1) Let’s assume that Assad really did use chemical weapons for the sake of argument. If he had used incendiaries and burned some children alive in an attempt to fight ISIS, would that really be worse than nerve gas?
2) Do you really want to engage in a policy of nation building in Syria like we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan?
3) You don’t think Russia is willing to fight a conflict if provoked, but how willing is the American public to tolerate another war? Trump would lose the good will of most people who voted for him. National security hawks are NOT what got Trump elected.
If he had used incendiaries and burned some children alive in an attempt to fight ISIS, would that really be worse than nerve gas?
= = =
I think burning alive would be worse than nerve gas, one for one.
Depends on the type of gas, and dosage. The emotions of nerve gas death are certainly worse. The unknown possibility of an unseen gas, that can get large populations is a worse threat.
Mustard is different, blisters your lungs, you drown.
How about drowning in a cage in a swimming pool?
Burning in a San Fran warehouse?
This type of discussion coupled with this event, saddens me.
1) War is hell, but we draw the line at chemical weapons.
2) Who said anything about nation building? Leaning on Russia to make Assad step down doesn’t obligate us to nation build. Where did this come from?
3) Russia might fight if provoked, but the US striking Assad for using chemical weapons is not a major povocation. Russia knows Assad stepped over the line. They aren’t stupid.
1) War is hell, but we draw the line at chemical weapons.
2) Who said anything about nation building? Leaning on Russia to make Assad step down doesn’t obligate us to nation build. Where did this come from?
3) Russia might fight if provoked, but the US striking Assad for using chemical weapons is not a major povocation. Russia knows Assad stepped over the line. They aren’t stupid.