Peter - I quite understand all you are saying. However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end? I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim.
Not any different to these victims, but action may help prevent other victims in the future (not only in this conflict, but in others also).
As much as it pains me to think about it, if my sons ever ended up in a war, I would hate for them to become the victims of chemical weapons.
War is always going to be here irrespective of how everyone feels about it. That's why we have rules for its conduct and those rules say throwing metal at each other and using explosive pressures are ok, but not chemicals that kill by their toxic effect.
The biggest problem with the use of chemicals is that they are indiscriminate.
A bullet fired at someone has limited ability to maim and kill. A chemical isn't constrained the same way. Explosions, while acting in 360 degrees, have a rapid fall-off in pressure that is predictable. Chemicals don't have the same limitation.
We can all agree that bullets, bombs, rockets, missiles, grenades, claymores and other conventional munitions are terrible ways to die, but they are the ways we've said are allowed.
The use of mines, chemicals, mutilation of bodies, torture, mistreatment of prisoners and other cruel acts we've decided, are not the ways we should conduct war.
When we chose not to hold others to those standards, or we fall short in them ourselves, then we open up our own future generations to suffering the same things.
That's why in my view, something strong should be done to stop any further chemical attacks in the current Syrian conflict (and then let the sides continue against each other with conventional mean). Not to make it better for the victims there have already been, but because I don't want the potential for my kids or other future generations of soldiers to face similar things.
In the Syrian case we have the added emotional impact of the children too. But I seem to remember the carnage wrought in other countries recently by US weapons on the population where targeting information went wrong or innocent children just happened to be 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'. To see the pictures of the rags of bodies left over from such strikes is pitiful - and they weren't hit by chemical weapons. And of course for every dead victim there are probably more maimed for life - both physically and possibly mentally too.
Personally you won't get an argument out of me on that. War in general is an unfortunate tool we use against each other. However, while there are still innocent victims in war, the number is decreasing due to improved technology. Technology will always fail, or the location of a conflict will be in urban areas, however it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the past and I hope the number of victims continues to decrease in the future.
In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used. The armaments industry spends enormous sums on researching the most effective and efficient killing devices possible, and then we say that chemical weapons are banned. The Red Line seems arbitrary and my worry is, as in the past, the West is looking for an excuse to wade in and start bombing people.
The various red-lines seem arbitrary, but really aren't. There have to be some ways to conduct war, but through a very large number of Conventions, some countries, most countries or all countries (depending on the Convention) have agreed that certain things should not be done, while others are ok.
It isn't just about the West, though as Westerners that's what we see. It really should be a Worldwide push (and in this case it really is a global push with a few powerful blockers in the way). Many countries that have condemned the attacks just don't physically have the means to intervene outside of diplomacy or sanctions because they don't have the military capability.
There are only a few countries that can take physical action and the most powerful of those is the US. I can really understand why US citizens don't want to get involved, because it always seems that it's the US that's called on the act first. It's not always the case, but the US is a powerful nation and it's view on these things has a significiant impact on the position of other nations.
Therefore we in the West make sure that the guys we don't like are not able to build, store or have the means to deliver any nasty weapons outside of there own borders. Just give them guns and they can happily kill themselves as much as they like.
Not only the West, other nations have also agreed that these types of weapons are not acceptable. What is unfortunate is that these weapons exist. What's more unfortunate, being a Westerner, is that each of them was invented in the West. The development by others followed the lead that Western countries took.
I don't know whether that places a higher burden on us in the West to ensure that those weapons are controlled (probably not), but in any case, it's not only a problem for countries with a Western ideology. It's a problem for everyone.
