Rose
I don't think anybody disputes the fact that a number of people, numbering in their hundreds at least, died due to a chemical weapons attack/incident/accident. The real disputable issue at hand is who was responsible.
Now go back ten years when we rushed to war in Iraq partly based on two falsehoods. Colin Powell standing up in the UN talking about these mobile biological weapons trucks and Tony Blair saying that Saddam could launch chemical weapons at our interests within 45 mins.
The fact that Saddam used chemical weapons in the past is also irrefutable. Although the weapons inspectors could find no real evidence of lingering stockpiles of weapons, and Saddam had also sent a number of documents to the UN showing how they had disposed of said weapons, the coalition still rushed to war against public opinion and with the absence of irrefutable proof.
Fast forward 10 years with the world weary of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the proof that Al Assad's use of chemical weapons not being 100% we now find ourselves in a bit of a quandry.
I am going to stick my neck out. Yes we've heard that we did nothing while thousands of Syrians have died during this Civil War. We also did nothing in Rwanda and Darfur and many other places, as if these are all excuses as to why we should do nothing now. If 100% proof is found that Al Assad used chemical weapons against his own people then this is a red line, whether we like it or not. There are many treaties and conventions that say as much. As the self appointed world's policemen we have a duty, at times, to act. What that act is I am not clever enough to know but, if it stops Al Assad or anyone else in the future from using such weapons, then isn't this a good thing?
Last edited by Toadstool; 7th Sep 2013 at 18:32.