Chemical weapons are horrible. America has used them many times: Agent Orange (but we only meant to defoliate!), Napalm, etc. Assad's use of chemical weapons should not be at the crux of the argument for whether or not we enter Syria, despite what many would have you believe.
There are several more important aspects to consider, namely what would actually be achieved by bombing. Do we actually think the rebels are an altruistic people deserving of help who will be pioneers of peace in the region? Do we think the two sides will remain unified after the civil war is over? What will toppling the state do?
I understand wanting to punish Assad, but what makes him different from so many other people who deserve a spanking that are completely ignored. I do not think anyone feels like dicking around more in the Middle East, and a simple bombing campaign will do fuck all, so I'd say let this one fizzle out.
|