Originally Posted by
vertical_doug
I never understood the artificial red line that killing civilians with chemical weapons is somehow worse than killing civilians with conventional weapons. They both result in dead civilians. Yes, chemical weapons can be horrible deaths, but so can conventional deaths from napalm, cluster bombs and any other number of conventional weapons.
The real problem is not having a plan period. If Assad said he'd stop using chemical weapons, but will continue to kill civilians with conventional, is it all of a sudden acceptable?
Bookmarks