What Booman said.
That's basically what I was trying to say the other day. Even if we could prove that the chemical attack came from Assad, that doesn't mean that doing something would be better than doing nothing.
...I guess there's the argument that if we do nothing after a confirmed chemical weapons attack against civilians, that would embolden every other awful leader with chemical weapons to think they can get away with using them in the future. But all of the likely scenarios for American intervention that I can see will make the situation there worse, not better. So what kind of precedent would a disastrous intervention be for future would-be chemical gassers? Would a Syrian mess really be a deterrent? I'm not sure if would work on that level either.
That's basically what I was trying to say the other day. Even if we could prove that the chemical attack came from Assad, that doesn't mean that doing something would be better than doing nothing.
...I guess there's the argument that if we do nothing after a confirmed chemical weapons attack against civilians, that would embolden every other awful leader with chemical weapons to think they can get away with using them in the future. But all of the likely scenarios for American intervention that I can see will make the situation there worse, not better. So what kind of precedent would a disastrous intervention be for future would-be chemical gassers? Would a Syrian mess really be a deterrent? I'm not sure if would work on that level either.
