so whats the answer then? how is the next CW armed bastard detered from using them if they know that retaliation won't be forthcoming because no one has clean hands?
If the usage of chemical weapons is what's worrying you then you should consider that if the US starts invading Syria, then that only increases the risk of those weapons being used. Syria's chemical weapons is primarily a deterrant to US invasion. The other day we were scratching our heads wondering why the Syrian govt, presuming it's them, would use chemical weapons at this point against the rebels, and the only logical reason I can think of is that's it's an attempt to warn the Americans against intervening. The message is a pretty clear one - if you put even a small numer of US troops in the country expect us to use chemical weapons against them, even if it kills many of our own civilians. It's also deeply worrying for Israel because what if Syria decides to send another "message" by using chemical weapons in the Golan Heights or something?
And the idea that killing Assad would bring about a swift end to the war is dead wrong. Killing Assad now would quite possibly trigger a collapse of the Syrian state and army but it wouldn't mean the end of the fighting by any means. One of the things you're overlooking is that for the Alawites, Druze, Christians, Shi'ite, Kurd, atheist and so on is that they will have to carry on fighting even if the Syrian Army collapses and the government falls, they don't have a choice. They're faced with an enemy that by and large wants to exterminate them from the country. Even if some puppet US-backed govt is installed in Damascus in truth there will be a poweer vacuum, and a continued civil war between the various minority ethnic groups and the Al-Nusrah militias, which the Islamists are likely to win. What happens then? Genocide?
Another thing people need to remember about "intervention" (what a surgical and clean word to describe such a violent and messy activity...) is that ok let's assume the US goes in, in a supporting role, and with heavy airstrikes and some low-key special forces stuff like in Libya, how does Russia respond? Does Russia then step up it's support for Syria? Do they send in troops? Where does this end? Are we going to end up fighting a proxy war with Russia in Syria? This could get all get out of hand really badly and trigger a wider regional and international conflict. I don't want to hear anyone try selling western intervention in Syria until they can answer these questions.
I figure the best thing for now is that Assad manages to secure the major cities and population centres, the UN manage to broker some kind of cease-fire and no-fly zone and then some king of peacekeeping force enforce the partition of the country. That's the best possible scenario but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.
What I also don't get is why the US is still not giving up. Can't they settle for a crippled Syria, or is it a matter of national pride and prestige that they take down Assad and revel in his death like Saddam Hussein and Ghaddafi? It's like the fucking DUP holding the peace process in Northern Ireland to ransom just so they can get photograps of IRA weapons decommissioning to put on their christmas cards.
