re: #139 Targetpractice

Then we make regime change the goal. Else we sit back and accept chemical weapons as a valid weapon in future wars. Is that what we want to set as the standard going forward? Run down America until it can’t stomach another war, then break out the really bad weapons and force the most powerful military in the world to sit by and debate the morality of doing anything? If the rebels snuck a nuke into Damascus tomorrow and atomized it, would we shrug our shoulders and say that it didn’t matter how the people died, just that they’re dead and that’s war?

Okay, so what’s our plan for making sure that the government that rises afterwards is good? We haven’t really figured that one out yet anywhere else, so why do we think we can manage it here?

And a nuke would kill a lot more people. Chemical weapons are awful because of the way they kill and their indiscriminate nature, nukes are a totally different magnitude. There is no comparison.