Weird Granny Slater wrote:So how many dead Syrians would satisfy you?
And while we're on the subject of the absence of Western ambitions in the Middle East, perhaps you could also say why the Syrian government would use chemical weapons on its citizens when it has as good as won the civil war?
Oh dear, you really don't get it at all do you? I don't care
who uses chemical weapons, (and certainly didn't accuse one side or the other). I hate the idea that chemical weapon use is growing in the 21st century, to a level not seen since WW1. I hate the idea that we saw the dangers of these weapons, outlawed them, and then shrug our shoulders when they are deployed. And I hate the idea that chemical weapons will become the go-to weapon of choice for any embattled dictator and rogue state in the future, because it is the civilians who pay the price, Syrian or otherwise. We should have stood up against this in 2013, but with Russia now embedded in Syria, that has become a lot more difficult, and dangerous. The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost.
So, how many more victims of chemical warfare will there have to be before it sinks in that ignoring this problem isn't making it go away? How many more attacks will there have to be before we decide we have a problem.