The Red Line crossed again

[Stratego]

Why is the US destroying Assad's aircraft instead of supplying him with more?

We're perfectly OK with conventional weapons. If bomb kills 1000, it's OK, but if gas kills people, it's not. Assume that Assad was the culprit for releasing the gas, wouldn't he have less incentive to use chemical weapons if he had more conventional weapons?

[Spider]

[John Galt]

usually, bombs incidentally kill people, while destroying the target which is typically infrastructure or assets. chemical weapons are designed to kill people and leave everything else in tact, and who dies is dictated by the wind after the explosion. further, chemical weapons kill you relatively slowly compared to conventional weapons, and in an agonizing way. similarly the most horrifying effects of nuclear weapons isn't the death of so many so quickly, but the impact of radiation on the dying

[exploited]

[spacemonkey]

It all depends on what is in the official rule book of war/ killing. The Neanderthals take that serious.

[NAB]

[spacemonkey]

Maybe they never got the memo that Obama is gone, and now shit will happen.

[NAB]

[spacemonkey]

[Kane]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... o-48-hours

In 24 to 48 hours Trump will decide action against Syria in response to chemical attacks. My guess? Either missiles or he uses this to go back on wish to leave Syria. Israel lobbied hard against it and to no avail...this could tip it back their way.