Blown to shreds by indiscriminate bombing = acceptable
Killed by chemical weapons = unacceptable
Quite the moral distinction the West makes.
It’s like communicating with the Russkies b4 the election-the seriousness of the charge.
It’s the optics.
Admittedly, the end result is the same. But if the choice came down to a few conscious minutes of drowning as my lungs fill up with their own dissolving tissues accompanied by convulsive seizures, versus instant fragmentation into a fine pink mist, I think I’d choose Door No. 2. There’s a reason use of poison gas in warfare was banned following its use in WWI while high explosives, machine guns, etc. were not.
Killed by chemical weapons = unacceptable
You are 100% correct. After the first world war we (US Army) did intensive research to see how effective chemical weapons were. I don't remember the exact number, but it was absurd-- it cost like 10,000 times as much per casualty for chemical weapons versus conventional artillery. This was the true deciding factor for us to agree to consider entering agreements to stop using them-- because not only were they unpredictable, they were horribly ineffective and expensive. Look at this incident, for example. 72 people were killed, last I heard. They could kill ten thousand people in a few minutes with artillery, and probably have during the course of this thing. Moreover, we have no way of knowing with any confidence which side used this weapon, or if it is part of a third party's intrigue.
Historically the opposition to chemical weapons has a lot to do with how ineffective they were at actually killing compared to leaving victims suffering instead.
The ban on CW that came after WW1 was partly driven by the fact there were lots of survivors with horrific injuries in the post-war society. In 1920, 2 years after the war ended, something like 60,000 died as a result of injuries received from CW during wartime. That prompted a specific movement against use of the weapons that were causing such harm long after the war had ended.
But I agree, it does still seem like an odd distinction to make at times.
Furthermore, Assad is in the business of killing al-Qaeda backed Jihadis; bad hombres who would cut your childrens' throats if given half a chance. Why are we trying to stand in his way?
We should be helping him, not bombing his airfields. Once again, America picks the wrong side.