red Line from Farragut North to Dupont Circle” ), which would alleviate some of the pressure to act in Syria but on the other hand might throw the stock market into turmoil. (To make this appear less like standing down, he could introduce the concept of a Purple Line which is “intensely well thought-out and will prompt a swift, decisive, and clearly correct response, if it is crossed” and a Silver Line “which is currently under construction.”)
• Do Something! Something good that fixes it! (For more, see The Onion.)

Alexandra Petri writes the ComPost blog, offering a lighter take on the news and opinions of the day.