wrencat1873 wrote:Indeed.
It's ok to murder millions of innocent people with bombs and bullets but, if you kill just a few (relatively speaking) with chemical weapons then "the west" will react.
Mrs May has never looked comfortable in front of the TV cameras but now that Trump has his hand firmly up her backside and once again, the UK has become the puppets of the US, she looks even more uncomfortable.
Just how much of this is outrage, for Syria using chemical weapons and how much is this to do with domestic politics.
Americans love a good skirmish (as long as there arent too many body bags coming back their way and May is desperate for something, anything, to give her a chance to remain at the helm.
Nobody and condone the use of chemical weapons but, what is the difference if people are being killed, needlessly ??
Over to you Mr Putin, it's your move next
Chemical weapons are illegal. Bombs and bullets aren't. The use of chemical weapons violates international treaties and international criminal law.
I will go so far as to invoke Godwin's: even Hitler refrained from using chemical weapons on the battlefield.
Actually, I agree with you in principle. Assad is an animal and has been slaughtering his people for years. Stepping in just because the weapon has changed seems hypocritical. But at the same time ignoring a violation of international law sets a dangerous precedent.
The last thing the region actually needs is Assad removed from power. As has been proven elsewhere, a power vacuum in the Middle East is a great opportunity for the extremists. Even Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, kept the radicals in check.
I expect Putin's response will be to target Western allies fighting Assad.
